I need feminism because...

clairefontaine

Adolescents can be cruel. When you are developing you get your bras snapped, you get it undone by the boy sitting behind you, or teased about your rack, blah blah blah, but really only the scummiest of the boys will do this. But then the girls also can make each other feel inadequate.

Not sure if feminism will solve this, hasn't so far.

However, we can blame feminism for those incidents when 6 year old boys get disciplined for sexual harassment for things like a stolen kiss in the playground or because someone says he looked at her behind.

Greer wrote the female eunuchs, heh. Now everyone is one.

If feminists had any courage, they'd tackle one of the primary root causes of poverty and that is missing fathers, but they don't want to do that, because they want to remain a special interest group, not focused on the family or hard issues, but these frivolities about people staring at your boobs.

Tigger99

MaxWig wrote: »

Without going into it, I would say that it doesn't, but only because it is not visible.

I would contend that I don't believe big boobs result in not being taken seriously. At least not as the general rule.

That's good (about the thing not being visible)

You don't have to believe my experiences, or the ones I've noticed, not too bothered, I know they are true.

They get annoying tho. I did ask one guy to look me in the eye and listen to me instead of staring at my chest (which was well covered before some smartarse thinks I have them on show, tho actually it shouldn't matter if I did, but I digress). But I couldn't do that regularly as it would be seen as aggressive- even tho I had a point!

MaxWig

Tigger99 wrote: »

That's good (about the thing not being visible)

You don't have to believe my experiences, or the ones I've noticed, not too bothered, I know they are true.

They get annoying tho. I did ask one guy to look me in the eye and listen to me instead of staring at my chest (which was well covered before some smartarse thinks I have them on show, tho actually it shouldn't matter if I did, but I digress). But I couldn't do that regularly as it would be seen as aggressive- even tho I had a point!

I never referred to believing your experience.
But I can tell they are obviously still very raw.

I think its dangerous to view our own, personal experiences as general rules.

I would add, that as a man, I will probably notice when a woman has big boobs, although I couldn't be sure.

My own personal view, is that I couldn't care less what size a woman's breasts are.

eviltwin

I have large breasts, I'm a casual runner. Sexist abuse regarding my breasts is a regular occurance when I'm out running. I've no doubt if my breasts were smaller it wouldn't happen. None of the women I know who run the same route have ever been hassled.

Tigger99

MaxWig wrote: »

I never referred to believing your experience.
But I can tell they are obviously still very raw.

I think its dangerous to view our own, personal experiences as general rules.

I would add, that as a man, I will probably notice when a woman has big boobs, although I couldn't be sure.

My own personal view, is that I couldn't care less what size a woman's breasts are.

Lol, they aren't raw and I'm not viewing only personal experiences as general rules. Patronising much?

I stated my experiences. I've witnessed time and time again a presumption that an attractive woman will not be an intelligent one. I've never once seen the same happen to a man.

MaxWig

Tigger99 wrote: »

Lol, they aren't raw and I'm not viewing only personal experiences as general rules. Patronising much?

I stated my experiences. I've witnessed time and time again a presumption that an attractive woman will not be an intelligent one. I've never once seen the same happen to a man.

Sorry - didn't mean to patronise.
And perhaps this is just invisible to me, I accept that.

Personally, I can admit to having been preoccupied with the features of a given woman. This happens me from time to time.

But I never made the link to stupidity. And I can't even conceptualise it.
But, I know that doesn't mean it doesn't happen

IvyTheTerrible

eviltwin wrote: »

I have large breasts, I'm a casual runner. Sexist abuse regarding my breasts is a regular occurance when I'm out running. I've no doubt if my breasts were smaller it wouldn't happen. None of the women I know who run the same route have ever been hassled.

I don't have big boobs but I do get hassled about my arse.
I think the sort of people who shout things at random strangers can always find something to abuse them about.

kate.m

clairefontaine wrote: »

If feminists had any courage, they'd tackle one of the primary root causes of poverty and that is missing fathers, but they don't want to do that, because they want to remain a special interest group, not focused on the family or hard issues, but these frivolities about people staring at your boobs.

...how do you tackle that? Like if someone doesn't want to be involved do you make them? Where they're being prevented from being involved would be addressed via law changes I presume, maybe more straight forward. General question - just seems really difficult (not that I'm saying it shouldn't be tackled)

clairefontaine

I don't know. I'm not a political activist or strategist. But the roots of poverty for women and children are a far bigger problem than someone staring at my cleavage. Or not staring at it.

eviltwin

clairefontaine wrote: »

I don't know. I'm not a political activist or strategist. But the roots of poverty for women and children are a far bigger problem than someone staring at my cleavage. Or not staring at it.

Its all relative isn't it. Of course I know feminism has bigger issues to deal with that gob****es who yell abuse at me but that doesn't make it any easier when you have to hear it. I know its minor compared to a woman who is desperate to have her childs father in its life but its still a hassle I could live without.

clairefontaine

I'm sorry but it doesn't have much bigger issues. It should, but it doesn't. It is a frivolous, divisive, Marxist movement that loves government and takes no responsibility for what it has done to the family.

You know why it can't go after missing dads, me of the main causes of poverty? Because for decades it told both men and women that men were redundant. So there you go ladies, that is what happens. Do you think feminism wants to turn around now and say they were wrong, that they'd do need men?

I doubt it. So it would rather gap on about the male gaze and objectification and other upper middle class white girl problems.

mariaalice

This is slightly off topic, for all he people who think feminism is not relevant in the Western world....have a look at some of the treatment meted out to Julia Gillard the Australian prim minister, some of it was solely because she was a woman..she was even asked/shouted at ....is your partner Gay!!

eviltwin

clairefontaine wrote: »

I'm sorry but it doesn't have much bigger issues. It should, but it doesn't. It is a frivolous, divisive, Marxist movement that loves government and takes no responsibility for what it has done to the family.

You know why it can't go after missing dads, me of the main causes of poverty? Because for decades it told both men and women that men were redundant. So there you go ladies, that is what happens. Do you think feminism wants to turn around now and say they were wrong, that they'd do need men?

I doubt it. So it would rather gap on about the male gaze and objectification and other upper middle class white girl problems.

Sorry claire but the only person to blame for dead beat dads are the dead beats themselves but yet again its always everyone else fault. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

MaxWig

eviltwin wrote: »

Sorry claire but the only person to blame for dead beat dads are the dead beats themselves but yet again its always everyone else fault. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

I'd have to agree with Claire on this to some extent.

'Dead-beat Dad' is a derogatory term, for a very vague group.

I find it very offensive.

MaxWig

eviltwin wrote: »

Sorry claire but the only person to blame for dead beat dads are the dead beats themselves but yet again its always everyone else fault. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

And to pursue your reasoning...can we assume that the single mother with 6 kids should just keep her gob shut about struggling to feed them.

After all, she is personally responsible

mariaalice

clairefontaine wrote: »

I'm sorry but it doesn't have much bigger issues. It should, but it doesn't. It is a frivolous, divisive, Marxist movement that loves government and takes no responsibility for what it has done to the family.

You know why it can't go after missing dads, me of the main causes of poverty? Because for decades it told both men and women that men were redundant. So there you go ladies, that is what happens. Do you think feminism wants to turn around now and say they were wrong, that they'd do need men?

I doubt it. So it would rather gap on about the male gaze and objectification and other upper middle class white girl problems.

So by your logic men must be made feel needed ( nothing wrong with that by the way ) or woman must be in a dependant position in order for fathers to be a involved in their children's lives, what about being involved in your children lives because you have a moral and legal responsibility to look after your children or what about doing it out of love.

clairefontaine

eviltwin wrote: »

Sorry claire but the only person to blame for dead beat dads are the dead beats themselves but yet again its always everyone else fault. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Sorry but no. Divorce sky rocketed in the 70s after the aggressive advancement of feminism.

It is most definitely partially responsible for the ruination of the family.

And it it still hanging onto its partisanship, special interest victim status, to get a wider perspective on family and familys relationship with employment etc.

B0jangles

Did a feminist steal your bicycle when you are a kid or something Claire?

B0jangles

This seems kind of appropriate at this juncture:

http://vimeo.com/64941331

MaxWig

B0jangles wrote: »

This seems kind of appropriate at this juncture:

http://vimeo.com/64941331

So inappropriate. haha

Funny though

clairefontaine

mariaalice wrote: »

So by your logic men must be made feel needed ( nothing wrong with that by the way ) or woman must be in a dependant position in order for fathers to be a involved in their children's lives, what about being involved in your children lives because you have a moral and legal responsibility to look after your children or what about doing it out of love.

No. That's not what I'm saying. If you want to twist it that way and rely on a benevolent, myopic perspective on feminism you might see it that way.

What I object to is this ra ra cheer leading of an ideology that brought with it consequences that the cheerleaders don't want to acknowledge.

MaxWig

I'm a man.

I would consider myself a feminist.

I love women, and I love men, and I love children.

I think I'm in the significant majority.

Feminism brings problems.

Of that there is no doubt.

But all in all, I have benefited greatly as a result of feminism - as has society as a whole.

I do however agree that in terms of the family, and the huge changes that it has gone through, we need to make changes.

Fathers from non-traditional families have become isolated and vulnerable.
There is no benefit to this for anyone

clairefontaine

MaxWig wrote: »

And to pursue your reasoning...can we assume that the single mother with 6 kids should just keep her gob shut about struggling to feed them.

After all, she is personally responsible

Yes that would be a feminist perspective. Independent woman and all that. She doesn't need a man. What do you need men for? Supermom to the rescue!

Just don't look at her boobs or objectify her. That's naughty.

Wibbs

Tesco Frog Muffin clearly hasn't read the Ladies Lounge charter, nor the clear warning against this kinda guff earlier so gets a ban for his trouble and his posts deleted.

PS B0jangles, lets dial back the sniping towards others and their opinions please.

B0jangles

^^ Will do ^^

mariaalice

clairefontaine wrote: »

No. That's not what I'm saying. If you want to twist it that way and rely on a benevolent, myopic perspective on feminism you might see it that way.

What I object to is this ra ra cheer leading of an ideology that brought with it consequences that the cheerleaders don't want to acknowledge.

If you had read through the whole thread you will see that I do think femminis has contradictions like all isms, however some of the issue that feminism are being blamed for are ridicules IMO.

One of he thing Florance Nightingale did along with improving nursing was organise for solders to repatriate their wages to their family's back in England as before that men often spent all there money on alcohol despite being fathers and husbands...the idea that men only started to avoide responsibility for their children after the rise of femminim is silly...have you ever read account of the 1913 strike or have you read the colour purple.

Tigger99

I love men, my Dad, my brother, many other men I know.

I am a feminist.

These two statements aren't mutually exclusive.

clairefontaine

mariaalice wrote: »

If you had read through the whole thread you will see that I do think femminis has contradictions like all isms, however some of the issue that feminism are being blamed for are ridicules IMO.

One of he thing Florance Nightingale did along with improving nursing was organise for solders to repatriate their wages to their family's back in England as before that men often spent all there money on alcohol despite being fathers and husbands...the idea that men only started to avoide responsibility for their children after the rise of femminim is silly...have you ever read account of the 1913 strike or have you read the colour purple.

How did she do that?

Did the government take their wages and redirect them?

Obviously war makes it far more complicated. Who wouldnt want to stay drunk? And if they were drafted, surely the government has some accountability to their families? And ,maybe just maybe feminism might consider awareness against the militarisation of boys?

You can't compare a time during the draft to contemporary disenfranchisement.

I'm not saying it started after feminism, I'm saying it increased. You can't call it irresponsibility after decades off telling them they aren't needed in the first place.

mariaalice

This is off topic, the reason some men are marginalised in society has a lot more to do with the rise of technology and the decline in the need for manual work that it has to do with feminisms.

clairefontaine

I don't want to get into whataboutery. What I'm trying to say is that feminism, by being partial, did a lot of damage in its polarisation instead of considering the whole family. We qre interconnected.

The focus needs to be on family.

Women got hoisted on their own petards, even women who never wanted the petards in the first place.