I need feminism because...

constance tench

psinno wrote: »

No but it leads the question are men better represented by men.

Which I feel [ED]S&S also suggested!

[ED] Apologies... thought I was replying to S&S

sunshine and showers

constance tench wrote: »

I am not suggesting women will only represent women.
I feel that you did, which is why I pointed it out.

What to you think of Johanna Tuffy's account of her meeting with The National Women's Council?

It appears the NWC would prefer single childless women in the Oireachtas.
Oireachtas

Actually the point I was making is that men don't adequately represent women by themselves. You inferred an awful lot to get your interpretation.

I think that the National Women's Council are the not the be all and end all in this debate. Theirs is one viewpoint. We need to look at new approaches to encouraging women into politics and it will take more than a report from the NWC. Who, by the way, have a bias towards positive discrimination methods of getting women into the Oireachtas (ie, gender quotas).

We need to look towards the way women globally are combining motherhood with being a politician (as this is an issue that would concern a number of potential female representatives). But even more than that we need to go back down to a grassroots level of teaching young women that their voices matter and that they can make a difference. Politics needs to cease being seen as an old boys' club.

EDIT:

To suggest that men are better represented by men and women are better represented by women (on certain issues, I must add - I did specify on certain issues) in no way suggests that either sex will only represent the interests of men or women, respectively. There are arguments being made here around semantics which is taking away from the real discussion at hand. I have clarified my point. If you want to take it in a different way, then you're wasting your time debating with me because we're not even debating the same thing!

constance tench

Lyaiera wrote: »

Those were scare quotes.

constance tench

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Actually the point I was making is that men don't adequately represent women by themselves. You inferred an awful lot to get your interpretation.

I think that the National Women's Council are the not the be all and end all in this debate. Theirs is one viewpoint. We need to look at new approaches to encouraging women into politics and it will take more than a report from the NWC. Who, by the way, have a bias towards positive discrimination methods of getting women into the Oireachtas (ie, gender quotas).

We need to look towards the way women globally are combining motherhood with being a politician (as this is an issue that would concern a number of potential female representatives). But even more than that we need to go back down to a grassroots level of teaching young women that their voices matter and that they can make a difference. Politics needs to cease being seen as an old boys' club.

EDIT:

To suggest that men are better represented by men and women are better represented by women (on certain issues, I must add - I did specify on certain issues) in no way suggests that either sex will only represent the interests of men or women, respectively. There are arguments being made here around semantics which is taking away from the real discussion at hand. I have clarified my point. If you want to take it in a different way, then you're wasting your time debating with me because we're not even debating the same thing!

As I said, we can agree to disagree.

sunshine and showers

constance tench wrote: »

As I said, we can agree to disagree.

Fine, I suppose we can. I would add, though, that since I have clarified my point multiple times, you are wilfully choosing to misinterpret it.

constance tench

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Fine, I suppose we can. I would add, though, that since I have clarified my point multiple times, you are wilfully choosing to misinterpret it.

I am not.

constance tench

Lyaiera wrote: »

That would seem pretty obvious by men's dominant position in society.

Enjoy the read...I have ironing to do.

Irish women without kids earn 17 percent more than the typical male worker, according to new research from the OECD.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/the-4-rich-countries-where-women-out-earn-men-with-1-huge-caveat/266343/

See Johanna Tuffy's Account of her meeting with NWC.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/womenfriendly-oireachtas-would-make-it-harder-for-me-as-a-mother-30063405.html

http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

Lyaiera

Did you even read the articles you linked to? Nevermind the inherently biased selection.

constance tench

Lyaiera wrote: »

Did you even read the articles you linked to? Nevermind the inherently biased selection.

LOL...you'd like me to say that.

I know you may feel slighted since I pointed out your double standard,that's OK, you might yet realise that you'll need a tough skin to survive, not least in the political arena.

sunshine and showers

constance tench wrote: »

LOL...you'd like me to say that.

I know you may feel slighted since I pointed out your double standard,that's OK, you might yet realise that you'll need a tough skin to survive, not least in the political arena.

Sorry, could you please clarify what you are talking about when you say "double standard"?
You might also clear up how linking to articles on the NWC report on gender quotas and a narrow study on pay gaps is even relevant, since we're not currently debating the merits of such quotas and we weren't talking about pay gaps either.

I'm genuinely finding your posts a bit all over the place and hard to follow.

Mod

And again we need to remind you that this thread isn't the place to argue for or against feminism. If one of you ladies wishes to start that thread, then by all means, fire ahead.

Please read the thread title and keep on topic.

constance tench

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Sorry, could you please clarify what you are talking about when you say "double standard"?
You might also clear up how linking to articles on the NWC report on gender quotas and a narrow study on pay gaps is even relevant, since we're not currently debating the merits of such quotas and we weren't talking about pay gaps either.

I'm genuinely finding your posts a bit all over the place and hard to follow.

I need feminism becuse it gives myself and others the perfect opportunity to point out double standards.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/double-standard

It was not a report on gender quotas [It was an article by a female TD about a report]...title of the report: 'A Parliament of All Talents: Building a Women Friendly Oireachtas'.

...why am I not surprised?

Annasopra

constance tench wrote: »

I am not suggesting women will only represent women.
I feel that you did, which is why I pointed it out.

What to you think of Johanna Tuffy's account of her meeting with The National Women's Council?

It appears the NWC would prefer single childless women in the Oireachtas.

What?
The NWCI has consistently argued for better childcare provisions in this country. Its Chairperson and Previous Chairperson and Chair before that all have young children.

http://www.nwci.ie/discover/what_we_do/valuing_care_and_care_work/providing_high_quality_childcare_for_all_children

Joanna Tuffys argument certainly makes a lot of sense and I havent read the NWCI report but honestly suggesting that NWCI policy on something based on one article from a woman who opposes quite a lot of what NWCI proposes is nonsense.

ivytwine

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Posters (particularly female ones) who suggest they need feminism like a hole in the head (as has been popular of late with some young, generally Western females online) undoubtedly deserve a response.

That response (which I find difficult to deliver without feelings of rage) is that they are looking at the world from a place of extreme privilege compared to most women on the planet. Feminism isn't about one woman out there who is happy with her lot and either experiences no sexism or doesn't recognise certain forms of subtle sexism. Feminism is about the bigger picture of global inequality between men and women. It's about shocking literacy levels among women in developing countries, about the gender pay gap (that DOES exist globally, whether it affects one personally or not). It's about young girls being worried and unhappy about their looks at younger and younger ages because of the image mass media throws at them (it's also about the image of what makes a "real man" shown to young males too). It's about the way female and male rape victims are treated. It's about how many women in this world are still seen and treated like property. It's about the chronic under representation of half the global population in politics and the corporate wolrd - to name a very brief view things.

Feminism is one of the most important social movements there is or ever was. It has evolved so much in the last number of decades and needs to continue to grow to include women of colour and other groups who may be marginalised by the "white, western female" image it has.

Women who think they don't need feminism are utterly misguided as to what feminism is and that is tragic. It's not about bra burning or hating men or wanting to be superior to men. That image, I believe, is one that men (#notallmen) have perpetuated in order to ignore uncomfortable truths, and sadly young women (and older women) have accepted it without much reasoned thought.

The really sad thing is that feminism has become such a taboo word. Many young women believe in most of the basic tenets of feminism but refuse to be associated with the word because of the stigma attached.

To be honest when I was a teenager I probably would have been in the "I don't need feminism" side of things. The main difference was I didn't have access to the internet so my thoughts were not recorded for posterity.

Why did I think that? Because the men I knew, my father, teachers, other relations etc did not treat me any different because I was a girl. I went to an all-girls school and the only advantage of this was that there was no "you can't be good at maths! You're a girl!" rubbish. The attitude was instilled in us- and one male teacher in particular was always saying it- that there were no limits, no barriers, we could do anything. My mother was into rock music and politics and all kinds of things that *stereotypically* would be considered male pursuits. Myself and my friends were intelligent, just as capable as talking about politics as make-up. The women in my life were rounded and real.

Feminism to me at that time seemed to be full of outdated concerns. We had contraception, we had divorce, we had the vote [I went to a Catholic school and until I sat down and thought about it, I was anti-abortion]. The only feminist I remember seeing was Nell McCafferty every now and then on the Late Late and absolutely no disrespect to her, she was not exactly what a 14-year-old wanted to emulate.

When I was in 5th year we had to write an essay on "Why Women's Rights Still Matter" and it was by writing this I realised just how much was left to do, not just around the world, but in Ireland. It was that, believe it or not, and then my later experiences in work and college that led me to identify as a feminist.

I know this sounds patronising, but I think a lot of these young girls on Tumblr etc will get a bit older and experience sexism first hand and then change their minds. I do think there needs to be more coherence in feminism as a movement- which I am pessimistic about frankly- and more people like Emma Watson to stand up and say what exactly a feminist is.

I hope other people are not put off by Watson's experience. Articulate and influential women like her are feminism's greatest asset in proving its relevance imo.

Lyaiera wrote: »

First of all, I was never on a crusade. I simply posted something that happened and it seems to have hit a nerve with many people. Of course when people showed an interest in what I said I continued to discuss it. I find it very dismissive of people to think that just because I have an interest in something, something other people seemingly have an interest in as well that I am on a "crusade" and all the negative connotations that go with that. I got over the event quickly and most of my friends joined me in laughing at the stupidity of it. Including the person who was with me at the time who just laughed and rolled his eyes at the stupidity of it. The head bouncer that night also thought it was a ridiculous thing to say.

Secondly, I referred to rape culture as a way of highlighting the view that women are no more than their sexuality. Rape culture is the idea that women are reduced to sex objects. I would hope everyone is aware of the idea that rape is mostly a matter of dominance over another, and very little to do with the "intimacy" or even "enjoyment" of regular sex. It is about dominating another person. I found that reducing women to purely their sexual characteristics was a method of "putting women in their place" and was highlighting the way some people see others as a "conquest," someone whom they can have power over.

I apologise for using the word crusade, it was completely wrong. I did feel, personally, it wasn't worth getting annoyed about. As I mentioned my own life experiences probably lead me to think that. I realise now that having radically different life experiences probably led me to think that way and I do apologise.

To me it is not an example of rape culture, it's an example of cynicism. But I wasn't there, I didn't see the guy's mannerism or hear his tone of voice. I apologise again Lyaiera and will agree to disagree.

ivytwine

Anyway, I need feminism because: at a class I was at last week, the tutor told us of a female friend working in Tunisia who is slowly but surely finding her rights being eroded. A year ago she lived a similar life to many of us, now she cannot go out unchaperoned.

S.L.F

Links234 wrote: »

that a huge section of the Irish people are under represented in our government? how is it not?

That does not make any sense.

Over 50% of the electorate are female and voted the TDs into power and they represent them, regardless of gender.

Of course some foolish people would use their very low IQs and think that we need more women in politics because ONLY women will fight for women's issues.

Personally I've always believed that the best person should get the job regardless of how they pee.

DoYouEvenLift

S.L.F wrote: »

That does not make any sense.

Over 50% of the electorate are female and voted the TDs into power and they represent them, regardless of gender.

Of course some foolish people would use their very low IQs and think that we need more women in politics because ONLY women will fight for women's issues.

Personally I've always believed that the best person should get the job regardless of how they pee.

I agree. I don't see why gender is even a factor when it comes to any position in the government as the person who is most qualified and suited to the job should be the one getting it and when you enforce having a 50/50 workforce of each gender then it's possible that some undeserving candidates will receive positions that otherwise could have been filled by a better suited candidate. It's honestly ridiculous that this is even a thing when it comes to choosing people for literally the most important part of running a country.

S.L.F

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

Women like that are probably just trying to make lads fancy them - female equivalent of white knights.

Tbh I don't agree with some feminist views and some of it is universal concerns, not just feminist. But some of it is still important and women being "against feminism", as in the whole lot of it, are quite nauseating.

I've spoken to several of the leading ones over the last few months.

Karen Straughtan, Janet Bloomfield, Erin Pizzey, Kristal Garcia plus some of the women from A Voice for Men.

All of them are highly educated.

I'm not sure about Erin but the rest seem to all be in long relationships either married or in partnership with men.

If you are going to try to discredit them I suggest you use logic and a sound argument rather than just say they are trying to make men like them.

S.L.F

From here

This is feminism

Senator Ivana Bacik: This prison seems to be forging ahead without anyone questioning whether we need these places. I was going to use the “L” word but I hesitate to use it, other Members of the House having fallen into problems, so I will say that misinformation rather than lies have been told about the need for more prison places in this country. The reality elsewhere shows us that if one builds bigger prisons, judges and sentences will fill them with people. This is the sad reality and we need to reappraise whether we need this many prisons, especially for women.
This week, we are fortunate to receive a visit from Baroness Jean Corston from the British House of L[817]ords who produced a very radical report last year on women in prison and who recommended, after a very thorough review, that prison places for women should essentially be abolished and that there should just be a small number of small detention units for women. Otherwise, alternative sanctions should be used. We could very much learn from the lessons of that report.
I am happy to say that Baroness Corston will be visiting Leinster House on Thursday. Deputy Mary O’Rourke and I are hosting a meeting with her for all women Members of the Oireachtas. I am sorry that we cannot invite any male colleagues interested in this issue to the briefing with Baroness Corston.

constance tench

S.L.F wrote: »

That does not make any sense.

Over 50% of the electorate are female and voted the TDs into power and they represent them, regardless of gender.

Of course some foolish people would use their very low IQs and think that we need more women in politics because ONLY women will fight for women's issues.

Personally I've always believed that the best person should get the job regardless of how they pee.

Would the world be a different place if there were more women in politics?
Why should it matter who our representatives are?

Michelle O’Donnell Keating
Dr. Meryl Kenny,
Joanna Tuffy TD
talk to Sarah Carey [Talking Point NT 5th Oct]

https://www.newstalk.ie/Gender-in-politics

Michelle O’Donnell Keating,
Co-Founder and Chair of Women for Election.

Dr. Meryl Kenny,
Lecturer in Government and Politics at the University of Leicester and Co-Convenor of the UK Political Studies Association Women and Politics Specialist Group...

...Talk about why they need feminism in politics, but do their arguments stand up to scrutiny?

Joanna Tuffy TD for Dublin Mid-West.

Representative democracy doesn't involve that you have x percentage of this and carve out all the
seats so that it's representative of society, that's not what representative democracy means in our parliamentary democracy...

meeeeh

S.L.F wrote: »

That does not make any sense.

Over 50% of the electorate are female and voted the TDs into power and they represent them, regardless of gender.

Of course some foolish people would use their very low IQs and think that we need more women in politics because ONLY women will fight for women's issues.

Personally I've always believed that the best person should get the job regardless of how they pee.

God I love the iq jibes. My iq is high enough to know that if you exclude large portions of population the likelihood of the best candidate for the job getting in there is pretty low. I don't think the male teachers and solicitors are so much more competent than the rest of the country to explain their over representation in politics.

constance tench

meeeeh wrote: »

God I love the iq jibes. My iq is high enough to know thatif you exclude large portions of population the likelihood of the best candidate for the job getting in there is pretty low. I don't think the male teachers and solicitors are so much more competent than the rest of the country to explain their over representation in politics.

Who is excluded?
Women need to join political parties if they want to be a candidate,
but must also be prepared to accept they may never be a candidate.
Having that attitude is essential.

In fairness female TD's and senators have used this route also.

iwantmydinner

S.L.F wrote: »

From here

This is feminism

You feel like you don't need feminism. Cool.

That's not what this thread is about though.

S.L.F

meeeeh wrote: »

God I love the iq jibes. My iq is high enough to know that if you exclude large portions of population the likelihood of the best candidate for the job getting in there is pretty low. I don't think the male teachers and solicitors are so much more competent than the rest of the country to explain their over representation in politics.

As constance stated "Who is excluded?"

The way women get into politics should be the same way men do it.

Put your name in the hat and hope people vote for you.

Speaking of the name Constance.

You'll remember Countess Constance Markievicz

She was the first woman ever to hold a cabinet position in the world was in that deeply misogynist country called Ireland.

How backward is ole Ireland.

iwantmydinner wrote: »

You feel like you don't need feminism. Cool.

That's not what this thread is about though.

Well this is what forums are about, different views.

No one needs feminism

S.L.F

S.L.F wrote: »

Well this is what forums are about, different views.

No one needs feminism

And that is only your view.

A bit off topic for the thread though.

DuchessduJour

Because I was with my parents tonight as they watched Eastenders and one of the characters was raped by her nephew who had kissed her a few episodes ago and my mam said that she deserved it because she knew he liked her and shouldn't have ended up in a situation where she was alone with him.

Oh god, the rage.

YumCha

DuchessduJour wrote: »

Because I was with my parents tonight as they watched Eastenders and one of the characters was raped by her nephew who had kissed her a few episodes ago and my mam said that she deserved it because she knew he liked her and shouldn't have ended up in a situation where she was alone with him.

Oh god, the rage.

Jaysus

Tigger99

Oh jesus!

RDM_83 again

Tigger99 wrote: »

Oh jesus!

Can i ask does anybody think that requires 3rd wave feminism to be a absolutely horrible thing to say, you could be a fundamentalist Christian and feel exactly the same

YumCha

I need feminism for this poor girl who got called into the sheriff's office - unknowingly to pick up the clothes she was raped in 3 years prior:

http://bellejar.ca/2014/10/06/sheriffs-office-re-victimizes-rape-survivors/