Unhelpful 'gendering' of social issues

mollymosfet

A thread where people are seriously using the word "misandry". And one of these bolloxes runs the "Ladies Lounge". Willing to bet at least half of ye own fedoras as well.

Christ on a bike.

It's great when anti-rape campaigns tell women what to do, but when men get told what to do, they'll let you know who's boss. I bet half of you didn't even read the article past the first page(if even that far):

You can’t tar every man with the same brush, but men must accept that most violent crimes perpetrated against women are by men, and that they have the power to stop this.

It's not blaming all men for raping women. However it is saying men can do more to stop rape because rape is so amazingly common against women, most men are going to have a rapist in their social circle. Telling the women how to avoid rape instead of telling men to try do something from their end is extremely damaging.

mollymosfet

clairefontaine wrote: »

It's no big secret the media is saturated with lefty bean eating yuppies.

This is politics 101 and I've said the same thing on discussions around Islam, not that feminist are nearly on par with jihadists but there is a similar principal at work, like in any ideology.

The radicals and extremists are there to make the moderates look good, so they don't seem so bigoted and irrational, so their irrationalities can take hold in the perceptions of ordinary people who simply like to think of themselves as good people. So the more extreme on the continuum the ideology is, the more extreme the moderate scale can become while still appearing reasonable, to those who have swallowed the original sales pitch.

Yah yeah, it's not all Muslims, yeah yeah, it's not all feminists, yeah yeah I'm a Muslim and I condemn that, yeah yeah, I'm a feminist and I condemn that, all sinking in the slew of denial because the brainwashing worked. And no one likes to admit they are a fool. All denying the very essences and evidences of what's right in front of them. Peer pressure at its finest and most dangerous.

This is not just feminists fault, but also the fault of do goodie yippies.

I can't believe what I read the Guardian for example, what a scam. And the article referenced above. How is that anything but hate speech ? On the same country that has anti blasphemy laws. Woah what a infusing country.

Right wingers of course, are all good and honest people.

mollymosfet

iptba wrote: »

In response to talk about "rape culture" that all men are supposed to be to blame for, some men's rights activists are talking about "false rape culture" and by analogy saying all women are to blame, to make a point.

the whole point of rape culture is to make a point in the first place.

false rape accusations are far rarer than rape in the first place. these "men's rights activists" are just assholes looking to defend their privileges.

clairefontaine

mollymosfet wrote: »

Right wingers of course, are all good and honest people.

We are not talking about them. We are talking about feminism and this article.

Funny how the IT would never publish something like "Muslims. Stop blowing th gs up and chopping heads off in the Internet." It completely adds credence to the claims the white male is under attack that they published this.

iptba

mollymosfet wrote: »

these "men's rights activists" are just assholes looking to defend their privileges.

It can similarly be argued that some women's rights activists* are just "assholes"** looking to defend some of their privileges when they do and say some things, depending on your perspective.

I think it's more constructive to talk about specific issues rather than guess or impugn people's motivations.

* or if they're male, trying to use feminism to get into a woman's pants.

**to mirror the language you used

mollymosfet

It can similarly be argued that some women's rights activists* are just "assholes"** looking to defend some of their privileges when they do and say some things, depending on your perspective.

No it can't, because feminism is a legitimate movement with a legitimate history that can be traced back. Far too many "Men's Rights Activists" exist solely to be contrarian to that movement. It's not that the idea of "Men's Rights" is invalid, rather the form of MRA mentioned in the post I was quoting is simple, as I put, down to assholes looking to defend privileges they now feel have come under fire.

It is a false equivalence.

iptba

mollymosfet wrote: »

It's great when anti-rape campaigns tell women what to do, but when men get told what to do, they'll let you know who's boss.

The Gardai are doing no different than they do with other people who might be victims of crime: making suggestions that they think might help that person reduce the chance they will be a victim. The individual is perfectly free to ignore the advice.

Men on the other hand are having the finger pointed at them: it is not about reducing the chances they will be a victim of a crime.

iptba

mollymosfet wrote: »

No it can't, because feminism is a legitimate movement with a legitimate history that can be traced back.

Not sure what the point is about history: I think there are perfectly valid reasons for a men's rights movement to exist just as there were valid reasons for a feminist movement to start.

mollymosfet wrote: »

Far too many "Men's Rights Activists" exist solely to be contrarian to that movement. It's not that the idea of "Men's Rights" is invalid, rather the form of MRA mentioned in the post I was quoting is simple, as I put, down to assholes looking to defend privileges they now feel have come under fire.

I don't accept that making a point about not being happy for having the finger point at you for causing rape, simply because one is male, is trying to protect a "privilege".

Similarly I don't accept that raising the issue of false rape accusations is trying to protect a privilege.

In my opinion, you need to develop other arguments rather than mentioning "privilege" all the time.

iptba

mollymosfet wrote: »

A thread where people are seriously using the word "misandry".

Imagine that. Shouldn't be allowed. :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

bluewolf wrote: »

Because the media != "most feminists"

It's been pointed out, a few times, that this approach to feminism is not limited to the media, but also pervasive in many other areas of society.

As for "most feminists", I can't really say what the situation is there. Maybe "most feminists" are moderate, but if so why are extremist policies, such as quotas, becoming law? Or such misandrist articles being published without problems? Why is it not uncommon for NGO's to only give support to women and deny that men suffer the same issues?

Why are "most feminists" silent in the face of feminists who act and speak in their name in ways that they claim they oppose?

Personally, I think that it's time that "most feminists" ask themselves these questions and genuinely take some responsibility for having let the lunatics take over the asylum. Instead of circling the wagons the moment that someone dares to criticize feminism, perhaps considering why these criticisms are increasingly being made would be a better idea.

After all, feminism hasn't been gaining support in recent years, it's been losing it and maybe, just maybe, it may be that it's lost it's way. Refusing to look at such fundamentals and dismissing any criticisms as simply anti-feminist, is unlikely to change that trend.

coffee_cake

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's been pointed out, a few times, that this approach to feminism is not limited to the media, but also pervasive in many other areas of society.

As for "most feminists", I can't really say what the situation is there

That's all lovely but has nothing to do with you acting like someone is contradicting themselves for saying they would expect most feminists to have an issue with gendering of issues, and that they don't know why it may seem acceptable to the media

Sleepy

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Edit: I sent an e-mail to the online editor of the Irish Times. I will keep you all updated on any response I get. If none I will escalate to the press ombudsman. Does anyone know if the Times has signed up to the code of practice?

Any response?

TBH, I'm not sure the editor of the IT is the right person for this. Would the Gardaí be a better place to report a case of incitement to hatred? Would be nice to see the author and her editor face criminal charges for such misandrist propaganda.

The Corinthian

bluewolf wrote: »

That's all lovely but has nothing to do with you acting like someone is contradicting themselves for saying they would expect most feminists to have an issue with gendering of issues, and that they don't know why it may seem acceptable to the media

I've not contradicted myself; if "most feminists" are oppose gendering of issues or supposedly radical, fringe feminism, yet do not actually do anything about it and seem happy, or at least silent, about being represented this way, then I really cannot say why "most feminists" are behaving this way.

You'd think that "most feminists" would turn around and attack such articles. Or reject radical gender-biased policies. Or condemn gender-biased NGO's. But "most feminists" don't seem to do so.

Why is what I cannot speak to, only speculate.

pwurple

Henry9 wrote: »

That's gas. There's a definition of feminism now?

It's gas indeed. Let me introduce you to a something called a dictionary. Not too fashionable these days, but they still exist I'm told.

The Corinthian

pwurple wrote: »

It's gas indeed. Let me introduce you to a something called a dictionary. Not too fashionable these days, but they still exist I'm told.

Then why don't you address my analysis of that definition? Or is independent thought not fashionable these days either?

coffee_cake

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've not contradicted myself;

I didn't say you were. Did you even read my post?

The Corinthian

bluewolf wrote: »

I didn't say you were. Did you even read my post?

You're right, I completely misread your post. Let me give it another try.

bluewolf wrote: »

That's all lovely but has nothing to do with you acting like someone is contradicting themselves for saying they would expect most feminists to have an issue with gendering of issues, and that they don't know why it may seem acceptable to the media

Well, let's look at it this way. If I ascribe to a movement or ideology, then that would be because I agree with the aims and actions of that movement or ideology.

Now consider people who also claim to ascribe to my movement or ideology, start to propose or do things in the name of my movement or ideology, that fly in the face of what I believe are its aims or what it should be doing.

What should I do?

kunst nugget

Sleepy wrote: »

Any response?

TBH, I'm not sure the editor of the IT is the right person for this. Would the Gardaí be a better place to report a case of incitement to hatred? Would be nice to see the author and her editor face criminal charges for such misandrist propaganda.

What are you going to say?

'Dear Mr. Garda Man, Some young girl wrote a completely illogical article and I'm now afraid I will be attacked in my home by angry feminists!'

I found the article to be insulting, woefully hamfisted and completely without logic and merit but to say it's incitement to hatred is completely ridiculous.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

aye, i always cringe when I see people aping the feminists with their 'incitement to hatred' bolloxology. there's no need for everyone else to stoop to their level.

ConFurioso

http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/warnings-for-victims-and-attackers-1.1537500

Anyone here?

Woops, another one today I over looked as well.

http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/warnings-for-attackers-and-victims-1.1538589

pwurple

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then why don't you address my analysis of that definition? Or is independent thought not fashionable these days either?

Because you are randomly attributing things to feminism, when they are completely unrelated. There's not much to address.

The treatment of a 13 year old male as the aggressor when he gets his girlfriend pregnant is a hangover from a purely patriarchal society... when women were considered mere mindless recipients of sperm, with no ability to think or make their own decisions. It was not put in place by any feminist movement I know of, as it predates feminism. Can you show me where it was?

Quota's are a complete nonsense, a stupid notion suggested by a govt group to appease women who point out the imbalance, rather than address the actual root cause. I've no time for it. If we adopted the childcare model adopted by Scandinavian countries, where men can take equal leave after the birth of their own children, there would be no need for quotas in the first place. If both men and women were able to take equal leave (and in fact they get substantial tax breaks for sharing this leave, which is a sizable incentive in a high tax economy) the issue would resolve itself. They have 50% political gender balance naturally. No quota needed. This is the equality that is the aim, and it mutually benefits both men and women. Artificially unbalancing things either one way or another can never work.

coffee_cake

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, let's look at it this way. If I ascribe to a movement or ideology, then that would be because I agree with the aims and actions of that movement or ideology.

Now consider people who also claim to ascribe to my movement or ideology, start to propose or do things in the name of my movement or ideology, that fly in the face of what I believe are its aims or what it should be doing.

What should I do?

What you should do is stick to the original point of "I would expect feminists would disagree" and "I don't know why the media think it's ok" not being contradictory. A question you posed yourself.
But if you want to just waffle about how you disagree with feminism & how it's treated instead, off you go, I'm out

Henry9

pwurple wrote: »

It's gas indeed. Let me introduce you to a something called a dictionary. Not too fashionable these days, but they still exist I'm told.

It's interesting that a definition exists when it suits, but at other times it's a case of 'there's no single definition of feminism', or 'feminism can mean different things to different people'.

Still though, you ignore the reasons why your definition is incorrect.

bluewolf wrote: »

Because the media != "most feminists"

But they are the ones with the platform, and they can direct the agenda as they wish because anyone who disagrees with them is automatically a misogynist.

Also, given the almost brainwashed behaviour of a lot of pro feminist posters here, defining at the outset the narrative of any discussion is a very powerful weapon.

coffee_cake

Henry9 wrote: »

But they are the ones with the platform

Who are? The media? I should think so

The Corinthian

pwurple wrote: »

Because you are randomly attributing things to feminism, when they are completely unrelated. There's not much to address.

What am I "randomly attributing" to feminism?

You gave a 'definition' and I challenged it, pointing out that your definition does not actually match the reality of feminism.

The treatment of a 13 year old male as the aggressor when he gets his girlfriend pregnant is a hangover from a purely patriarchal society... when women were considered mere mindless recipients of sperm, with no ability to think or make their own decisions. It was not put in place by any feminist movement I know of, as it predates feminism. Can you show me where it was?

I never said it was, where did you get that?

Again, gaining equality with men, isn't simply a case of gaining equality where women are disadvantaged, but also losing it where they are advantaged. If feminism fails to campaign for the latter, then your 'definition' fails. Full stop.

I'm addressing feminism's definition, according to you. Not where these issues originate from, but how one can claim a definition when it is clear that the reality does not fit.

So please address what I've said, rather than dismissing it out of hand with an argument that doesn't even make sense.

Quota's are a complete nonsense, a stupid notion suggested by a govt group to appease women who point out the imbalance, rather than address the actual root cause. I've no time for it.

Yet, how much opposition from what we are told are the majority or moderate feminists, who disagree with this, like you, have we heard? Pretty much none.

bluewolf wrote: »

What you should do is stick to the original point of "I would expect feminists would disagree" and "I don't know why the media think it's ok" not being contradictory. A question you posed yourself.

Problem is that it is contradictory. If "most feminists" would disagree, then there would be an outcry from them against such articles, as there is twoards misogynistic ones. But there's not, this puts in question the claimed raison d'etre of feminism.

You, pwurple and others can dismiss, ignore or simply refuse to address this contradiction, but it's not going to go away and it is really up to feminists to address this and to genuinely reflect on what has become of the movement, rather than hide behind some anti-feminist bogey-man arguments.

But if you want to just waffle about how you disagree with feminism & how it's treated instead, off you go, I'm out

You can put your fingers in your ears too and hum loudly too, if that helps.

Seriously, I've simply pointed out a contradiction in what feminism claims and what it does, which is highlighted by numerous things in society, such as the articles that started off this thread.

mollymosfet

iptba wrote: »

Imagine that. Shouldn't be allowed. :rolleyes:

Oh yes us terrible feminist fascists, how dare we point out when a word is misused.

http://crystallineprincess.tumblr.com/post/52414783816/i-believe-that-there-are-a-small-group-of-women

"I believe that there are a small group of women who hate men just for being men. I believe that the textbook definition of the word misandry fits that description. I believe there are bad things that happen to men. I believe those issues should be addressed. I do not believe that a fringe group of women who hate men can be blamed for those issues.

Misandry was a dead word until recently. A group of men who feared the progress of feminism revived the word and used it to undercut the movement. They like having the power being a man provides and they don’t want to lose that. So they created a movement, found a bunch of legitimate issues that affect men, and tried to blame women for those issues. They called this misandry. It’s like conservatives using buzzwords like “death panels” to make people fear health care. They let people assume it meant Obama wanted to kill your grandma. They let their cute little phrase infect the minds of good people and convince them of falsehoods.

People are telling me that men cannot report rape without getting laughed at. They say this is misandry. It is the fault of women who hate men. But that just doesn’t make any sense to me. When I seek a logical explanation, it seems more likely that this is because men are supposed to be strong and women are supposed to be weak. And rape has been viewed as something that happens mostly to women. So if it does happen to a man, they must be weak. How did this idea of men=strong and women=weak start? I’m pretty sure it wasn’t because of misandry. It is an ancient patriarchy collapsing in on itself.

Feminism is about fighting inequality. It’s about erasing the strong/weak perception ingrained into our society. Misandry, as the term is often used today, is about trying to blame women for anything bad that happens to men.

If you want to fight to fix issues that affect men, go for it. But I would really consider distancing yourself from this term. It is used to evangelize folks into a movement that is very problematic. A group that can’t handle scrutiny of their comic books and video games, so they send death and rape threats. A group that calls women sluts and think they ask for rape if they show too much cleavage. Those are the people who coined this term, and you should want nothing to do with them or their language."

The example in the article isn't misandry either. There is nothing there that is hateful towards men, and it doesn't generalise them as rapists - it simply states that they're likely to have rapists in their social circle. If women, as a gender, are told to keep safe, then it's a fair mirror to tell men, as a gender, not to rape. It's trying to make a point, one that is utterly lost on the Fedora brigade.

newport2

pwurple wrote: »

The treatment of a 13 year old male as the aggressor when he gets his girlfriend pregnant is a hangover from a purely patriarchal society... when women were considered mere mindless recipients of sperm, with no ability to think or make their own decisions. It was not put in place by any feminist movement I know of, as it predates feminism. Can you show me where it was?

The "Romeo and Juliet" law was brought in in 2006, see link attached

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2006/a1506.pdf

Effectively, boy = guilty, girl = innocent. A perfect fit with the man = bad, woman = good underlying element in a lot of today's media, etc.

I remember prominent feminists at the time arguing it was perfectly fair.

py2006

What a load of nonsense and some of the language this poster has been allowed to use in this thread is way out of line.

With regards to misandry, if there is misogyny in this world there too exists misandry.

Personally, I think both terms are misused. However, to dismiss issues of injustice, discrimination, generalising etc etc against men is pathetic.

From experience, when certain women hear a man talk about being abused/harassed/discriminated they see it as men dismissing similar issues for women or indeed misogyny.

The Corinthian

mollymosfet wrote: »

Feminism is about fighting inequality. It’s about erasing the strong/weak perception ingrained into our society.

This definition has been challenged here. Rather than simply ignore this challenge and repeat this definition ad nauseum in the hope that we'll just accept it as Gospel, why don't you convince us by addressing that challenge?

pwurple

The Corinthian wrote: »

You gave a 'definition' and I challenged it, pointing out that your definition does not actually match the reality of feminism.

It's not "my definition" of feminism, it's the oxford english dictionary's definition of feminism. If you dispute it, maybe take it up with them?Feminism: noun:the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

You've mentioned silence on issues several times. That women's advocacy groups are not vocal enough on furthering men's rights, or are silent at the loss of men's rights... but seriously, why would you even expect that in the first place? Women's groups do not come out and comment on every single issue that crosses the universe. Neither do men's rights groups. They are focused on target issues, one's which directly affect their own rights.

The "Romeo and Juliet" law was brought in in 2006, see link attached

Yes, this iteration was 2006, but there were previous laws which were similar, plus overlaps with canon law etc. The age of consent is basically what has changed across time. At one stage it was age 12 afaik?