Is feminism a dirty word?

Wibbs

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The dismissal of whataboutery always amuses me. I never heard of the word before I started debating with feminists.

"Mansplaining" is another one. While such terms can most certainly carry weight in a debate, all too often, if not usually IME, they're a blanket defence and get out clause for when someone's opposing argument just doesn't add up. So I'd add it to my signs of likely BS list of patriarchy/paygap/rape culture/trigger warning. Almost always followed by a "but... but... [insert personal and subjective feels to head off debate and avoid the subjective that negates my point]".

KomradeBishop

Wibbs wrote: »

Well if you've not questioned these to the point where you can see my point it says everything about the solidity of your position and any arguments that may come from that position.

But since you asked and this may prove difficult for your "male feminist" to digestm but here you go:

Paygap

And here are a few others for your delectation.

In short I rest my case.

Hmm..that is pretty fascinating, both of those authors have ties to the Libertarian think-tank network (i.e. Koch brothers), and are members of this discreditable organization (e.g. supported nonsense like trying to remove teaching of global warming from schools, labelling it 'junk science'):
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Independent_Women%27s_Forum

So ya, should be careful with your sources there - if you're looking for information that will misinform, anything tied to the Libertarian think-tank network is very high up there in the bullshít department (so would not count those articles as credible).


Really weird though - didn't think Libertarians/Koch's would be funding stuff like that - very interesting. I had an inkling there was an intentional effort in all forms of media, to create an 'Us vs Them' narrative in gender-based discussions, and it's the perfect topic to spin controversy in, for trying to distract people from more important issues (think 'divide and rule').

KomradeBishop

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

With respect, to ask for a citation for the paygap just means that you have taken it as a truth without ever looking into the figures behind it.
Here is the first link I found on google. http://www.iwf.org/blog/2432979/Gender-Wage-Gap-Is-Feminist-Fiction There are loads more.

This is that same discreditable organization again - maybe there's truth to the info presented there, but really need a better source.

RayM

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Indeed but if you read the extracts I put up she does say that all me are responsible for enabling rape by their actions or lack thereof.
She blames all men for the fear women have.
She claims the problem is men. Not particular men but men in general. I am not sure how that could be seen as anything other than offensive. Substitute the word black, gypsy, muslim or traveller for man in her article and see how it reads and imagine the backlash.

This could go on forever, couldn't it? You could keep misinterpreting her article as blaming all men for the fear women have, and I could keep repeating the fact that she's not blaming all men, but is guilty of gifting "men's rights" types the opportunity to play the victim.

And yeah, let's draw equivalence between perceived "misandry" (a fairly ludicrous term to begin with) and discrimination against black people, gypsies, Muslims and travellers. The victim mentality just gets worse and worse...

Pawwed Rig wrote:

The dismissal of whataboutery always amuses me. I never heard of the word before I started debating with feminists. I give examples where men are discriminated against (and I could give many more) but that can be dismissed as whatabouteryhttp://b-static.net/vbulletin/images/smilies/pacman.gif. I am sure you will also dismiss the fact that my son will on average get a worse education than the girls in his class, be more likely to drop out of school early and be less likely to get a third level qualification. He can also be accused of rape by having consensual sex with his girlfriend when they are both 15 when she cannot. If he is convicted of an offence he is more likely to goto prison than a girl who has committed the same offence. If his marriage breaks up he has little or no chance of staying in his house or getting custody of his children. But sure that is all whataboutery so lets dismiss it.

Oh, being a man is just so difficult, isn't it? I have to admit, It is a testament to our inherent strength and indefatigable resilience that men have overcome so much discrimination to become the most dominant group in almost every facet of public life.

As for 'whataboutery', I think the term was coined by John Hume, describing the regular games of 'Snap!' (except with moral outrage, rather than cards) that went on between Loyalists and Republicans during negotiations.

mrkiscool2

RayM wrote: »

This could go on forever, couldn't it? You could keep misinterpreting her article as blaming all men for the fear women have, and I could keep repeating the fact that she's not blaming all men, but is guilty of gifting "men's rights" types the opportunity to play the victim.

Yes, that's exactly what we are doing. Sure don't all men not have the potential to be rapists and not all women the potential to be raped? Would ya ever cop on to yourself lad? She is blaming all men. If one of your mates goes to a strip club or hires a prostitute and you know, according to her you're endorsing rape. And if all men are endorsing rape than all women are scared and it's because of men. If you actually read the article you'd clearly see that. She wants to put off her victim-complex off as being caused by men which is bullsh1t.

RayM wrote: »

And yeah, let's draw equivalence between perceived "misandry" (a fairly ludicrous term to begin with) and discrimination against black people, gypsies, Muslims and travellers. The victim mentality just gets worse and worse...

Calling misandry ludicrous is misandrist of you just so you're aware. It would be similar to saying that calling racism a ludcrious term would be racist.

RayM wrote: »

Oh, being a man is just so difficult, isn't it? I have to admit, It is a testament to our inherent strength and indefatigable resilience that men have overcome so much discrimination to become the most dominant group in almost every facet of public life.

As for 'whataboutery', I think the term was coined by John Hume, describing the regular games of 'Snap!' (except with moral outrage, rather than cards) that went on between Loyalists and Republicans during negotiations.

Being a person in general is tough. And I do feel for our young boys growing up. More and more they are growing up in an enviroment that is more and more emasculated, making them feel worthless. Thats the biggest crime of all

Minera

Yurt! wrote: »

I'm not moaning about women being a majority in the caring professions, it's just how it is. I was using it as an example of the choices different genders make in careers and how the myth of the wage gap perpetuates itself.

Female engineers have a higher value to companies simply because there's less of them (different genders making different choices). Large engineering companies are compelled to fall all over themselves to hire any female engineers in the name of 'diversity', and often don't hire on merit. Not exactly the patriarchy at work is my point.


You've lost me with the circumcision comment.

EDIT: I'm not suggesting females are inferior engineers. What I'm saying is, a skilled female engineer finds it easier to get and maintain work by virtue of their scarcity in the labour market. They often find themselves in visible management positions much quicker than similarly experienced men, all in the name of 'equality'.

Is it not possible that the women interviewing for the position are very capable of the job and are hired on merit rather than diversity, what proof is there to back your claim? At the end of the day 2 people of opposite sex both same qualifications and experience, and one gets the job over the other is it one did a better interview or have they been hired because they are male or female?

S.L.F

RayM wrote: »

I'm not that familiar with Una Mullally's opinions (I generally find her writing a bit annoying, whatever the topic), but I've never seen anything to suggest that Ivana Bacik is a 'female supremacist'. It actually sounds like a really ludicrous thing to say.

Yes but when a public representative who claims to be for gender equality has a meeting but deliberately excludes the other gender then you have to know she is not being very straight with everyone.

(The place where she speaks is about 3/4 of the way down)

shruikan2553

Minera wrote: »

Is it not possible that the women interviewing for the position are very capable of the job and are hired on merit rather than diversity, what proof is there to back your claim? At the end of the day 2 people of opposite sex both same qualifications and experience, and one gets the job over the other is it one did a better interview or have they been hired because they are male or female?

There is a large demand for women in the STEM areas. Most are hired on merit of course, they still have a job to do but if 2 people are quite close it is often that a woman would be chosen.

Minera

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

Why don't men apply for roles in the caring professions? They're full of women because of being seen as jobs that women are suited to - this goes way way back.
Who thinks along the lines of baby boys'/boys' foreskins as belonging to potential rapists?

Why do young women typically earn more and why is their value higher in engineering?

I work in a caring profession and there is roughly a 50/50 male/female ratio although I do appreciate your point that it's not the same everywhere! ( the ratio definitely as NOTHING to do with equality in the work place)

P. Breathnach

Wibbs wrote: »

Well if you've not questioned these to the point where you can see my point it says everything about the solidity of your position and any arguments that may come from that position.

That argument falls far below your usual standard. Because I say nothing specific about your list, you infer that I accept the stuff without reservation. I don't base, and never have based, any arguments on "the paygap, the 1 in 4 rape figure, the education gap, the medical access gap, rape culture in the western world". So don't try to hang them about my neck.

But since you asked and this may prove difficult for your "male feminist" to digestm but here you go:

Paygap

And here are a few others for your delectation.

Your jibe about any difficulties I might have is also unworthy, straying into the territory of attacking the poster rather than the post.

Here is my position: I recognise that "the paygap, the 1 in 4 rape figure, the education gap, the medical access gap, rape culture in the western world" are often mentioned in debates on feminism; I am aware that evidence can be weak or contested; I am equally aware that challenges to the claims are also weak (as with the evidence you adduced here); that is why I don't lean on any of it.

In short I rest my case.

Don't rest on it. In order to try to undermine my position as a feminist, you have tried to ascribe positions to me that I have never espoused, and then made as if you have thoroughly bested me in argument by citing equally-flimsy challenges.

cdoherty86

Feminism is derived from ideas of the communist Trotsky.
Trotsky, a communist hated the idea of families so he invented Feminism.

Most people don't actually understand what Feminism is or what it entails so if you accuse its followers of being dupes, you get slapped on the wrist.

It's really a waste of time talking about because only Trotsky knows what it means.

Minera

shruikan2553 wrote: »

There is a large demand for women in the STEM areas. Most are hired on merit of course, they still have a job to do but if 2 people are quite close it is often that a woman would be chosen.

I'll hold my hand up I don't know anything about the engineering field or work places so I've no idea what the system around it is like. But I really cannot believe that a woman should be chosen for the simple fact that she is a woman! I'm not twisting the debate here but if that is the case why a men not standing up and saying so?
IMO it's a sexist move to hire a woman because she is just that!

Shakespeare's Sister

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Feminism is derived from ideas of the communist Trotsky.
Trotsky, a communist hated the idea of families so he invented Feminism.

Most people don't actually understand what Feminism is or what it entails so if you accuse its followers of being dupes, you get slapped on the wrist.

It's really a waste of time talking about because only Trotsky knows what it means.

Did the Suffragettes (members of the early women's rights movement) only come into being because of the ideals of Leon Trotsky?

cdoherty86

I'm just curious. How many Feminists are actually aware their beliefs were largely inspired by communist Trotsky?

Trotsky hated the idea of a family because the male was a dominant character which opposed exploitation of his family.

Now it's perfectly acceptable to society if a woman wants to sell her body for shekels.

Is society aspiring women become prostitutes, pole dancers..etc?

Is that what Feminism is about?

cdoherty86

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

Did the Suffragettes (members of the early women's rights movement) only come into being because of the ideals of Leon Trotsky?

Go and read the work of Trotsky, he is the proponent of Feminism because he couldn't figure out a way to commodify the female.

Now thanks to him, women are mere sex objects.

Sand

S.L.F wrote: »

Yes but when a public representative who claims to be for gender equality has a meeting but deliberately excludes the other gender then you have to know she is not being very straight with everyone.

(The place where she speaks is about 3/4 of the way down)

I always knew I was justified in my dislike of Bacik.

Honestly, if someone wants to have a "No Boys Allowed" club, fine. But don't claim to be fighting for equality.

Shakespeare's Sister

cdoherty86 wrote: »

I'm just curious. How many Feminists are actually aware their beliefs were largely inspired by communist Trotsky?

Did the Suffragettes (members of the early women's rights movement) only come into being because of the ideals of Leon Trotsky?

Trotsky hated the idea of a family because the male was a dominant character which opposed exploitation of his family.

Now it's perfectly acceptable to society if a woman wants to sell her body for shekels.

Is society aspiring women become prostitutes, pole dancers..etc?

Is that what Feminism is about?

Are you asking or telling?

During and before Trotsky's time, feminism/the women's rights movement was about women having the vote and more work/education choices. Are you saying this was inspired purely by Leon Trotsky?

I thought feminists were opposed to prostitution, pole-dancing etc?

Bepolite

Moist - that's a dirty word.

cdoherty86

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

Did the Suffragettes (members of the early women's rights movement) only come into being because of the ideals of Leon Trotsky?

Are you asking or telling?

During and before Trotsky's time, feminism/the women's rights movement was about women having the vote and more work/education choices. Are you saying this was inspired purely by Leon Trotsky?

*sigh*

Beyonce was a proponent of banning the word "bossy" which Emma Watson talked about at a UN conference last week. Obviously inspired by Mark Zuckerberg's surrogate mother and dupe, Sheryl Sandberg.

Beyonce is married to Jay Z who refers to women as "Bitches" and "hoes" yet proposes banning the word "bossy"

She was beat up by Jay Z yet stays with him. Let's not talk about Game of Thrones and Rihanna.

Incidentally, the entertainment industry continues to market women as nothing but sex objects.

Feminism is for dupes really, it doesn't mean anything. It's a fake movement.

Minera

Bepolite wrote: »

Moist - that's a dirty word.

that made me laugh

Shakespeare's Sister

cdoherty86 wrote: »

*sigh*

Beyonce was a proponent of banning the word "bossy" which Emma Watson talked about at a UN conference last week. Obviously inspired by Mark Zuckerberg's surrogate mother and dupe, Sheryl Sandberg.

Beyonce is married to Jay Z who refers to women as "Bitches" and "hoes" proposed banning the word "bossy"

Incidentally, the entertainment industry continues to market women as nothing but sex objects.

Feminism is for dupes really, it doesn't mean anything. It's a fake movement.

What are you sighing for? I asked whether the original women's rights movement advocating more rights for women was purely influenced by Trotsky? (As the original women's rights movement was active around the time Trotsky was).

Feminists aren't fans of women being referred to as bitches and ho's and being beaten. Just because Beyoncé might think she's a feminist doesn't mean she is.

cdoherty86

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

What are you sighing for? I asked whether the original women's rights movement advocating more rights for women was purely influenced by Trotsky? (As the original women's rights movement was active around the time Trotsky was).

Feminists aren't fans of women being referred to as bitches and ho's and being beaten.

Trotsky hated the family unit and he couldn't figure out a way to destroy it so he invented Feminism.

Feminism is about women believing in the illusion they have power when really they are just slaves.

Selling your body is a sign of empowerment? You really think this? If that's the case, Trotsky achieved his objectives.

Shakespeare's Sister

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Selling your body is a sign of empowerment? You really think this?

You know I don't.
It's easy to pretend prostitution and being sex objects etc is equated with feminism, but nobody actually said that. Feminism is against prostitution, stripping etc.

cdoherty86

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

You know I don't.
It's easy to pretend prostitution and being sex objects etc is equated with feminism, but nobody actually said that. Feminism is against prostitution, stripping etc.

If you think Feminism is against prostitution, you don't really understand the objectives of Feminism.

Plenty of Feminists want prostitution legalised. That's exactly what Trotsky wanted.

Carlos Orange

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

Feminism is against prostitution, stripping etc.

So people who say they are feminists but aren't against prostitution aren't really feminists?

Shakespeare's Sister

psinno wrote: »

So people who say they are feminists but aren't against prostitution aren't really feminists?

Are you saying no feminists are against women selling themselves for sex?
Those who argue for its legalisation do so for protection of those who end up working in it.
I'm sure there are feminists who don't see an issue with it so long as the women aren't subject to abuse, but it would be incredibly disingenuous to claim feminism overall = pro prostitution.

cdoherty86

psinno wrote: »

So people who say they are feminists but aren't against prostitution aren't really feminists?

You have 2 types of Feminists.

Some are against prostitution, some are in favor of legalizing it.

Trotsky hated the idea of family and if you read his work, you'll see he inspired the Feminist movement.

cdoherty86

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

Are you saying no feminists are against women selling themselves for sex?
Those who argue for its legalisation do so for protection of those who end up working in it.
I'm sure there are feminists who don't see an issue with it so long as the women aren't subject to abuse, but it would be incredibly disingenuous to claim feminism overall = pro prostitution.

Feminism is a Trotsky ideology. He wanted women to play a more important role in society. (on the surface)
In a capitalist system, this means a woman being commodifed at the expense of family.

In modern society, a woman is nothing more than a sex object but Trotsky wanted them to believe they were empowered, just as Emma Watson did last week at UN conference.

Women have the illusion of being in control when really they're being conditioned.
They have no power, but they should believe they have. That's what Trotsky wanted, women to sell themselves while at the same time believing they had power when they don't.


Read what Trotsky says if you disbelieve me.

Minera

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Feminism is a Trotsky ideology. He wanted women to play a more important role in society. (on the surface)
In a capitalist system, this means a woman being commodifed at the expense of family.

In modern society, a woman is nothing more than a sex object but Trotsky wanted them to believe they were empowered, just as Emma Watson did last week at UN conference.

Women have the illusion of being in control when really they're being conditioned.
They have no power, that's what Trotsky wanted.

Read what Trotsky says if you disbelieve me.

This is so off topic but ill chance it anyway...

While I'm not overly concerned by Trotsky's aim, I would like to know do you genuinely believe that women hold false power in comparison to men?

cdoherty86

Minera wrote: »

This is so off topic but ill chance it anyway...

While I'm not overly concerned by Trotsky's aim, I would like to know do you genuinely believe that women hold false power in comparison to men?

Honestly? You can call me a misogynist if you want but women have absolutely zero power in the world today.

The objective of Feminism is simply destroying the family and nothing more.

If you can show me evidence where women actually yield power over the ignorance of humanity, I'd be impressed.

Women are given the illusion of having power and nothing more. That's simply what works.

It's true that females out number males in education now and what I'd say to you is, do you think this is coincidental?