Reframing feminism ** mod warning posts 1 and 50 **

Faith

(This post might be a bit rambling and unfocused, so sorry if it is! It’s also meant entirely for opening dialogue on a contentious issue, and it’s not in any way saying that the ethos of this forum is wrong or should change.)

I've been thinking a lot about feminism recently. I think that most of us here understand that feminism refers to equal rights in all areas for men and women. But the name is misleading to many. We're all familiar with the stereotype of the man-hating women who dresses misandry up as "feminism". That has irrevocably damaged the image of a feminist, IMO.

My husband, for instance, unequivocally believes in equal rights for men and woman, and he can't fathom how anyone wouldn't. But when I asked him if he would describe himself as a "feminist", he hesitated for a long time, before saying "I wouldn't like to use that label".

Feminism has an image problem, and I think we all unintentionally contribute to that by using terms like "mansplaining" and "whataboutery". Oftentimes, men who are genuinely well-intentioned attempt to join in on conversations about feminism and they're run off with accusations of whataboutery. (Of course, there are times that people try to derail a conversation or deny that what's being discussed is an issue, but I'm not referring to them in this thread.)

Imagine you and your friend both dislike your jobs, for reasons that are very different. You meet for coffee and she starts complaining about her job – say, her boss is horrible. You can't relate to her specific examples, but you have loads of your own specific ones, so you say "I've never had a horrible boss, but my job is tough because...". She interrupts, saying "You don't get it at all; stop making it about you". You'd be pretty affronted, and pissed off, I'd imagine. I know I would, anyway! I think this speaks to why discussions around rights and equality are so tense and difficult online. Women want to talk about their issues, men want to talk about their issues, and neither side thinks the other understands.

How can we encourage an empathetic, reciprocal conversation?

To go back to my opening point, I really think one of the barriers is the word “feminism”. It implies that it’s only about women. We might know that it’s not, but not everyone knows that. What if we reframe it as “equalism”?

One argument against such a term is that it fails to focus on the specific problems that women disproportionately experience. But “feminism” fails to focus on the specific problems that men disproportionately experience. And I think that that’s part of why men get so pissed off with discussions around feminism. We all have issues that need resolving. Sexual harassment, domestic abuse, pay gaps, suicide, mental health, physical vulnerabilities. It’s not an “Us or them” discussion; it’s an “Us and them” discussion.

I should add here that I’m interested in hearing feedback on this from both men and women. How would you feel about calling yourself something like an “equalist” rather than a “feminist”, and having discussions where you can acknowledge and empathise with the problems experienced by the other gender, while both acknowledging that it doesn’t change the problems you experience? Where you work together to try to find solutions, rather than fighting about which issues are more important?

My final musing is that it’s easy for trolls and misogynists to use terms like “feminazi”, but wouldn’t it sound ridiculous to use a term like “equalnazi”?

MOD WARNING POST 50 " ...stick on topic, be civil to one another, respect that others may have differing opinions to you....ANY breaches of this will result in cards / bans."

bee06

I completely agree. I completely support equality between men and women but being honest I would describe myself as a feminist because there are negative connotations to the word unfortunately. It seems like to be pro women it means a feminist has to be anti-men. But I like men, I love my husband, I have a dad, brothers, male friends etc who I have great craic with and I don't like the thought of them being tarred with the "men are holding women back" brush. I hate the us versus them thing and completely agree that we should always thing us and them (or just us).

Now I know that most feminists aren't anti men but there is definitely a vocal minority there who are leading to negative associations of the word feminist.

In summary to that stream of consciousness, Faith I completely agree that equalism is much better ... not to mention equalism is more about equality for everyone ... men, women, green Martians etc.

Grolschevik

There are multiple types of feminism. There isn't just one. And someone then contradict the others.

See Alison Jaggar, 'Feminist politics and human nature' for a very good introduction.

Faith

Grolschevik wrote: »

There are multiple types of feminism. There isn't just one. And someone then contradict the others.

See Alison Jaggar, 'Feminist politics and human nature' for a very good introduction.

I think you have missed my point entirely .

Grolschevik

Perhaps. It was rather rambling, as you stated at the outset.

But, on balance: No. Not if you persist in the perpetuation of the term 'feminism' as monolithic, as you seem to do. A recognition of the different types of feminisms is absolutely crucial to any sensible discourse about it, and it's essential to the theoretical countering of anti-feminist thought.

However, I reread your post and see where you're coming from.

However, it doesn't change the fact that there is no simple one thing that can be termed 'feminism'.

Can't link it, but google bell hooks, 'Feminism: a movement to end sexist oppression'.

Faith

Grolschevik wrote: »

Perhaps. It was rather rambling, as you stated at the outset.

But, on balance: No. Not if you persist in the perpetuation of the term 'feminism' as monolithic, as you seem to do. A recognition of the different types of feminisms is absolutely crucial to any sensible discourse about it, and it's essential to the theoretical countering of anti-feminist thought.

However, I reread your post and see where you're coming from.

However, it doesn't change the fact that there is no simple one thing that can be termed 'feminism'.

Can't link it, but google bell hooks, 'Feminism: a movement to end sexist oppression'.

I'm interested in the idea that there are different types of feminism. My understanding is that the core tenet of feminism, no matter what type, is advocating for equality for both men and women - socially, politically and economically. This core tenet is what my entire post is based on, nothing more. Are you indicating that this isn't true for all 'branches' of feminism?

mzungu

Interesting post.

Faith wrote: »

My husband, for instance, unequivocally believes in equal rights for men and woman, and he can't fathom how anyone wouldn't. But when I asked him if he would describe himself as a "feminist", he hesitated for a long time, before saying "I wouldn't like to use that label".

I always assumed it meant equal rights and to me it was a complete no brainer too. I will admit that I was blissfully unaware that the movement had morphed into a gross parody of itself, the result of being hijacked by extreme elements. Equal rights for both I am totally for, and always will be. I guess where I hop off the bus is when I am asked to buy into things like 'patriarchy', 'rape culture', 'pay gap' and 'white male privilege' hook, line and sinker. The habit of labelling of anybody that doesn't conform to this new worldview does not endear it to the mainstream punters either. This is feedback I have gotten from both men and women.

So I would be in your husbands camp there. But then again i was never one for labels

Feminism has an image problem, and I think we all unintentionally contribute to that by using terms like "mansplaining" and "whataboutery". Oftentimes, men who are genuinely well-intentioned attempt to join in on conversations about feminism and they're run off with accusations of whataboutery. (Of course, there are times that people try to derail a conversation or deny that what's being discussed is an issue, but I'm not referring to them in this thread.)

I do think stuff like 'mansplaining' is pretty juvenile, but on the other side stuff like 'feminazi' is just as bad. Needless to say when I hear anything like it I cringe. These are pointless buzzwords designed to shut down debate and add nothing to the discourse. This is half the problem, representatives on both sides are grown adults acting like petulant children. These are not the kind of people who engage in constructive debate, and therefore offer absolutely nothing to further either cause.

Imagine you and your friend both dislike your jobs, for reasons that are very different. You meet for coffee and she starts complaining about her job – say, her boss is horrible. You can't relate to her specific examples, but you have loads of your own specific ones, so you say "I've never had a horrible boss, but my job is tough because...". She interrupts, saying "You don't get it at all; stop making it about you". You'd be pretty affronted, and pissed off, I'd imagine. I know I would, anyway! I think this speaks to why discussions around rights and equality are so tense and difficult online. Women want to talk about their issues, men want to talk about their issues, and neither side thinks the other understands.

How can we encourage an empathetic, reciprocal conversation?

A very good point. If half as much energy was used on working together to fix things, than it is to stir things up (both sides guilty here) then we would be a hell of a lot farther on than we are. What you are saying pretty much is the crux of the issue for me, we all want the same things but yet the debate has descended to the level of meaningless clickbait articles and identity politics played out over social media. It is a toxic affair now.

The only thing that is comforting about the whole thing is that, although the crazies may appear numerous, most people in the real world don't engage in such twaddle, and the ones i have met that do are mostly young and don't know any better.

One argument against such a term is that it fails to focus on the specific problems that women disproportionately experience. But “feminism” fails to focus on the specific problems that men disproportionately experience. And I think that that’s part of why men get so pissed off with discussions around feminism. We all have issues that need resolving. Sexual harassment, domestic abuse, pay gaps, suicide, mental health, physical vulnerabilities. It’s not an “Us or them” discussion; it’s an “Us and them” discussion.

To be honest, I think the discussions surrounding sexual harassment are of utmost importance. Speaking for myself here, but I don't get pissed off discussing these issues, it is more how they are framed. Always the same logic.

How do we stop sexual harassment? Men need to stop it.
How do we stop sexism? Men need to stop it.
How do we solve domestic abuse? Men need to stop it.
Etc.

My question is, stop it how exactly? Neither me or any body in my circle engages in the above activities. If they did, they would not be part of that circle any longer.

It seems to me that a lot of these discussions just go round in circles and go nowhere.

Take in the US, we have organisations like RAINN coming out and saying that the ideology prevalent in these discussions is doing more to harm the progress of anti-rape groups. Injecting an agenda into these matters is a recipe for disaster. None of this ideological mantra should be anywhere near the table when it comes to these matters. This ties into the point a few paragraphs above, all this pointless petty point scoring with gender wars/identity politics/whatever else yer 'avin...is the work of people trying to either make money or keep themselves relevant. To be honest, the way these issues are hijacked to further agendas is pretty depressing in itself.

having discussions where you can acknowledge and empathise with the problems experienced by the other gender, while both acknowledging that it doesn’t change the problems you experience?

Absolutely. As it currently stands things are pretty toxic. But I think there needs to be a more professional approach to things. Leaving these things to be solved on the battlefields of Twitter is not the way forward. More professionals involved and leave the vested interests at the door.

Where you work together to try to find solutions, rather than fighting about which issues are more important?

Again, I full agree. We are all in this together, merely biological entities spinning on a rock in the bog arse of the galaxy with zero clue why or how. The least we can all do is try make stuff a hell of a lot easier for ourselves and those that come after.

DM addict

Faith wrote: »

Imagine you and your friend both dislike your jobs, for reasons that are very different. You meet for coffee and she starts complaining about her job – say, her boss is horrible. You can't relate to her specific examples, but you have loads of your own specific ones, so you say "I've never had a horrible boss, but my job is tough because...". She interrupts, saying "You don't get it at all; stop making it about you". You'd be pretty affronted, and pissed off, I'd imagine. I know I would, anyway! I think this speaks to why discussions around rights and equality are so tense and difficult online. Women want to talk about their issues, men want to talk about their issues, and neither side thinks the other understands.

How can we encourage an empathetic, reciprocal conversation?

I am so tempted to try and run with this and draw out workplace problems into a metaphor for the patriarchy, but I'm worried I'll lose the run of myself.

These comparisons never work without more context. I'll try to keep it brief. Let's say I was telling a friend about how my hideous troll of a boss always made me work through my lunch breaks, stay late everyday, work most weekends, and never permitted overtime pay. I'd say I've tried talking to HR about it, but that they're totally on my boss's side and I'm worried about getting a reputation as a whiner. My friend's response was that they also had to stay late every night last week and didn't get overtime pay, but their boss ordered them pizza and let them take time off in lieu, so they TOTALLY get how I feel, and I should just talk to my boss because they can help me out.

I would feel like my friend wasn't listening, was ignoring the difference between my big problem and their small problem, not realising that them getting pizza and time off in lieu gives them a better outcome than me, and not understanding that I can't use my boss as a positive resource the same way they can. I'd be a little pissed off.

But, let's say they said that they actually had another job problem, where it looked like they were going to get moved to a different department and have to commute an extra 30mins a day each way. Their boss was fighting for them, but the head office was still against them and it didn't look good. We could commiserate about how ****ty things are for workers, or we might disagree who's is worst, or I might say that "well at least you'll still make it home while your kids are awake".

Both these people have work problems. They're different problems, but they're both caused by a culture that doesn't value the individual worker. Perhaps I might argue with my friend about which of us has it worse, perhaps I'll be mad that they're making it about them and not listening to how **** things are for me. Or perhaps I'll try and suggest that we could try joining a union to see if there's a way they can help us negotiate better deals for ourselves.

Substitute work problems for gender-based problems, the negative work culture for the patriarchy, and joining a union for femininsm and..... nope, I think I lost the run of myself.

Bugger.


Men and women face different gender based problems. It does mean that it can be hard for one side to see the other side. I think that the historic silencing of women's voices means that a lot of women just want to be heard on certain issues.

It's an undeniable truth that patriarchy hurts men too. It just hurts women more.

Faith wrote: »

To go back to my opening point, I really think one of the barriers is the word “feminism”. It implies that it’s only about women. We might know that it’s not, but not everyone knows that. What if we reframe it as “equalism”?

One argument against such a term is that it fails to focus on the specific problems that women disproportionately experience. But “feminism” fails to focus on the specific problems that men disproportionately experience. And I think that that’s part of why men get so pissed off with discussions around feminism. We all have issues that need resolving. Sexual harassment, domestic abuse, pay gaps, suicide, mental health, physical vulnerabilities. It’s not an “Us or them” discussion; it’s an “Us and them” discussion.

I should add here that I’m interested in hearing feedback on this from both men and women. How would you feel about calling yourself something like an “equalist” rather than a “feminist”, and having discussions where you can acknowledge and empathise with the problems experienced by the other gender, while both acknowledging that it doesn’t change the problems you experience? Where you work together to try to find solutions, rather than fighting about which issues are more important?

My final musing is that it’s easy for trolls and misogynists to use terms like “feminazi”, but wouldn’t it sound ridiculous to use a term like “equalnazi”?

As I said above, the patriarchy hurts men too. Feminism isn't fighting against men, it's fighting against the patriarchy. I don't feel like I need a new term because the term I have covers what I mean it to mean - fighting against systemic gender based inequalities, whether they affect men or women.

Also, my feminism is intersectional - I like to look at how gender intersects with race, sexuality, gender expression, culture, class, etc. So my discussion is already 'us and them and everyone else'. I think that very few real life feminists are actually us vs. them.

I do think it's important to point out that yes, we all have issues, but when it comes to gender based inequalities, OVERALL men come out better than women. That is why discussions often focus on women's rights, because they are more likely to be oppressed/having those rights infringed upon.

eviltwin

I still consider myself a feminist and have no qualms saying so. I'm not advocating for any of the crazy stuff some women are and I think I can distance myself from that but still be feminist. There are still things we need to do, abortion on demand, more equality for migrant and traveller women as well as women in less fortunate parts of the world.

Grolschevik

Faith wrote:

I'm interested in the idea that there are different types of feminism. My understanding is that the core tenet of feminism, no matter what type, is advocating for equality for both men and women - socially, politically and economically. This core tenet is what my entire post is based on, nothing more. Are you indicating that this isn't true for all 'branches' of feminism?

No, I agree with you that that is the core of feminism.

But there are those who would call Hilary Clinton a feminist simply because she's a woman aiming for power. I would argue that she could only be called a feminist in the most restrictive interpretation of the concept.

I reckon I misinterpreted your OP. However, it's good to get the opportunity to throw out some theoretical links! So thanks!

Faith

Some really interesting points coming out of this already!

DM addict wrote: »

Men and women face different gender based problems. It does mean that it can be hard for one side to see the other side. I think that the historic silencing of women's voices means that a lot of women just want to be heard on certain issues.

I would agree. We've suddenly got a voice, particularly with the dawn of the internet.

DM addict wrote: »

I do think it's important to point out that yes, we all have issues, but when it comes to gender based inequalities, OVERALL men come out better than women. That is why discussions often focus on women's rights, because they are more likely to be oppressed/having those rights infringed upon.

I will have to disagree with you there, assuming we're both focusing on the western world. I don't think it's useful to think of it as "Who's worse off". The issues aren't comparable, IMO. When you look at the bigger picture, I think it is quite balanced in terms of risk.

mzungu wrote: »

This is half the problem, representatives on both sides are grown adults acting like petulant children. These are not the kind of people who engage in constructive debate, and therefore offer absolutely nothing to further either cause.
...
The only thing that is comforting about the whole thing is that, although the crazies may appear numerous, most people in the real world don't engage in such twaddle, and the ones i have met that do are mostly young and don't know any better.

I very much agree. It's an emotive issue, of course, but internet discussions tend to bear no resemblance to real-life discussions.

mzungu wrote: »

How do we stop sexual harassment? Men need to stop it.
How do we stop sexism? Men need to stop it.
How do we solve domestic abuse? Men need to stop it.
Etc.

My question is, stop it how exactly? Neither me or any body in my circle engages in the above activities. If they did, they would not be part of that circle any longer.

It seems to me that a lot of these discussions just go round in circles and go nowhere.

I wonder if we could move towards a model when men themselves are invited to design an approach that they would agree with for educating others? The vast majority of men are wonderful, upstanding chaps who would never behave inappropriately toward women. We can't weed out the 'bad' ones from a line-up, so how would we target them?

Rather than patronising "Consent classes" that may imply that all men are potential rapists, how could we, as a whole, approach the issue in a sensitive yet straight-forward manner? I don't have an answer to that, unfortunately, but I suspect the way forward is through encouraging open discussion and education, from an early age.


@ Grolschevik - I agree totally with your point re: Hillary Clinton, and I absolutely understand where you're coming from. I don't think I have ever debated feminism before, and misunderstanding or not, it's good for me to be challenged . So thanks for making me think a little harder about the point I was trying to make!

mzungu

Faith wrote: »

I very much agree. It's an emotive issue, of course, but internet discussions tend to bear no resemblance to real-life discussions.

Absolutely. While the Internet can be great for a lot of things, I think when it comes to serious topics the traditional face to face is the best way to go. That being said, the whole online thing is still an infant pretty much. Maybe as the decades pass it will be a suitable medium in which to have serious topics be discussed. Unfortunately, 2016 is not that time!

I wonder if we could move towards a model when men themselves are invited to design an approach that they would agree with for educating others? The vast majority of men are wonderful, upstanding chaps who would never behave inappropriately toward women. We can't weed out the 'bad' ones from a line-up, so how would we target them?

That's the question right there. I guess a hell of a lot of things need to change. A few offhand thoughts. First of all, serious crime should equal serious time. The minimum jail time needs to be increased a hell of a lot for a start. Currently, as things stand it's all over the place and far too lenient. Get a proper deterrent in place, and that is a solid building block. But the rest, that is the tricky part.

Regarding the content for approach to prevention, I reckon this is where professionals should come in. I have zero answers there unfortunately.

Although I would say you are close to the mark with this:

I suspect the way forward is through encouraging open discussion and education, from an early age.

That would be pretty much my thoughts on it. More parental input also.

Shelga

Faith, I agree with you. I do think the word feminism can negative connotations. Lengthy explanations of why feminism is a good word are all well and good, but in my experience people can react in a less-than-positive way to it, while still clearly being for women's rights.

A word means what people think it means.

If someone asks am I a feminist, I would reply that I'm an egalitarian.

eviltwin

Feminism has always had a bad image. The women fighting for the right to vote, contraception, financial autonomy etc were abused and dismissed as nutters. Turkeys will never vote for Christmas. Anyone who feels threatened by feminism will always try and paint it in a negative light.

midlandsmissus

Evil twin I completely agree.

I was having this conversation with my brother the other day, and I was telling him about an arty festival I was at, where there was a meeting for a group of feminists, and we had a lovely chat.

He instantly said , ,' all feminists are crazy. did you see this extreme woman in the us who did something' ,I forget what it was.

And I said ' no most feminists just work to promote women's right's.'

But as I was listening to him I realised I had heard his stance from men before, and I realised what it was down to,: fear.

If you are afraid of something - what do you do : don't let them have a valid point. You call them all crazy nutjobs.

This bad idea about feminism has come from men. Don't let it work.

eviltwin

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Evil twin I completely agree.

I was having this conversation with my brother the other day, and I was telling him about an arty festival I was at, where there was a meeting for a group of feminists, and we had a lovely chat.

He instantly said , ,' all feminists are crazy. did you see this extreme woman in the us who did something' ,I forget what it was.

And I said ' no most feminists just work to promote women's right's.'

But as I was listening to him I realised I had heard his stance from men before, and I realised what it was down to,: fear.

If you are afraid of something - what do you do : don't let them have a valid point. You call them all crazy nutjobs.

This bad idea about feminism has come from men. Don't let it work.

It saddens me that so many young women buy into that and turn away from feminism or that they feel they have to apologise for it. I, of course, support equal rights for all but I'm a woman so I'm naturally more tuned into issues that might affect me and that's just how it is. Some people choose to speak out for animals, some people choose to speak out for the elderly. This is what I choose to speak out on and if people don't like that - tough, that is there problem, not mine. Its okay to have a cause you champion.

I think maybe younger women in particular feel they don't feminism. I look at my daughter whose 19 and has the world at her feet, she has never had to fight for an education or to work in a male dominated field. She has female role models in all sorts of traditionally male dominated spheres. She has the law to defend her, she has interest groups, she has programs to help her. I sometimes hear her go on about how lucky women are and say "do you think we were just gifted that stuff?" We had to fight and fight hard for it.

There are still things in this country we need to sort out. There are still small pockets of women in this country living a 1950's type life with no voice. Until we make the country a better place for them as well as the less fortunate women in other parts of the world feminism still has a role to play.

Faith

eviltwin wrote: »

Anyone who feels threatened by feminism will always try and paint it in a negative light.

Sure, and can't that also be explained by lack of understanding about what the word means? Many people may fear the word, believing it's a synonym for misandry, or that it represents the belief that women are superior to men, rather than equal.

I'll happily hold my hand up and say I'm with Shelga here: if someone asked me if I am a feminist, I would hesitate to agree with the use of that word because of the negative connotations.

My thought experiment is simply, what if we rename it? What if we change nothing except the title? Would that have any negative effects? And what kind of positive effects would it have?

Declaring yourself as "not a feminist" is fine, even well-received in certain circles - oftentimes because of the misunderstandings around what feminism is. Declaring yourself as "not an equalist" wouldn't be quite so fine, I'd guess. You'll still have the misogynists and the horrible people of the world refusing to acknowledge women as equals, but a greater proportion of the [currently silent] majority may be more comfortable with openly declaring themselves as "equalists". That, in my estimation, would move the whole feminism cause further much faster than it's moving right now.

It would be far from the first time we renamed something to change its image. One example that comes to mind is the move from the term "mental retardation" to "intellectual disability". "Retard" became a derogatory word, so we stopped using it and we reframed cognitive limitations as "intellectual disability". THat's the thought process I'm following when I suggest moving from the term "feminism" and using a new name that better reflects the description of the movement.

eviltwin

The movement hasn't changed though, it's just been hijacked by idiots. Instead of saying 'I'm not a feminist' we should be telling them that they are not feminist because they are not. It's not feminist to see yourself as a victim. Feminism is about empowerment.

eviltwin

Maybe it's an age thing. I'm old enough to remember when feminism really meant something, when the women in the movement were strong. All I hear now is stuff about safe spaces, triggers and how some women are offended by everything.

FortySeven

Faith wrote: »

(This post might be a bit rambling and unfocused, so sorry if it is! It’s also meant entirely for opening dialogue on a contentious issue, and it’s not in any way saying that the ethos of this forum is wrong or should change.)

I've been thinking a lot about feminism recently. I think that most of us here understand that feminism refers to equal rights in all areas for men and women. But the name is misleading to many. We're all familiar with the stereotype of the man-hating women who dresses misandry up as "feminism". That has irrevocably damaged the image of a feminist, IMO.

My husband, for instance, unequivocally believes in equal rights for men and woman, and he can't fathom how anyone wouldn't. But when I asked him if he would describe himself as a "feminist", he hesitated for a long time, before saying "I wouldn't like to use that label".

Feminism has an image problem, and I think we all unintentionally contribute to that by using terms like "mansplaining" and "whataboutery". Oftentimes, men who are genuinely well-intentioned attempt to join in on conversations about feminism and they're run off with accusations of whataboutery. (Of course, there are times that people try to derail a conversation or deny that what's being discussed is an issue, but I'm not referring to them in this thread.)

Imagine you and your friend both dislike your jobs, for reasons that are very different. You meet for coffee and she starts complaining about her job – say, her boss is horrible. You can't relate to her specific examples, but you have loads of your own specific ones, so you say "I've never had a horrible boss, but my job is tough because...". She interrupts, saying "You don't get it at all; stop making it about you". You'd be pretty affronted, and pissed off, I'd imagine. I know I would, anyway! I think this speaks to why discussions around rights and equality are so tense and difficult online. Women want to talk about their issues, men want to talk about their issues, and neither side thinks the other understands.

How can we encourage an empathetic, reciprocal conversation?

To go back to my opening point, I really think one of the barriers is the word “feminism”. It implies that it’s only about women. We might know that it’s not, but not everyone knows that. What if we reframe it as “equalism”?

One argument against such a term is that it fails to focus on the specific problems that women disproportionately experience. But “feminism” fails to focus on the specific problems that men disproportionately experience. And I think that that’s part of why men get so pissed off with discussions around feminism. We all have issues that need resolving. Sexual harassment, domestic abuse, pay gaps, suicide, mental health, physical vulnerabilities. It’s not an “Us or them” discussion; it’s an “Us and them” discussion.

I should add here that I’m interested in hearing feedback on this from both men and women. How would you feel about calling yourself something like an “equalist” rather than a “feminist”, and having discussions where you can acknowledge and empathise with the problems experienced by the other gender, while both acknowledging that it doesn’t change the problems you experience? Where you work together to try to find solutions, rather than fighting about which issues are more important?

My final musing is that it’s easy for trolls and misogynists to use terms like “feminazi”, but wouldn’t it sound ridiculous to use a term like “equalnazi”?

How very odd. I was planning to start a thread on this very subject. A new movement. Based solely on equality. It does away with all the isms and just focuses on everyone being equal. The current fragmented and often confrontational special interest groups are ALL losing credibility.

Cooperation is always more likely to succeed but there would be some hard compromises to be made.

Faith

eviltwin wrote: »

The movement hasn't changed though, it's just been hijacked ... Feminism is about empowerment.

I absolutely agree with you. How would you suggest that it gets back on message?

eviltwin

Faith wrote: »

I absolutely agree with you. How would you suggest that it gets back on message?

No idea, I'm not even sure it can tbh. It doesn't help that we have a public and media that love to give oxygen to random women with insane ideas and then plant the seed that all feminists think that way. We need to get back to the issues and ignore the personalities.

This week the Women's Aid annual report was released, hardly a mention on social media but everyone is talking about a building in UCC being named after a man who made a few inappropriate comments. Stuff like that is part of the problem but when you have a generation so blessed that's what happens. Every one needs something to complain about I guess. I would like to see more younger women engaging with the movement. I'm involved in a few pro choice groups and very few of the members are under the age of 30, that frustrates me so much.

I don't know, I'm very sad to see its become a dirty word. I wish younger women would grow a pair and be vocal about things that bother them but in a positive way rather than always acting like a victim.

Macha

I don't think the movement has been hijacked. I think the backlash has made us think that some of the things we ask for are unreasonable in the same way that today, Ronald Regan would be considered a socialist or 'New Labour' in the UK shifted so far, our understanding of where the centre was also shifted.

Yes, there are people who say silly things but there are a lot of sensible people fighting for sensible things like equal pay, reproductive rights, affordable childcare, better public representation, better treatment of sexual abuse victims etc.

But the backlash, at least online (where it is largely male dominated), is shocking. For example, there's a huge focus on men who are wrongly accused of rape. That's a terrible thing but the focus on the failure to take rape seriously etc, that hardly registers. Unequal pay being "explained away", etc etc. There's also a stupid amount of 'whataboutery', comparing developed country feminists' concerns with FGM etc in developing countries.

I get sad and angry when I hear women saying they don't consider themselves feminists. It shows they see feminism through the eyes of the backlash rather than what it truly is.

FortySeven

Most men's rights groups would be based around fathers rights. A subject I note has not been mentioned. The breakup of families and the lack of rights for fathers sows the seeds of feudalism when it comes to feminism.

There are not many voices calling for lower wages for women, advocating rape or taking away rights of women. The abortion issue is more an issue of religion than a gender problem.

I would describe myself as wanting equality but I despise what feminism has become. There is a considerable amount of having cake and eating it too and it has now got to a point that men are having to fight back to protect their own interests.

I think a new collaborative movement based around common principles perhaps those enshrined in the UN charter on human rights and also children's rights would be a roaring success and would marginalize those few loud mouthed idiots on all sides. Presenting a united front.

Fathers rights would be a big issue on the men's side though. Women really have to give quite a lot there imo.

meeeeh

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't know, I'm very sad to see its become a dirty word. I wish younger women would grow a pair and be vocal about things that bother them but in a positive way rather than always acting like a victim.

I think that is a bit unfair to younger women. Social media changed things a lot. Now whoever shouts the loudest becomes a spokesperson for the movement. Usually it's the most radical parts and they suck all the oxygen out of debate. Maybe #notallmen and expressions like rape culture have valid space in debate but for me they are off putting. And I think they would be even more off putting for younger generation who basically get all news feed on twitter or facebook. There is no editing on social media and there is no restraint. The Stamford rape case is prime example, the was some valid discussion but there were also death threats to the judge and similar nonsense. It's wrong to think that only Trump attract social media thuggery. All movements do. The only difference is that possibly Trump has the type of audience that is prepared to ignore it while it damages other causes.

I can understand Faith's reasoning behind the 'name change' I am not sure it will solve anything. Social media is great because everyone has a voice but it is time also for the debate how to edit those voices to actually represent what people stand for. And that is much easier said than done. All in all I don't think younger people ate staying away because their lives are so cushy they are staying away because extremes with their constant bombardment make it seem like they are mainstream.

Macha

FortySeven wrote: »

Most men's rights groups would be based around fathers rights. A subject I note has not been mentioned. The breakup of families and the lack of rights for fathers sows the seeds of feudalism when it comes to feminism.

Because it's not a discussion of men's rights. Family law is the only area of law in which there is positive discrimination towards women but it's based on a sexist logic that looking after children etc is wimmin's work.

FortySeven wrote: »

There are not many voices calling for lower wages for women, advocating rape or taking away rights of women. The abortion issue is more an issue of religion than a gender problem.

Of course not. Just voices claiming the wage gap is because of womens' conscious choices, saying nothing about the dismal conviction rate of rapists or shocking treatment of rape victims in our justice system or saying nothing about other discriminiations that women face. Abortion is damn well a women's issue when it's only women who are forced to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term based on belief in a white male sky fairy. I have more right to bodily integrity when I'm dead than when I'm a live, pregnant woman in Ireland.

FortySeven wrote: »

I would describe myself as wanting equality but I despise what feminism has become. There is a considerable amount of having cake and eating it too and it has now got to a point that men are having to fight back to protect their own interests.

This is the logic I have a problem with. Women's and men's rights are not a pendulum where it can swing too far in one direction and then the other group suffers. Both men and women suffer when women suffer discrimination. All this stuff about 'fighting back' is so, so misguided.

FortySeven wrote: »

I think a new collaborative movement based around common principles perhaps those enshrined in the UN charter on human rights and also children's rights would be a roaring success and would marginalize those few loud mouthed idiots on all sides. Presenting a united front.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard this. Let's not fight for women's rights, let's fight for human's rights! No, sorry. Many women still suffer serious discrimination because they are women. Any general approach to human rights that doesn't recognise gender-based discrimination is destined to fail.

FortySeven wrote: »

Fathers rights would be a big issue on the men's side though. Women really have to give quite a lot there imo.

Yeah, you see I don't understand the women who feel like they're giving up something here. Looking after children is bloody hard work. Men should get paternity leave, men should get longer term parental leave to see their children more often than just the weekend and the better parent should get custody in the event of separation. But of course men's rights groups focus on this issue because it's one of the only areas of life where women are positively discriminated. If you're a woman, well it's pretty much everything else.

FortySeven

I'm for women's equality. I disagree that abortion is a gender issue. I am pro choice , I'm a white man that doesn't live in the sky. I'm an atheist and your fight is not with me on abortion. I'm on your side!

To me, feminism has run its course. It's all too easy to just have an ideal and fight for it without realizing that the other side gave in years ago and actually supports what you want. Equality.

You see, you support all the things I want as a father. I support all the things you want. Surely we are better off working together to change society for the benefit of all.

Divide and conquer isn't working, it's just creating more and more whacky off shoots like mgtow and the whole tumblr debacle.

FortySeven

Also.

Sentencing for crimes would be largely discriminatory to men. Women receive much more lenient sentences for crime.

This may well be due to male influence believing women should be protected somehow. (Patriarchy) but this is where the having cake and eating it comes in. I don't see feminists looking to change this institution.

These reasons and many others are the reason that the movement is largely discredited. It's equality when it's in women's favour but silence when it comes to anything that might cost.

I'm not having a go here. Nor trying to stifle debate, just attempting to highlight some of the issues men have with feminism.

I wildly support collaboration on equality but the first time I attempt to point out some of the opposing viewpoints I feel like I am being shouted down.

If you just want to shroud the same old feminism in a new cloak to attempt to rebrand then it will fail. If you truly want collaboration for equality then there are some hard compromises to be made. This is all I am attempting to point out.

eviltwin

FortySeven wrote: »

I'm for women's equality. I disagree that abortion is a gender issue. I am pro choice , I'm a white man that doesn't live in the sky. I'm an atheist and your fight is not with me on abortion. I'm on your side!

To me, feminism has run its course. It's all too easy to just have an ideal and fight for it without realizing that the other side gave in years ago and actually supports what you want. Equality.

You see, you support all the things I want as a father. I support all the things you want. Surely we are better off working together to change society for the benefit of all.

Divide and conquer isn't working, it's just creating more and more whacky off shoots like mgtow and the whole tumblr debacle.

Only a woman can get pregnant and has to undergo an abortion so that makes it very much a women's issue. Men are affected too but it's not the same.

Ask a migrant woman living here or a traveller if she thinks feminism isn't needed. They need it more than anyone.

Macha

FortySeven wrote: »

I'm for women's equality. I disagree that abortion is a gender issue. I am pro choice , I'm a white man that doesn't live in the sky. I'm an atheist and your fight is not with me on abortion. I'm on your side!

To me, feminism has run its course. It's all too easy to just have an ideal and fight for it without realizing that the other side gave in years ago and actually supports what you want. Equality.

You see, you support all the things I want as a father. I support all the things you want. Surely we are better off working together to change society for the benefit of all.

Divide and conquer isn't working, it's just creating more and more whacky off shoots like mgtow and the whole tumblr debacle.

Why is feminism 'divide and conquer'? If you apply your logic to other types of discrimination, you should be telling LGBT advocates, anti-racism advocates etc to stop fighting their corner, stop dividing and conquering and 'work together'. It just makes no sense.

I'm glad that you're pro choice but abortion is a gender issue. The root of the problem is a woman's life is considered equal to a bunch of cells. If you don't see the gender-based discrimination in that argument, well..

FortySeven wrote: »

Also.

Sentencing for crimes would be largely discriminatory to men. Women receive much more lenient sentences for crime.

This may well be due to male influence believing women should be protected somehow. (Patriarchy) but this is where the having cake and eating it comes in. I don't see feminists looking to change this institution.

These reasons and many others are the reason that the movement is largely discredited. It's equality when it's in women's favour but silence when it comes to anything that might cost.

I'm not having a go here. Nor trying to stifle debate, just attempting to highlight some of the issues men have with feminism.

I wildly support collaboration on equality but the first time I attempt to point out some of the opposing viewpoints I feel like I am being shouted down.

If you just want to shroud the same old feminism in a new cloak to attempt to rebrand then it will fail. If you truly want collaboration for equality then there are some hard compromises to be made. This is all I am attempting to point out.

Like I said, I don't see anyone telling the advocates for refugee rights, LGBT rights, disability rights, older people's rights to stop tearing people apart and just work together in a general sort of way. It's only those working for women's rights, which I find highly suspicious.

FortySeven

eviltwin wrote: »

Ask a migrant woman living here or a traveller if she thinks feminism isn't needed. They need it more than anyone.

Again, it's not feminism they need. It is equality. Why exclude a large part of the population when they are offering to work with you?

eviltwin

FortySeven wrote: »

Again, it's not feminism they need. It is equality. Why exclude a large part of the population when they are offering to work with you?

They actually do have equality the same way I do. The legal protections they have are the same, the problem is the attitudes and culture they live in and for that they need feminism.

FortySeven

Macha wrote: »

Why is feminism 'divide and conquer'? If you apply your logic to other types of discrimination, you should be telling LGBT advocates, anti-racism advocates etc to stop fighting their corner, stop dividing and conquering and 'work together'. It just makes no sense.

I'm glad that you're pro choice but abortion is a gender issue. The root of the problem is a woman's life is considered equal to a bunch of cells. If you don't see the gender-based discrimination in that argument, well..


Like I said, I don't see anyone telling the advocates for refugee rights, LGBT rights, disability rights, older people's rights to stop tearing people apart and just work together in a general sort of way. It's only those working for women's rights, which I find highly suspicious.

You see, I would look at it this way. All those groups you mention would have come about around the same issues. Discrimination and rights. The rights side of all of them has largely been put to bed. I cannot think of a right that I have that any of those others don't. Largely these movements have all been successful and I would argue they are now reduced to educating roles within society.

The rights are there, discrimination will largely fade out in a generation now that the school system is passing equality into the curriculum.

I didn't mean feminism was divide and conquer. I meant society is. ALL those groups you mentioned want equality. Divided they are weak. Infighting is rife eg feminism v men's rights, even the lgbt community is at loggerheads over acceptance of various new gender variations.

They all want the same thing but it is every cause for themselves. Imagine the power of these groups combined.

Macha

FortySeven wrote: »

You see, I would look at it this way. All those groups you mention would have come about around the same issues. Discrimination and rights. The rights side of all of them has largely been put to bed. I cannot think of a right that I have that any of those others don't. Largely these movements have all been successful and I would argue they are now reduced to educating roles within society.

The rights are there, discrimination will largely fade out in a generation now that the school system is passing equality into the curriculum.

Mmm...I see what you're saying but it's a bit more complicated than that because some issues are structural. For example, it's illegal to pay women less for the same job these days but women still in general earn less, ie the pay gap. One of the main factors in this is that women end up taking on more of the caring duties for children, the elderly, the sick and the disabled and therefore seek employment that offers more flexibility but lower rates of pay. Also, traditional women's jobs tend to be paid less, eg cleaner, receptionist, care work.

And I'll say it again (:)) - if you're a man living in Ireland, you have the right to full bodily integrity. Giving up one of your kidneys or, hell, just donating blood could save a life. Would someone ever force you to? No - just imagine the hell that would break loose if the government mandated blood donations. But as a woman, I'm expected to host a foetus in my body for 9 months to save a life even if I don't want to. I mean, you even need written consent to take a organ out of a dead person in this country.

Similarly,

FortySeven wrote: »

I didn't mean feminism was divide and conquer. I meant society is. ALL those groups you mentioned want equality. Divided they are weak. Infighting is rife eg feminism v men's rights, even the lgbt community is at loggerheads over acceptance of various new gender variations.

They all want the same thing but it is every cause for themselves. Imagine the power of these groups combined.

Again, I see where you're coming from but in practice, it's more effective to focus on a single issue. I work in environmental advocacy myself and even within that, we pick a very small area (eg pesticides or GMOs) and focus our resources on some very specific policy change that we believe will improve things. You do have umbrella groups but they're not very effective.

Of course all work within the same framing of human rights but they have to focus on a specific issue or they'd be entirely ineffective.

meeeeh

Another thing (and it's a general observation not related to previous posts) is that feminists at the forefront are mostly also economically left leaning. Hilary Clinton was described as feminist only in the broadest sense and I suspect it's mostly because of her economic and foreign policies. There are some of us who do think equality for women is very important but are at the same time horrified that someone like Ruth Coppinger could end up in government some day. No movement could be everything for everyone and that will also drive away some people.

Shelga

Just today I've seen 3 separate Facebook friends proudly display their brand new, expensive engagement rings on social media.

What's feminist about expecting a massive fancy rock on your finger? Isn't this pick-and-choose feminism?

Isn't it easier to talk about equality for both genders in all aspects of life, whilst recognising that for issues like abortion, our shameful laws reflect poorly on everyone?

IvyTheTerrible

MOD AshwoodFloor, can we have less of the whataboutery please? You can have a read of the charter if you're unsure.

ancapailldorcha

I suppose the first thing to do with such a debate would be to define the term "feminism". A quick Google search threw this up:

Google wrote:

the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

On that basis, it'd be hard to find motivation for opposition to feminism. However, that's not how it's worked in practice in many instances. The way I see it, there are two main issues. The first is that feminism has an image of being about man-hating. The second is that it seems to be concerning itself with what appear to be very trivial issues.

On the first point, I understand that posters here and women in real life shouldn't have to apologise or answer for some of the comments made by prominent feminists in national newspapers. However, it does project that image that feminists hate men and some of it borders on hate speech. Some of these columnists often have lucrative incomes from speaking at events and book sales. Ultimately, there is a market for what they're selling. By contrast, many of the MRA types like Paul Elam are largely confined to obscure corners of the web. There's also a tendency to homogenise men so that we're all treated as being equal when it comes to things like average earnings when most men are effectively excluded from high paying jobs as well. I read the other day about a company which decided to impose a pay gap tax on its male employees even though they'll never become CEOs, professional actors or footballers.

Secondly, a lot of what I've read in columns about women's issues have centred on things which seem trivial, ie "manspreading", division of labour regarding household chores, etc.... This carries that implication that women have largely attained equal status with men in the West barring a few instances here and there. I'm not making this argument of course, just point out its existence.

There's also a tendency today to avoid debate either by shutting it down with slurs and expletives or by creating echo chambers or safe spaces in which dissent is not tolerated. This trend goes well beyond any one movement but its an important consideration. There's also a shift towards disregarding facts and statistics in favor of personalities. I've noticed figures like Milo Yiannopoulos and Donald Trump gaining popularity by appearing as rebels against and oppressive, political correctness-obsessed elites. A lot of men feel like they no longer fit into society nowadays. These chaps are typically working class who don't have the opportunities their fathers did due to automation, more competition for fewer jobs, etc... So, when people like Owen Jones can't express sympathy for them without adding that they're so privileged (here), it's no surprise that they're turning to Breitbart as it, for all its faults, is not demonising them.

I know most feminists don't hate men. They just want to live in a world where 400,000 girls a year don't have their genitals mutilated, where they can enjoy autonomy over their own bodies and not have to deal with being judged on their appearances the same way men don't have to. If these feminists want to engage men they need to stop playing the divide-and-conquer game that has become so widespread in modern discourse.

mzungu

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Women do not receive the same pay as men.

Take these figures from the National Women's Council of Ireland:

The Gender Pay Gap measures the relative difference in the average gross hourly earnings of men and women as a whole.

The latest figures from the EU Commission show that the Gender Pay Gap in Ireland is 13.9% - in other words women in Ireland are paid almost 14% less than men. The Gender Pay Gap exists even though women do better at school and university than men.
In the Irish context, what is perhaps most disturbing is the high cost of motherhood. Figures from the OECD show that in Ireland the Gender Pay Gap for women with no children is -17% but this increases significantly to 14% for women with at least one child – a jump of 31 percentage points. The gender pay gap exists across the sectors.

For the bottom 10% of earners, the Gender Pay Gap in Ireland is 4% but this rises to 24.6% for the top 10% of income earners, suggesting the continued presence of a glass ceiling and indirect discrimination.

NWCI has highlighted the Gender Pay Gap together with SIPTU on Gender Pay Day in February, a day which aims to highlight the amount of additional days a woman has to work so that her pay would be equal to a man’s pay.

http://www.nwci.ie/?/discover/what_we_do/womens_economic_independence/women_and_employment/gender_pay_gap/

Childless women earn on average 17% more....I've no idea why it was put down as -17% though. Almost as if it was a deliberate attempt at spinning! The gap, where it exists, is due to things like maternity leave etc.

BejayusBejayus

I don't think most female feminist Bloggers or journalists represent most women '' women in my circle anyway''
I reckon their are probably far more talented female journalists/Bloggers who look at the world through ''lets say '' more optimistic eyes...but their writings never get published

If you look Amy schumer she's probably the biggest female stand-up comedian Right now ..and she's not funny
she just tapped into the whole victim narrative thing in a few short comedy clips and became a mega star
but if you go on you-tube you'll find far funnier ,wittier Female comedians and nobody barely knows who they are
It's no different than untalented female Journalists , they are just doing the same thing ''sure not all the time but a lot off the time''yes

Dick phelan

Problem with feminism is the old saying empty vessels make the most noise, i'm a man and like most people support equal rights however it's hard not to dislike feminism when the feminism you see in newspapers and online is often just man hating, Most women do not hate men but the feminist movement has a lot of prominent figures who clearly do so it's hard for people to identify with it. Also i'm sorry feminism needs to accept there is no pay gap, it contently get's brought up as a reason for feminism yet it's been debunked several times, difference between wages and earnings ect. Besides abortion i can't think of one right women do not have that is given to men in this country.

midlandsmissus

Dick phelan wrote: »

Problem with feminism is the old saying empty vessels make the most noise, i'm a man and like most people support equal rights however it's hard not to dislike feminism when the feminism you see in newspapers and online is often just man hating, Most women do not hate men but the feminist movement has a lot of prominent figures who clearly do so it's hard for people to identify with it. Also i'm sorry feminism needs to accept there is no pay gap, it contently get's brought up as a reason for feminism yet it's been debunked several times, difference between wages and earnings ect. Besides abortion i can't think of one right women do not have that is given to men in this country.

Representation in all affairs of the country - politics? This is due to many issues and badly needs to change.

Sweetemotion

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Representation in all affairs of the country - politics? This is due to many issues and badly needs to change.

What issues? Do women not have the right to vote

midlandsmissus

Sweetemotion wrote: »

What issues? Do women not have the right to vote

Women can only vote for whoever is nominated.

We currently have 80% males in government and 20% females. A gender quota had to be introduced to reduce the bias in political parties.

The government has never once been balanced in this country.

Sweetemotion

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Women can only vote for whoever is nominated.

We currently have 80% males in government and 20% females. A gender quota had to be introduced to reduce the bias in political parties.

The government has never once been balanced in this country.

What was stopping women from joining politics?

Macha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

On the first point, I understand that posters here and women in real life shouldn't have to apologise or answer for some of the comments made by prominent feminists in national newspapers. However, it does project that image that feminists hate men and some of it borders on hate speech. Some of these columnists often have lucrative incomes from speaking at events and book sales. Ultimately, there is a market for what they're selling.

Can you give some examples? We've heard a lot in this thread of the perception that feminism is man-hating and that there are quite a number of feminist voices in the media demonstrating this but I haven't seen any examples.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

By contrast, many of the MRA types like Paul Elam are largely confined to obscure corners of the web. There's also a tendency to homogenise men so that we're all treated as being equal when it comes to things like average earnings when most men are effectively excluded from high paying jobs as well. I read the other day about a company which decided to impose a pay gap tax on its male employees even though they'll never become CEOs, professional actors or footballers.

Paul Elam and A Voice For Men have said some pretty misogynistic things in the past. If this is the best the MRA can do, it simply adds to my head scratching as to why feminism gets put under a microscope.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Secondly, a lot of what I've read in columns about women's issues have centred on things which seem trivial, ie "manspreading", division of labour regarding household chores, etc.... This carries that implication that women have largely attained equal status with men in the West barring a few instances here and there. I'm not making this argument of course, just point out its existence.

This is precisely the whataboutery that I was referring to earlier. The division of labour in the home has been a feminist cause around the word for a very long time. Anyone who calls that issue trivial does not know how much it can hold womens' careers back. It is also a key contributor to the pay gap and the pension gap. And...you're sort of referring to the argument, making the argument, and then saying you're not making the argument. Which is it to be?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I know most feminists don't hate men. They just want to live in a world where 400,000 girls a year don't have their genitals mutilated, where they can enjoy autonomy over their own bodies and not have to deal with being judged on their appearances the same way men don't have to. If these feminists want to engage men they need to stop playing the divide-and-conquer game that has become so widespread in modern discourse.

Again, do you have examples of this divide-and-conquer game, and evidence that it's 'widespread'?

Dick phelan wrote: »

Problem with feminism is the old saying empty vessels make the most noise, i'm a man and like most people support equal rights however it's hard not to dislike feminism when the feminism you see in newspapers and online is often just man hating, Most women do not hate men but the feminist movement has a lot of prominent figures who clearly do so it's hard for people to identify with it. Also i'm sorry feminism needs to accept there is no pay gap, it contently get's brought up as a reason for feminism yet it's been debunked several times, difference between wages and earnings ect. Besides abortion i can't think of one right women do not have that is given to men in this country.

Who are these women who hate men?

And sorry yes there is a pay gap. The main causes are disproportionate responsibility for care work (which is almost always unpaid), traditional women's work being undervalued and career breaks. The other key part of the pay gap is the pension gap. The more, better paid work you do, the bigger your pensions. Women don't only miss out on the pay, they also end up with smaller pensions when they retire.

Sweetemotion wrote: »

What was stopping women from joining politics?

The lack of female role models, the lack of a culture of women entering politics, the overwhelming responsibility of care work, particularly childcare, the candidate selection process in some political parties.

midlandsmissus

Sweetemotion wrote: »

What was stopping women from joining politics?

Sweet emotion. Men! To put it bluntly.

Sonic Tonic

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Sweet emotion. Men! To put it bluntly.

No men are not stopping women from entering politics, women are free to enter. They clearly choose not to given the percentage of female independents.

sullivlo

Thread momentarily closed pending mods review

sullivlo

Okay folks. We're reopening the thread, however this is the first/only/final warning: stick on topic, be civil to one another, respect that others may have differing opinions to you.

This thread was intended as a discussion into rebranding the word feminism due to the negative connotations it has with certain parts of society. However it has descended into a clusterfcuk of whattabbouttery. It is entirely against the ethos and spirit of TLL.

ANY breaches of this will result in cards / bans.

FortySeven

So we're not talking about equality, what we're talking about is rebranding the same old feminism, rolling out the same old tired arguments and debunked statistics and unrealistic expectations. Calling it something else in the hope that no one will notice?

You can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig....

I've been considering studying something to help me move into the men's rights movement. I do strongly believe we are being more and more marginalised and ridiculed. I would love to be part of an equality for all movement but perhaps (as earlier posters suggested) I should narrow the field and focus on issues that concern me.

That's a shame.