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

FortySeven

Macha wrote: »

Did you even read the link?

Women work more hours than men, when you add in unpaid work like housework, childcare, care of the sick and elderly. But it's unpaid work. This is why women gravitate towards part-time jobs but also jobs that offer more flexibility, which can often be at the expense of a higher hourly rate.

There's also the fact that traditional women's work such as receptionist etc is paid less.

The day I realised my relationship with my ex was over was the day she had a go at me because she had been cooking every night for a month.

I had, in that month , decorated the house, dug up the concrete bathroom floor and completely replumbed the bathroom, cured a wet rot and dry rot infestation, replaced all the radiators in the house, sourced materials and tools, screeded a large section of concrete floor, spent days in the loft insulating. Replaced the suspension on her car, cut the grass and built a computer for our daughter.

I also got the kids to school every morning and was working full time. She had to only collect them from after school, no time constraints, no stress like I had in the morning.

That's the feminism I'm talking about. The, I read somewhere that I shouldn't be doing all the cooking feminism that glosses over the role men take at home. You guys might do a few more simple chores like washing or cooking but by god you would think us men were just down the pub waiting to come home and beat you the way you go on about it.

IvyTheTerrible

FortySeven wrote: »

The day I realised my relationship with my ex was over was the day she had a go at me because she had been cooking every night for a month.

I had, in that month , decorated the house, dug up the concrete bathroom floor and completely replumbed the bathroom, cured a wet rot and dry rot infestation, replaced all the radiators in the house, sourced materials and tools, screeded a large section of concrete floor, spent days in the loft insulating. Replaced the suspension on her car, cut the grass and built a computer for our daughter.

I also got the kids to school every morning and was working full time. She had to only collect them from after school, no time constraints, no stress like I had in the morning.

That's the feminism I'm talking about. The, I read somewhere that I shouldn't be doing all the cooking feminism that glosses over the role men take at home. You guys might do a few more simple chores like washing or cooking but by god you would think us men were just down the pub waiting to come home and beat you the way you go on about it.

MOD That's generalising about all women based on your single experience. You've been warned before in TLL. Don't post in this thread again or you'll have a week off .

eviltwin

FortySeven wrote: »

The day I realised my relationship with my ex was over was the day she had a go at me because she had been cooking every night for a month.

I had, in that month , decorated the house, dug up the concrete bathroom floor and completely replumbed the bathroom, cured a wet rot and dry rot infestation, replaced all the radiators in the house, sourced materials and tools, screeded a large section of concrete floor, spent days in the loft insulating. Replaced the suspension on her car, cut the grass and built a computer for our daughter.

I also got the kids to school every morning and was working full time. She had to only collect them from after school, no time constraints, no stress like I had in the morning.

That's the feminism I'm talking about. The, I read somewhere that I shouldn't be doing all the cooking feminism that glosses over the role men take at home. You guys might do a few more simple chores like washing or cooking but by god you would think us men were just down the pub waiting to come home and beat you the way you go on about it.

Your ex is not all women or all feminists. I can identify openly as feminist in a home with my husband and my son and neither feel threatened by it because they have nothing to feel threatened by. People always fear things they don't understand.

FortySeven

Macha wrote: »

But you (or anyone else) haven't even provided any proof to back up your perception. So I see it that you choose to see feminism this way and as an excuse to dismiss it.


Ah right, fair enough. But bickering? Who is bickering?


And this sentence and attitude right here is exactly why we still need feminism. Women! You've gone to far! You need to be "pushed back"! Know your place!

I'm not getting into it. This thread is heavily moderated as are all the threads about feminism and what you are asking for would be off topic. I don't choose to see feminism in any way. I see what I see in front of me and I form my perceptions accordingly.

Bickering? We are bickering.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I said feminism had overshot its goals and I stand behind that statement. I did not suggest that women need to know their place but since you brought it up. Yes, know your place. Not because men tell you to but because everyone has a place. I have a place and I'm not blaming others for where my place is.

If you want to be in politics then to be frank, stop crying discrimination, get off your arses and go politicking. Those women in politics didn't get there by sitting at home whinging and giving it the pity pot routine, they got there with determination and work. All too easy to ask for quotas to ensure we usurp democracy itself for the 'rights' of women.

When my right to vote for a candidate of my choosing is being slain on the altar of women's rights something is very, very wrong. Democracy gives you the freedom to campaign on your issues yet feminists seem to have no problem demanding we change it.

Some animals are more equal than others?

midlandsmissus

Reframing feminism.

Joan Burton has just released an important article in the Independent, in the wake of the Jo Cox murder, about the extent of online abuse suffered by female politicians.

I have heard this before from a female candidate - that she received death threats.

We as women need to stand together and not let the old systems if misogyny keep us down. Now is the time for great change.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/joan-burton-coxs-death-exposes-unbridled-misogyny-against-women-online-34813626.html

midlandsmissus

How ironic that you said 'Are some animals more equal than others, when you sit in the middle of discrimination!

80 to 20! Percent. It's OK with you when it's unequal in your favour?

Look at my post above. Women are receiving death threats when they run here.

FortySeven wrote: »

I'm not getting into it. This thread is heavilymoderated as are all the threads about feminism and what you are asking for would be off topic. I don't choose to see feminism in any way. I see what I see in front of me and I form my perceptions accordingly.

Bickering? We are bickering.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I said feminism had overshot its goals and I stand behind that statement. I did not suggest that women need to know their place but since you brought it up. Yes, know your place. Not because men tell you to but because everyone has a place. I have a place and I'm not blaming others for where my place is.

If you want to be in politics then to be frank, stop crying discrimination, get off your arses and go politicking. Those women in politics didn't get there by sitting at home whinging and giving it the pity pot routine, they got there with determination and work. All too easy to ask for quotas to ensure we usurp democracy itself for the 'rights' of women.

When my right to vote for a candidate of my choosing is being slain on the altar of women's rights something is very, very wrong. Democracy gives you the freedom to campaign on your issues yet feminists seem to have no problem demanding we change it.

Some animals are more equal than others?

FortySeven

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

MOD That's generalising about all women based on your single experience. You've been warned before in TLL. Don't post in this thread again or you'll have a week off .

Why listen to rational viewpoints when you can just silence opposition.

Dictator much? See you in a week then.

MOD
Ignored mod instructions so taking a weeks holidays.

Sonics2k

It's a fascinating topic, I'm hoping it can go down well without too much trolling and wild claims.

For the record, I have always been, and always will be a feminist. Anyone who knows my posting history knows my background very well, so let's get that out in the open straight away. In virtually all ways, men and women are equal. Not the same, but equal. Just like straight people and gay people. Different, but equal.

However, I have noticed a recent trend in "young" feminism in the last two years, it's become considerably more aggressive and seemingly a battle to determine who is the least privileged person in the world.

As an example, I was recently called a sexist, as well as racist and homophobic (and I can probably give screenshots if needed) by a few women I know on Facebook for the simple reason that I am a straight white male. Any counter point I attempted to make was met with "mainsplaining" "patriarchy" and I was even accused of "tokenizing" my own mother when I pointed out my parents are gay. Hell, they even implied my mother had "internalised misogyny" because she disagreed with them.

These kind of ideas do seem to have been on the rise over the last while, and I admit, I'm not offended by this when people say it to me, but I am really and truly baffled.

Whilst this kind of Feminism is currently not the mainstream, I do have a vague worry that it will start to show up, and in my opinion it does more damage to what Feminism really is.

For example, I'm sure there are a few gamers around this forum at the moment. Right now there is this whole disaster of a thing going on called GamerGate, something I frankly bloody well hate as I can see both sides. However, there is a large aspect of one side claiming that all video games are sexist, either because they don't like how a female character is dressed, or how the lead of the game is not female. For example, Nintendo are currently under fire for refusing to make Link a female and are being called a sexist company because of it.

Moving on from that, a lot of MRA's come flying into all discussions and sprout utter nonsense too, and while men do indeed have a fair share of problems I think many women are ignorant to, so do women that men are ignorant to.

Bit of a ramble, so my apologies. I'll try to post back with more sensible stuff later on!

Faith

sullivlo wrote: »

Can we not just all get on and accept that everyone deserves a shot at happiness?!

(I think that's the point Faith was trying to make. I could be wrong.)

It very much was my point .

The evolution of this thread is fascinating to me. I think it just proves that this kind of discussion can't happen on an online platform.

ancapailldorcha

Macha wrote: »

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.

Sure (1, 2, 3)

Macha wrote: »

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.

As I said above, feminsim is afforded a platform in mainstream publications and outlets. MRA's are largely confined to obscure parts of the web.

Macha wrote: »

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?

I never said it was trivial. I said news coverage about domestic matters makes feminism appear irrelevant. Functioning couples sort this out amongst themselves as opposed to moaning on a national newspaper column. If you want to dismiss my points as "whataboutery" then that's your perogative though it would be odd in a debate entitled "Reframing feminism".

Macha wrote: »

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

I doubt anyone is tabulating such things. You could go through the articles of Jessica Valenti, Julie Bindel & Una Mullally for examples.

One eyed Jack

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".

But what if one of those people like myself for instance, has always understood feminism to be concerned with women's welfare and empowering women, and it isn't actually related to men's position in society at all? By that I mean that I have always thought of feminism as "of women, for women", encouraging leadership and strength in women, encouraging women to advocate for their own rights. For me anyway that's what feminism has always meant, and that's what I've always experienced of women in my life who have referred to themselves as feminists. They didn't need to tell me they were feminists, they just did their thing, and there was never any "authoritarianspeak". By that I simply mean that they never used terms like "as a feminist", "as a woman", "as a mother", "as your mother" (my mother was a closet feminist, only came out recently in conversation, and she's in her 80's, I think, because I was brought up never to ask a woman her age! :pac:).

I'd basically be in the same boat as your husband sort of, in that I just encourage women to be their best as women, to use their womanhood to show other women that they too can be leaders. When I think of feminists I admire as role models for women, I think of Hillary Clinton, I think in both her professional and personal life she has exemplified womanhood, what it is to be feminine, what it is to be a feminist. I don't get male feminists at all tbh.

Faith wrote: »

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?

Personally, I don't at all think feminism has an image problem. I think certain people who identify as feminist, are the problem. By that I mean, the extremists, the fundamentalists. You're going to have them in every ideology, but they are vastly outweighed by the numbers of women who identify as feminist, who aren't complete wingnuts. It's pretty easy to tell the difference between two feminists where one is a wingnut and the other isn't - the wingnut is doing all the talking, while the other feminist is the one who is listening. I've often learned that the best way to communicate your own ideas is first by listening to what the person you want to listen to you, is saying. That's encouraging empathic, reciprocal conversation. When you aren't allowed get a word in edgeways, that's when you know you're communicating with a wingnut, and really, for your own sanity - they're best avoided, because no good will come of any attempt to communicate with them. The feedback loop, isn't a loop, when one of the participants is a looper.

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.

Again though, you're saying that we might know that feminism isn't only about women, but what if I know feminism as being a concept that is of women, for women, and I don't have any issue with women focusing on how women are affected by the issues you mention above. What if I understand that women and men experience these issues differently? In my experience, and based upon my knowledge of the issues you mention above, men and women do experience these issues differently. Feminism IMO simply cannot take on these issues for men. The very fact that some feminists are taking on these issues on behalf of men, is what's creating the "us or them" for many feminists IMO. The vast majority of feminists are women, and they're looking at these issues not through men's eyes, but through their own eyes, and they simply cannot, IMO, as women, put themselves in the position of how men experience these issues. It'd be like me trying to imagine what it must be like for a woman to have breasts - I can imagine it, but what I imagine will likely never even come close to the reality!

Really though, I defy any woman here to count on more than one hand the number of men in their lives who have an issue with feminism. I'll even allow for men in their past who had an issue with feminism? That's because the whole "backlash" against feminism is an online phenomenon. Any woman I've ever known who was feminist was a moderate feminist, as far from a wingnut as it possibly gets. I go online then and you can't move for wingnuts! They're disproportionately represented online simply because the virtual world allows for a disconnect from civility, for everyone, equally!

Faith wrote: »

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”?

Personally, I'd feel equally silly calling myself an equalist as a feminist. Like I said earlier, I don't get male feminists at all, and I've never met a male "egalitarian" who wasn't simply an anti-feminist. I can easily acknowledge and empathise with the problems experienced by women while acknowledging that it doesn't change the problems I experience. I don't relate the two at all, because they are from completely different perspectives and experiences.

I personally think though that when push comes to shove, we now live in a culture and society where individualism over-rides collectivism, so "movements" aren't moving much at all, and feminism can mean anything the person wants, they as an individual can have their own ideas, strap on whatever ideology they like, and they're good to go!

Macha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Sure (1, 2, 3)

Thanks but please explain your issue with them, otherwise I don't know what you don't like about them.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

As I said above, feminsim is afforded a platform in mainstream publications and outlets. MRA's are largely confined to obscure parts of the web.

While it takes the form of A Voice For Men, I don't think they have anyone to blame but themselves.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I never said it was trivial. I said news coverage about domestic matters makes feminism appear irrelevant. Functioning couples sort this out amongst themselves as opposed to moaning on a national newspaper column. If you want to dismiss my points as "whataboutery" then that's your perogative though it would be odd in a debate entitled "Reframing feminism".

How does it make feminism appear irrelevant? To whom?

ancapailldorcha

Macha wrote: »

Thanks but please explain your issue with them, otherwise I don't know what you don't like about them.

Did you read them? They're fairly horrible.

Macha wrote: »

While it takes the form of A Voice For Men, I don't think they have anyone to blame but themselves.

By this logic, I can blame all feminists for the comments in The Guardian, The New Statesman, etc....

Macha wrote: »

How does it make feminism appear irrelevant? To whom?

I explained this above.

Sonics2k

midlandsmissus wrote: »

How ironic that you said 'Are some animals more equal than others, when you sit in the middle of discrimination!

80 to 20! Percent. It's OK with you when it's unequal in your favour?

Look at my post above. Women are receiving death threats when they run here.

Ah be fair here midlandsmissus, a few male politicians came out and said they receive death threats too, it happens to most well known politicians. It's not right, and I'm not excusing it, but it's very common thing for public figures.

As for "gender quotas", I currently disagree with it. To me it should be the right person for the job, and any plan to have a 50/50 split between male and female politicians is a bad idea, because at the end of the day it's the voters choice.

By all means, we should encourage more women to move into politics if that's what they want to do, but it's a daft idea to give them a job because of their sex.

Macha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Did you read them? They're fairly horrible.

I was asking more so that you'd put some arguments in the thread but I've had a look at the first one and yeah, it looks pretty man-hating to me. I'm always careful to say 'society', not men. There are plenty of women who reinforce rape culture too.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I explained this above.

OK, well I didn't understand so I guess that part of the conversation is over.

Dick phelan

Someone asked for examples of man hating in mainstream media, See Una Mullally, Jessica Valenti, Ivana bacik for mainstream examples of so called Feminist who show a strong hatred of men.

Grolschevik

The bar for so-called 'man hating' must be being set very low, so.

silverharp

if feminists wanted to reframe themselves it would be to take on an egalitarian stance which is passively what most people are. As far as I see feminist don't want equality of opportunity, they want equality of outcome, probably based on feminist theory which tries to ignore biological differences between the sexes so its always going to be a rancorous movement as reality wont conform to their theories. Also its overly political , its a completely "left wing" movement when again the average person is as likely to be centrist or centre right and normally focus on the individual and don't like analysing society through group lenses all the time.

tritium

Grolschevik wrote: »

The bar for so-called 'man hating' must be being set very low, so.

This type of response is why the OPs suggestion makes a degree of sense and also why so many people have mentioned issues with feminism, albeit it was even worse before the ninja edit

If any movements response to criticism is to go full echo chamber and just shout down criticism with phrases like anti feminist (Erin pizzey says hi) and misogyny, they're pretty quickly going to have a credibility problem with the wider society. At that point things are moving to a"true believer" space that's unable to display self awareness. And as often as the #notallfeminists line is repeated , or as often as the "they started it" line is repeated the evidence seen by the wider society is of the extremes.

So, yes feminism would benefit from reframing, but by itself that won't solve anything. Until the movement is willing to look critically at itself and decide if it really wants all the current baggage it will continue to be open to the current criticism, even from people who genuinely want to support equality

sullivlo

I want equality.

I don't want to get any special treatment because I am female. Simple as. I'm big enough and bold enough to fight my own corner, and tbh the idea that I couldn't or that I need special treatment is slightly patronising.

Well, aside from maternity leave - I think women deserve a bit of R&R after childbirth. However, I also think that men should be entitled to some paid paternity leave. Father/child bonding is just as important IMO.

Obviously there are physical differences between men and women. Because of genetics and hormones and all that jazz, men are the stronger gender, therefore it makes sense to segregate for sports or whatever. I'll never compare my athletic ability to that of a mans, maybe that's just me though.

I don't want to be there to make up the numbers, just because there is a directive saying that there must be a certain % of females in positions of power. I want to get to the top of my field based on merit, and not because it was a decision forced on people because of gender quotas.

I am 100% behind the idea of equal opportunities. Equal outcomes comes down to the individuals themselves, and how they use the opportunities.

Currently, the word "feminism" (for me) has negative connotations. However, if pushed, then yes, I am a feminist. Purely because I think we should all have equal opportunites, regardless of what's between our legs.

midlandsmissus

I think saying feminists are crazy - is arrogance on the part of the men who do it. It's like shouting you down to win an argument.

Look at Father's 4 justice who stormed the Loose Women set last week.

What would be the easy, arrogant argument by us? 'Look at those nutjobs,'.

What is the more mature argument? ,', Those men are upset about something. Let's listen to their issues,'.

Don't listen to men who say feminism is bad,/ crazy. It is telling women they are not allowed to have a voice!

tritium

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I think saying feminists are crazy - is arrogance on the part of the men who do it. It's like shouting you down to win an argument.

Look at Father's 4 justice who stormed the Loose Women set last week.

What would be the easy, arrogant argument by us? 'Look at those nutjobs,'.

What is the more mature argument? ,', Those men are upset about something. Let's listen to their issues,'.

Don't listen to men who say feminism is bad,/ crazy. It is telling women they are not allowed to have a voice!

While broadly true your statement could equally be applied to many feminists who reach for patriarchy / misogyny/ anti feminism as a default response to criticism. Shouting down is a tactic from both sides of the debate,alongside the deliberate abuse and misuse of data and statistics . From feminisms perspective however it won't be particularly useful to be dismissed as "as bad as each other" which is very much the direction things are heading imho.

There are also extremes within feminism that receive plenty of airtime because of that and are undeniably 'bad/crazy'. Unfortunately it gets a bit obvious when there's a repeated jump in the mainstream between "feminism" and "not all feminism" to suit the situation- perhaps this is an area where instead a little self criticism within feminism wouldn't hurt?

As an aside theres a strange irony that, while the reaction from many quarters to fathers4justice is exactly to tar them as nutters (and has been for some time) or indeed to try to demonise individual characters, their tactics and the response to them are remarkably similar to what early feminists used (thankfully they haven't moved to some of the more extreme actions)

midlandsmissus

tritium wrote: »

While true your statement could equally be applied to many feminists who reach for patriarchy / misogyny/ anti feminism as a default response to criticism. Shouting down is a tactic from both sides of the debate,alongside the deliberate abuse and misuse of data and statistics . From feminisms perspective however it won't be particularly useful to be dismissed as "as bad as each other" which is very much the direction things are heading imho.

As an aside theres a strange irony that, while the reaction from many quarters to fathers4justice is exactly to tar them as nutters (and has been for some time) or indeed to try to demonise individual characters, their tactics and the response to them are remarkably similar to what early feminists used (thankfully they haven't moved to some of the more extreme actions)

I have never heard anyone once saying Father's 4 justice are crazy nutjobs. Can you show me where they do?

Yet there is extreme vitriol against feminism site wide. You could argue that it is a suppression tactic.

And not even vitriol, it is aimed at making the women themselves think feminism is crazy! Which is starting to happen.

How do you suppress something? Divide and conquer. It has always been used in discrimination throughout every case in history.

midlandsmissus

Sonics2k wrote: »

Ah be fair here midlandsmissus, a few male politicians came out and said they receive death threats too, it happens to most well known politicians. It's not right, and I'm not excusing it, but it's very common thing for public figures.

As for "gender quotas", I currently disagree with it. To me it should be the right person for the job, and any plan to have a 50/50 split between male and female politicians is a bad idea, because at the end of the day it's the voters choice.

By all means, we should encourage more women to move into politics if that's what they want to do, but it's a daft idea to give them a job because of their sex.

Please read the article, Joan Burton says that the absolute majority of online abuse was aimed at female politicians. She also quoted a study that found that 80% of online abuse was directed at women.

I have also heard this from a female politician in my constituency -that the abuse she and female colleagues received online was disgusting, and did not happen to the male politicians.

Sonics2k

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I have never heard anyone once saying Father's 4 justice are crazy nutjobs. Can you show me where they do?

Yet there is extreme vitriol against feminism site wide. You could argue that it is a suppression tactic.

And not even vitriol, it is aimed at making the women themselves think feminism is crazy! Which is starting to happen.

How do you suppress something? Divide and conquer. It has always been used in discrimination throughout every case in history.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/04/08/fathers-4-justice-attack-sir-elton-john-for-denying-kids-the-love-of-a-mother/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2525743/Kate-Winslet-threatens-sue-Fathers4Justice-advertising-campaign-attacking-saying-children-live-me.html

Those two jumped to my mind, I can't bloody stand Fathers4Justice and I am single dad who spent months trying to get the right to see my kids.

I think it's safe to say that both sides are full of jerks, much like in any other system or debate.

meeeeh

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Don't listen to men who say feminism is bad,/ crazy. It is telling women they are not allowed to have a voice!

I think there is a difference between valid criticism and being shouted down. If I disagree with some things that are pushed on the agenda by certain feminists it doesn't mean I'm brainwashed by men.

I think what started as interesting discussion that I enjoyed reading just disintegrated into men/feminists all good/bad shout-out. It's tiring and it leads nowhere. Maybe Faith was right and feminism is such a loaded therm that just suffocates any sensible discussion. It's to think that fight for female equality is reduced to therms like mansplaining and rape culture on one side and feminazi and man hater on the other.

midlandsmissus

Yes.

I don't see any women on here saying Fathers4justice are crazy.

I see countless men on here and sitewide denouncing feminism.

Why, fear? Keeping people down?

They will never convince me that having an opinion about women's rights is bad.

It's a control tactic pure and simple.

steddyeddy

Women's rights aren't being talked about. It's the modern incarnation of feminism that's being talked about.

midlandsmissus

steddyeddy wrote: »

Women's rights aren't being talked about. It's the modern incarnation of feminism that's being talked about.

Feminism promotes women's rights, aims at reducing inequalities against women.

midlandsmissus

meeeeh wrote: »

I think there is a difference between valid criticism and being shouted down. If I disagree with some things that are pushed on the agenda by certain feminists it doesn't mean I'm brainwashed by men.

I think what started as interesting discussion that I enjoyed reading just disintegrated into men/feminists all good/bad shout-out. It's tiring and it leads nowhere. Maybe Faith was right and feminism is such a loaded therm that just suffocates any sensible discussion. It's to think that fight for female equality is reduced to therms like mansplaining and rape culture on one side and feminazi and man hater on the other.

Who planted the seed that feminists are crazy?

There is so many mind games and manipulation going on by people, that I don't even know where to start.

Look at the Oscar Racism row. The Hollywood Academy ,( overwhelmingly white) convinced some of the black actors, that the other black actors protesting racism were crazy.

Then you had a black presenter on the night making fun of other black people for accusing racism.

Divide and conquer. The best way to stay in power.