Is feminism a dirty word?

Minera

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

There is also no initiatives to encourage men to go into courses and jobs like Care, Teaching and Nursing whereas there is multiple ones for women to enter Engineering and Medicine.

Caring and teaching roles are a satuated market, educationally wise anyway! Although there are severe shortages in employing people who have these skills, the need is there but our government wont fund employment but thats a different debate. Personally I would have gone a completly different career direction if I had hind sight!

Also there has been a huge rise in the amount of men undertaking a vetec 5 in health care assistant, in my area anyway!

woodoo

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Also, to just expand on the earlier point about education. Even though males are known to do worse than females in Secondary School (especially the Leaving Cert) the only subject radically reformed in the past while was Maths, changed to make it easier for females to get better results in it. If that doesn't smack of "fcuk males, they don't need good points in the Leaving Cert". There is also no initiatives to encourage men to go into courses and jobs like Care, Teaching and Nursing whereas there is multiple ones for women to enter Engineering and Medicine.

We are still behaving like we don't have equality in the West now, like women still need a help up. Its actually men that need a help up now and education a good example. More women than men are entering university so why change the maths curriculum in order to help women do even better than they are.

Carlos Orange

Minera wrote: »

Also there has been a huge rise in the amount of men undertaking a vetec 5 in health care assistant, in my area anyway!

What percentage of the people taking the course are men?

Minera

psinno wrote: »

What percentage of the people taking the course are men?

Cant give exact figures but I do know its more than half the participants are men in a few of the healthcare courses.
There is no point in nitpicking this observation I am perfectly aware that I am only observing on one locality, it may even just be a coincidence but my point is that the caring roles and professions are rising in popularity with men.

The_Captain

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Also, to just expand on the earlier point about education. Even though males are known to do worse than females in Secondary School (especially the Leaving Cert) the only subject radically reformed in the past while was Maths, changed to make it easier for females to get better results in it. If that doesn't smack of "fcuk males, they don't need good points in the Leaving Cert". There is also no initiatives to encourage men to go into courses and jobs like Care, Teaching and Nursing whereas there is multiple ones for women to enter Engineering and Medicine.

To be fair though, men pretty much unilaterally outearn women in whatever sector they go into. It's not so much as giving girls an advantage in school ahead of boys as it is giving girls a foundation to perform well as a women in professional life.

That being said, I think men will always earn more than women mainly because of the huge social pressure/expectation that men should earn more than women. Giving women an advantage to bring wages closer to parity will only force mens wages higher in the long run and maintain the same relative wage gap

mrkiscool2

The_Captain wrote: »

To be fair though, men pretty much unilaterally outearn women in whatever sector they go into. It's not so much as giving girls an advantage in school ahead of boys as it is giving girls a foundation to perform well as a women in professional life.

That being said, I think men will always earn more than women mainly because of the huge social pressure/expectation that men should earn more than women. Giving women an advantage to bring wages closer to parity will only force mens wages higher in the long run and maintain the same relative wage gap

Sorry you're wrong there. Women (without children) earn more than men. They earn up to 17% more than a male counterpart in a similar field with a similar degree once they leave college and the pay gap between them is non-existent if a woman decides not to have a child. Obviously the fact that a women has to make a choice between family and a career isn't on and is definitely something that should be stopped but your facts are way off.

The_Captain

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Sorry you're wrong there. Women (without children) earn more than men. They earn up to 17% more than a male counterpart in a similar field with a similar degree once they leave college and the pay gap between them is non-existent if a woman decides not to have a child. Obviously the fact that a women has to make a choice between family and a career isn't on and is definitely something that should be stopped but your facts are way off.

As much as I want to believe you, I reckon I'll go with the literally thousands of studies by economists all over the world who disagree with you

mrkiscool2

*Sigh*

I'll post this again. Single, childless women earn more than men, Women In Ireland without Children earn more than men. Just two articles I found looking it up quickly. I'm still looking for the recent one which says that women earn more than men coming out of college with similar degrees in similar fields. Once I find it I'll put it up here. Women are also less likely to enter fields such as Science, Engineering and Business which are well known to have higher pay-grades. The pay-gap is false because it takes the average pay of all the men and all the women which will obviously have disparity due to a multitude of factors. For example 3 women and 3 men work in a company, here is there pay

CEO: Male-€200,000
Manager: Female-€95,000
Secretary: Female-€50,000
2 Office Workers: Male-€45,000
Female:€45,000
Janitor: Male-€35,000

Even though a female has 2 positions that pays more than 2 of the males because the male is the CEO the average is heavily skewed. And that's just a rough example.

The_Captain

Wow, that one study that agrees with you clearly is more important than the combined avalanche of studies that contradict your point.

Piss-poor methodology to be using for that study anyway, all that really shows is that young people in entry level jobs make more or less the same money.
There's a lot of reasons that focusing solely on childless people is going to be skewed, it'd be better to look at a comparison between childless women only and all men regardless of parenthood status

mrkiscool2

The_Captain wrote: »

Wow, that one study that agrees with you clearly is more important than the combined avalanche of studies that contradict your point.

Piss-poor methodology to be using for that study anyway, all that really shows is that young people in entry level jobs make more or less the same money.
There's a lot of reasons that focusing solely on childless people is going to be skewed, it'd be better to look at a comparison between childless women only and all men regardless of parenthood status

You completely ignored the fact that the pay-gap is based on all the average earning of men and all the average earning of women. As mentioned, men are more likely to go into Management in Business, Science, Engineering and Construction, all higher earning jobs than others. If you really wanted to see if there really is a pay-gap you'd take similar positions and compare them. Even at that you have disparity of age, experience, education etc. Also, men earn the same regardless of children or not.

The_Captain

Louise Woodward wrote: »

Have you actually read how any of those studies were conducted or do you just believe their conclusions to be true because they say so?

Average pay doesn't prove discrimination is taking place. For a start how many of those studies take into account number of hours worked, experience and whether or propensity of both genders to actually ask for a pay rise or threaten to quit if they don't get a pay rise. The ability to negotiate is an important factor in determining what an individual will be paid

You're refuting an imaginary argument here. I'm saying evidence points to the fact that men de facto get paid more than women, I've said nothing about discrimination or reasons for wage disparity

mrkiscool2

The_Captain wrote: »

You're refuting an imaginary argument here. I'm saying evidence points to the fact that men de facto get paid more than women, I've said nothing about discrimination or reasons for wage disparity

You were arguing that because men get paid more than women they should just be ignored by the state when it comes to Education while women should be focused on more despite the fact women do better in both Secondary and Third Level.

Carlos Orange

Minera wrote: »

Cant give exact figures but I do know its more than half the participants are men in a few of the healthcare courses.
There is no point in nitpicking this observation I am perfectly aware that I am only observing on one locality, it may even just be a coincidence but my point is that the caring roles and professions are rising in popularity with men.

It isn't nitpicking to ask for details. Saying there was a huge rise is in lots of ways pretty meaningless. The team I work in doubled in size a couple of weeks ago. There are 2 of us now.

People have a tendency to cherry pick numbers to suit their opinions. A couple of courses being majority male may indicate a sea change in society or it may be nothing.

Carlos Orange

The_Captain wrote: »

You're refuting an imaginary argument here. I'm saying evidence points to the fact that men de facto get paid more than women, I've said nothing about discrimination or reasons for wage disparity

Feel free to post some links to studies related to Ireland in the last couple of years.

The One Doctor

The_Captain wrote: »

You're refuting an imaginary argument here. I'm saying evidence points to the fact that men de facto get paid more than women, I've said nothing about discrimination or reasons for wage disparity

I've never, ever seen a man get paid more for a job then a woman.

mrkiscool2

psinno wrote: »

Feel free to post some links to studies related to Ireland in the last couple of years.

Not only did I thank your post, I had to highlight it. Never I have seen a person disregard pure fact and actual studies before in a discussion. Fair enough if I had nothing to back me up but I produced a couple of results. Ireland is (IMHO opinion rightfully so) regarded as one of the most equal countries in the world. We are far from perfect but you'll never see a woman paid less than a man for the same job in the same company with equal experience and years. That's something to be cheered.

Minera

psinno wrote: »

It isn't nitpicking to ask for details. Saying there was a huge rise is in lots of ways pretty meaningless. The team I work in doubled in size a couple of weeks ago. There are 2 of us now.

People have a tendency to cherry pick numbers to suit their opinions. A couple of courses being majority male may indicate a sea change in society or it may be nothing.

Nah what I ment about the nit picking was I didnt want posters to start going on about location and thats your area and all that because as I said before I know every where is different etc. I was only answering an earlier question.
When I ment huge rise there are 15 men in a class of 22, compared to 3 or 4 men last year! Or the 3 men attending in 2012......although there were 5 men in 2010, couldnt get numbers for 2011 oh and 0 men in 2009.

Thats the huge rise im talking about, numbers next year will show interest or coincidence.

gladrags

Minera wrote: »

Nah what I ment about the nit picking was I didnt want posters to start going on about location and thats your area and all that because as I said before I know every where is different etc. I was only answering an earlier question.
When I ment huge rise there are 15 men in a class of 22, compared to 3 or 4 men last year! Or the 3 men attending in 2012......although there were 5 men in 2010, couldnt get numbers for 2011 oh and 0 men in 2009.

Thats the huge rise im talking about, numbers next year will show interest or coincidence.

In Dublin there is a very significant increase across the boards in male employment,in areas once dominated by females.

Both in public and private sector

Reasons I would surmise are,the influx of qualified/experienced workers from abroad.

Less opportunity in for example,construction and other male dominated areas of employment.

S.L.F

The_Captain wrote: »

To be fair though, men pretty much unilaterally outearn women in whatever sector they go into. It's not so much as giving girls an advantage in school ahead of boys as it is giving girls a foundation to perform well as a women in professional life.

That being said, I think men will always earn more than women mainly because of the huge social pressure/expectation that men should earn more than women. Giving women an advantage to bring wages closer to parity will only force mens wages higher in the long run and maintain the same relative wage gap

Men earn more because they do more dangerous jobs, work longer hours. have more STEM careers, travel further distances to get employment and tend to go for full time work rather than part time work.

The_Captain wrote: »

Wow, that one study that agrees with you clearly is more important than the combined avalanche of studies that contradict your point.

Piss-poor methodology to be using for that study anyway, all that really shows is that young people in entry level jobs make more or less the same money.
There's a lot of reasons that focusing solely on childless people is going to be skewed, it'd be better to look at a comparison between childless women only and all men regardless of parenthood status

I'd love to see all of these studies that you say you have.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'm not going to pursue every point you make. You are exercised and energetic. I don't object to that. I'm lazy, and justify my lazy approach by suggesting that many AH readers don't have the appetite for lengthy multi-quote posts!

More I am determined and have the facts on my side too.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'm a feminist (a "Joe Soap" one). Nobody is in charge of me, or my feminist sentiments. I think you regard attention-grabbing extremist nutters as the leaders of the movement. In my view, they are noticed for views that are not mainstream, because such views sell more newspapers.

There are 2 different kinds of feminist.

The ones who hate men, are in control of charities like Women's Aid, Rape Crisis Centers, EU, UN, WHO, Amnesty International and loads more beside and who control media and also many governments, plus those who support them fully.

Then there are feminists who just 'believe' the label has something to do with equality.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

In exchange for sex, childbearing, childcare, and homemaking.

It's called a relationship.

Something for you to consider.

When a man asks a woman to marry him he gets on one knee and offers her gold and jewels in order to attract her.

You make it seem like she's dragged off the streets and forced to do all of those things.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Men are expected to look after their women.

If I saw anyone in trouble I'd help them regardless of gender.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Fewer obstacles than in the past, largely because feminism has had some success. But there are still many work situations where women are disadvantaged because of the attitude of men to women employees. A case of "much done, more to do".

Fewer obstacles my backside.

Women have been freed by one thing only.

Birth control.

Made by a man of course.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And all the others were - wait for it - men. Besides, Constance Markievicz was an idiosyncratic character, far from a typical woman of her day, far even from a typical politically-involved woman of her day.

So let's get this straight.

Women and men could both vote in the elections in 1918.

One of them was a woman.

The reason so few women have ever put themselves forward was because they may get pregnant and not be able to do the job.

Until a fantastic chap came up with birth control.

Those patriarchal gentlemen sitting in their oak paneled rooms drinking their brandies smoking cigars while twirling their mustachios must have really had a bad day then.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I have no doubt that patriarchy disadvantages men in some ways. I don't think that, overall, it is worse for men than women.

That's cos you are a feminist.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You slip up here: "dog eat dog" is a male model, both as a figure of speech and it what it coveys about social organisation.

***NEWS FLASH***

Human means man or woman.

A dog can be either sex as well

Minera

S.L.F wrote: »

There are 2 different kinds of feminism.

While I agree that there are different kinds of feminism, I also believe there are more than 2 'kinds'. Pigeon holing or putting people into defined 'boxes' is rather a closed minded approach.

S.L.F wrote: »

Then there are feminists who just 'believe' the label has something to do with equality.

That's just insulting! The main reason I started this thread is to find from the good people on boards why or even if there is a certain stigma attached to admitting bring a feminist and if so why?

I've found my answer methinks!

Shakespeare's Sister

Shur I've seen complaining elsewhere over that young girl who won the Nobel prize getting more focus than the man who won a Nobel prize.

Victim of the Taliban yet somehow someone can work sexism against men into it.

Woman-hating on the net is getting more fashionable by the day. Hardline feminism is sh-t but a handy stick to beat all women with by woman-haters.

Shakespeare's Sister

So women who are feminists and in control of the likes of Women's Aid, Rape Crisis Centers (oh NOEZ!!! Support services for people who have been raped), EU, UN, WHO, Amnesty International = man-haters.

It just gets more and more delightful. And not a moderator bothering.

S.L.F

Minera wrote: »

While I agree that there are different kinds of feminism, I also believe there are more than 2 'kinds'. Pigeon holing or putting people into defined 'boxes' is rather a closed minded approach.



That's just insulting! The main reason I started this thread is to find from the good people on boards why or even if there is a certain stigma attached to admitting bring a feminist and if so why?

I've found my answer methinks!

When asked about the real horrors of feminism and after looking through a feminist lens the answers are usually,

"they don't understand feminism, all those bad people are just extremists but we can't condemn them cos they are part of the sisterhood"

When it comes to insulting I find just comparing feminism to Nazism does the trick, as someone else said Feminism is just Nazis in knickers.

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

Shur I've seen complaining elsewhere over that young girl who won the Nobel prize getting more focus than the man who won a Nobel prize.

Victim of the Taliban yet somehow someone can work sexism against men into it.

Woman-hating on the net is getting more fashionable by the day. Hardline feminism is sh-t but a handy stick to beat all women with by woman-haters.

That's interesting.

The hate movement of feminism has been calling this young girl one of their own.

However she could not be because I am told she also wants boys to be educated as well, that rules her out of the sisterhood.

Personally I'd be more inclined to call her an MRA because we believe in equal rights and responsibilities.

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

So women who are feminists and in control of the likes of Women's Aid, Rape Crisis Centers (oh NOEZ!!! Support services for people who have been raped), EU, UN, WHO, Amnesty International = man-haters.

It just gets more and more delightful. And not a moderator bothering.

Women's Aid have stated several times that it is only a tiny minority of men who are abused by their female partners.

This has been proved to be a complete fabrication.

The real figures are close to 50-50.

In any case the reasons for domestic abuse are children learning by example when their parents fight and they learned from their own parents and so forth.

The Rape Crisis Centers were made by radical feminists and as we all know they are the most poisonous of the lot.

Re:-EU, UN, WHO, Amnesty

All of these organisations have thousands of researchers.

So it would not be unreasonable for them to have some mention on their websites about male victims of domestic abuse wouldn't it.

I challenge you to find some.

Shakespeare's Sister

You said feminist women who control those places hate men. Simple as.

That is what I read about that girl who won the Nobel prize - "she's getting more focus than the man, that's sexism against men". Despicable but all you can bring in is an anti feminist angle.

Yeh Paul Elam and his ilk really are into equality with their hatred of women and such. But I understand he's not representative of all MRA, just like the hardliners aren't representative of all feminists - this will not be acknowledged though; never ever ever ever. Because it's inconvenient.

You have also said that no feminists want boys to get an education - you are even resorting to lying.

And now... feminists have killed millions of Jews?

hatrickpatrick

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

Yeh Paul Elam and his ilk really are into equality with their hatred of women and such. But I understand he's not representative of all MRA, just like the hardliners aren't representative of all feminists - this will not be acknowledged though; never ever ever ever. Because it's inconvenient.

The problem is that extremist MRAs don't tend to get things done. Extremist feminists do. So while neither extreme is representative of the wider movement, extremist feminists are causing destructive social and legal changes. Extremist MRAs far less so.

hatrickpatrick

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Has that anything to do with our society having patriarchal values? Or might it be genetic? Or might it be that men buy into the "men are stronger and tougher" notion that is often a concomitant of patriarchal thinking, and are neglectful of their health?

I don't know the answers, so I would not use longevity data to support any argument I make in this area.

Honest question, how is it relevant? The fact remains that it's an area of life in which men are not equal, and it gets almost no attention in gender equality discussions.

Shakespeare's Sister

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The problem is that extremist MRAs don't tend to get things done. Extremist feminists do. So while neither extreme is representative of the wider movement, extremist feminists are causing destructive social and legal changes. Extremist MRAs far less so.

That's fair enough, but the refusal to acknowledge not all feminists/those who hold views that would be considered feminist are the hardliners is purely because of it being inconvenient to do so - nothing more.

hatrickpatrick

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

That's fair enough, but the refusal to acknowledge not all feminists/those who hold views that would be considered feminist are the hardliners is purely because of it being inconvenient to do so - nothing more.

I don't think that's the whole story tbh. For instance, while not all feminists agree with banning songs due to their allegedly "offensive" lyrical content, I haven't seen many feminists actively speak out against such campaigns.

KomradeBishop

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't think that's the whole story tbh. For instance, while not all feminists agree with banning songs due to their allegedly "offensive" lyrical content, I haven't seen many feminists actively speak out against such campaigns.

In what ways should they be speaking out? I don't really get that criticism - it seems to infer tacit support of the extremists, but without any backing, or suggestion of what to do to speak out (and when I ask, what should be done, tends not to get answered).

iwantmydinner

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Couple of things stand out to me here.

1. Ordinary, "Joan Soap" (you're excluding the Joe Soaps there by the way) feminists like me just don't count - is that correct? WTF is a useful idiot?

2. I have never put a man down solely for being a man, neither has any self-identified feminist I know, so please qualify your statements. Using the word "some" would be useful, for a start.

3. I've never heard of this charity that looks to get women who kill their partners "off the hook"? Can you provide a link? Will I discover that their mission is far more nuanced than the way you have portrayed it? Will it turn out to be a small bunch of nutters that somehow managed to get charitable status?

4. There are probably a LOT more feminists (men and women) in power than you realise, who don't conform to the rather simplistic image of feminists that you are gripping onto for dear life.

5. Patriarchy sucks for EVERYONE. MEN under huge obligations, women disallowed from participating in things like education, or denied inheritance rights.

6. Men really very often don't listen to what women have to say. So often. There will be men reading this very post who will give it the visual equivalent of "in one ear and out the other" simply because I'm a woman, and a feminist woman at that. I know that because I talk to men who don't listen to me because I am a woman. Men who went on to agree with a man who literally said the exact same thing I did moments earlier. That has literally happened me, more than once.

7. You asked where the bitterness in your posts was a while back...

ETA: 8. Before feminism started, I would have been considered property. A chattel.

S.L.F., you fancy addressing these points at all?