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

silverharp

midlandsmissus wrote: »

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.

but there you go, one movement cant speak for all women. Feminism because it comes across as unreasonable creates a reaction, to say nothing would just let it steamroll over society with an unchallenged narrative that people dont agree with.

midlandsmissus

silverharp wrote: »

but there you go, one movement cant speak for all women. Feminism because it comes across as unreasonable creates a reaction, to say nothing would just let it steamroll over society with an unchallenged narrative that people dont agree with.

What is unreasonable about wanting less discrimination against women in society?

steddyeddy

midlandsmissus wrote: »

What is unreasonable about wanting less discrimination against women in society?

You're conflating a disagreement with a feminist movement as being a disagreement over whether women should be discriminated against.

midlandsmissus

steddyeddy wrote: »

You're conflating a disagreement with a feminist movement as being a disagreement over whether women should be discriminated against.

Feminism is women wanting equal rights, and God has it taken us centuries to get anywhere!

Any world where one powers over another: gender, race, etc. is a bad world.

Equality us our natural state if being. Men, women we flourish together.

Inequality is a sign of something being out of sync for both sides.

Saipanne

Does Feminism hold total dominion over equal rights for genders?

Can you support equal rights for genders, but not align with Feminism? Is that possible?

Jack Killian

midlandsmissus wrote: »

What is unreasonable about wanting less discrimination against women in society?

Nothing.

The issue is that a significant portion of feminism doesn't want that; they want to swing the balance and punish current men for the imbalance of the past.

I even heard a feminist once claim that "there was no such thing as sexism against men".

midlandsmissus

Saipanne wrote: »

Does Feminism hold total dominion over equal rights for genders?

Can you support equal rights for genders, but not align with Feminism? Is that possible?

Of course, you can do whatever you want.

silverharp

midlandsmissus wrote: »

What is unreasonable about wanting less discrimination against women in society?

I dont think anyone is advocating discrimination. the problem I see with a lot of feminist arguments is that they argue that there is discrimination if women dont have more than 50% of whatever is being looked at. I'd happily argue for legal barriers to be removed if they exist but we live in a competitive society and men and women make different choices on average about their interests and work etc. I was at a lecture in Trinity a few weeks ago open to the public , the topic was the beauty of Mathematics. The audience was 90% or more male , to me that just says that more men prefer the topic than women so was a quick snapshot as to why one is likely to see more men in engineering or like subjects to women. A feminist will look at this a see women being kept out of the field and will look for all kinds of special privileges
Im a parent and I have a keen interest in my kids doing their best but not one at the expense of the other. My perception is that feminists want my son pushed down to advance my daughter, I find this objectionable

midlandsmissus

Jack Killian wrote: »

Nothing.

The issue is that a significant portion of feminism doesn't want that; they want to swing the balance and punish current men for the imbalance of the past.

I even heard a feminist once claim that "there was no such thing as sexism against men".

I would say a blindsided view of feminism, is that when discussing it you solely look at the extremists, who are an extremely small portion of women, and represent the point you said above.

It just seems to me that it is an immature argument, and aimed at turning women away from feminism.

What if any time a man mentioned men's rights, I said 'oh all you men's right activists are crazy like that 'Roosh V', an extreme neomasculinist who spreads hatred about women.

I am mature enough to know that not all men are like that, so why can't we get the same respect back?

Jack Killian

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I would say a blindsided view of feminism, is that when discussing it you solely look at the extremists, who are an extremely small portion of women, and represent the point you said above.

It just seems to me that it is an immature argument, and aimed at turning women away from feminism.

It is not "aimed at" anything. It's merely a fact.

Please don't attribute an agenda where there is none.

What if any time a man mentioned men's rights, I said 'oh all you men's right activists are crazy like that 'Roosh V', an extreme neomasculinist who spreads hatred about women.

Not sure if that's a person or a group, but I've no idea why you'd need to do that, as I didn't mention a single person or group; I mentioned a movement and explicitly said that "some" are like that. Not a single example, but "some".

I am mature enough to know that not all men are like that, so why can't we get the same respect back?

I am "mature enough to know that all...." women - and even all feminists - aren't like that; I said so.

So you've already gotten "the same respect back".

I also answered your question with a "Nothing".

Saipanne

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I would say a blindsided view of feminism, is that when discussing it you solely look at the extremists, who are an extremely small portion of women, and represent the point you said above.

It just seems to me that it is an immature argument, and aimed at turning women away from feminism.

What if any time a man mentioned men's rights, I said 'oh all you men's right activists are crazy like that 'Roosh V', an extreme neomasculinist who spreads hatred about women.

I am mature enough to know that not all men are like that, so why can't we get the same respect back?

What raised my eyebrows about the feminist movement was the "listen and believe" campaign. That, from my limited viewpoint, appears to be a mainstream movement, as elements of it were brought before the UN.

What are your views on that "listen and believe" idea? How would that concept affect the rights of either gender?

eviltwin

I'm all for a reasonable critique of feminism. It's strong enough to take it and we need to hear other people's concerns. You don't win hearts by bullying people, you need to get them to see the validity of what you are promoting. I want more women in power but not by a quota system. I want to look at what's stopping women getting there and changing that. The last bastion of women's right in this country is around children and family. Women need access to abortion, families need affordable child care and new models of childcare, fathers need better legal rights and better access to leave, the working environment needs to focus on more flexibility for all employees. I don't see any tangible examples of men losing rights, maybe someone could point out where that is happening.

Shelga

Something that really bugs me about 'modern feminism'- scholarships and extra rewards to get women into engineering. I'm a female engineer and I don't need a 'Woman Engineer of the Year' award, thanks- why can't I be just Engineer of the Year?

Quotas, special rewards, incentives to hire women over men- all damage the word feminism.

Where are all the bonuses rewarding male nurses who get the top score out of the other men in their course, even if it's 25% less than the top female score?

Cannot stand this double standard. Do we want equality or not?? To be on a level playing field or not?

I'll continue to say I'm an egalitarian.

One eyed Jack

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,'.

Could you pick a worse group to make your analogy? I understand what you're saying alright that people who come out with stuff like "feminists are crazy" really is a lazy argument. It lacks specificity. But if I'm talking about modern feminism, the online variety, then yes, modern feminism as an ideology is IMO, a toxic, poisonous ideology, and I've said as much before -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Feminism, as I understand it (by all means correct me if I'm wrong), was started as a movement meant to empower women and give them choices, advocating for women's welfare and seeking equality in all areas where there was none. Modern feminism has sold you a pup. It has done nothing but enslave women and take their choice away from them, robbed them of their liberty and their ability to advocate for their own welfare. It's turned grown women into infantile children whose idea of equality is dragging everyone in society down to their level and making everyone as miserable as they are. I see modern feminism as a toxic, poisonous ideology that has done nothing to empower women, and left them feeling like they have none.

The patriarchy isn't the problem, in what is in fact a matriarchal society.

Why should anyone have to listen to people who have issues alright, but they appear incapable of participating in civilised discussion? Why should wingnuts get to set the standard by which we should all be expected to follow? The more mature argument is to tell those people to come back when they learn to behave like civilised adults and are able to make their points in a mature and constructive way, rather than behave like children and expect anyone should have to entertain them. It's not arrogant to say that. It's just showing those people that nobody wants to entertain them behaving like petulant children.

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 mature adults are going to listen to whoever they want to listen to, and won't be told who they should and shouldn't listen to, because to do so is telling everyone in society they are not allowed have a voice. Personally, I choose not to listen to people who tell me who I should and shouldn't listen to. I'm perfectly capable of making up my own mind. I have been ever since I was an independent, mature adult who could speak for myself without allowing wingnuts to represent me or my opinions.

Jack Killian

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm all for a reasonable critique of feminism. It's strong enough to take it and we need to hear other people's concerns. You don't win hearts by bullying people, you need to get them to see the validity of what you are promoting. I want more women in power but not by a quota system. I want to look at what's stopping women getting there and changing that. The last bastion of women's right in this country is around children and family. Women need access to abortion, families need affordable child care and new models of childcare, fathers need better legal rights and better access to leave, the working environment needs to focus on more flexibility for all employees. I don't see any tangible examples of men losing rights, maybe someone could point out where that is happening.

The quota system that you mentioned yourself is a perfect example.

If a man is most qualified for a position but they need the "balance", that man loses out.

Recent election - candidates were chosen because they were female due to new rules; men excluded as a result.

Best person / people should get the positions. Regardless of which they are.

That would be equality.

Jack Killian

Shelga wrote: »

Something that really bugs me about 'modern feminism'- scholarships and extra rewards to get women into engineering. I'm a female engineer and I don't need a 'Woman Engineer of the Year' award, thanks- why can't I be just Engineer of the Year?

Quotas, special rewards, incentives to hire women over men- all damage the word feminism.

Where are all the bonuses rewarding male nurses who get the top score out of the other men in their course, even if it's 25% less than the top female score?

Cannot stand this double standard. Do we want equality or not?? To be on a level playing field or not?

I'll continue to say I'm an egalitarian.

^ This.

mzungu

midlandsmissus wrote: »

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.

These things are never black and white. Recent studies suggest women are responsible for half of online abuse.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/05/26/women-are-responsible-for-half-of-online-abuse-study-finds/

Although I agree with you, online abuse is an absolute scourge and needs to be tackled.

midlandsmissus

Gender quotas in politics have worked well in countries that they have been introduced into.

In fact it has worked well here in the first time it has been used.

If over one hundred years, women have never reached more than 15% of government, there is discrimination going on.

We are now for the first time ever into the 20% range.

mzungu

midlandsmissus wrote: »

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.

I don't think any rational minded person believes feminists are crazy. They think a certain extremist section are. I whole heartedly agree that women rights should be championed. However, and this is possibly the fault of the Internet and the mass media, but a lot of the discourse seems to now be focused on stuff like 'rape culture'. These are outdated theories that have been roundly debunked.

It is not men who are banding together to turn women off feminism. Take this example from Julie Bindel:

It won’t, not unless men get their act together, have their power taken from them and behave themselves. I mean, I would actually put them all in some kind of camp where they can all drive around in quad bikes, or bicycles, or white vans. I would give them a choice of vehicles to drive around with, give them no porn, they wouldn’t be able to fight – we would have wardens, of course! Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back.

I hope heterosexuality doesn’t survive, actually. I would like to see a truce on heterosexuality. I would like an amnesty on heterosexuality until we have sorted ourselves out. Because under patriarchy it’s ****.

And I am sick of hearing from individual women that their men are all right. Those men have been shored up by the advantages of patriarchy and they are complacent, they are not stopping other men from being ****.

I would love to see a women’s liberation that results in women turning away from men and saying: “when you come back as human beings, then we might look again.”

https://web.archive.org/web/20150904155320/http://www.radfemcollective.org/news/2015/8/29/an-interview-with-julie-bindel

I have highlighted the bold bit, we will leave the concentration camp nonsense at the door. This is stuff coming from mainstream media columnists, telling women that they are part of the problem if they see nothing wrong with their partners. It seems to me that the divide and conquer stuff ain't coming from the patriarchy.

That being said, I don't believe for one second that Julie Bindel and co. are representative of women. They seem to propagate this image of the damsel in distress, which in itself is the antithesis of what feminism is supposed to be. Thankfully, my real world experience shows me that the modern woman is not the shrinking violet who needs a man to protect her or needs to resort to buzzwords like 'mansplaining' to shut down conversation.

midlandsmissus

mzungu wrote: »

These things are never black and white. Recent studies suggest women are responsible for half of online abuse.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/05/26/women-are-responsible-for-half-of-online-abuse-study-finds/

Although I agree with you, online abuse is an absolute scourge and needs to be tackled.

I agree as a whole there is so much that can be done.

Look at all the teeenagers that have taken their own lives after online abuse.

It needs to be addressed. Could the websites introduce an automatic crawler to look for and delete certain words?

Shelga

How many women want to be in politics, compared to men? Genuine question. That needs to be firmly established before any mention of discrimination happens.

Is it discrimination that there are no female F1 drivers? Or is it that an absolutely tiny fraction of women even try it, and those that do just aren't good enough?

midlandsmissus

Shelga wrote: »

How many women want to be in politics, compared to men? Genuine question. That needs to be firmly established before any mention of discrimination happens.

Is it discrimination that there are no female F1 drivers? Or is it that an absolutely tiny fraction of women even try it, and those that do just aren't good enough?

I can speak for my constituency. Women here were reporting that if they ran for the party nomination, the male candidate was constantly promoted over them, and the male usually won the party nomination'.

This was why the gender quota was implemented countrywide, with severe repercussions, (loss of party funding), if they continued with the discrimination.

So, it is most certainly not all men keeping women out of politics, as otherwise we wouldn't have had the gender quota introduced, it was the old style power abuse of some of the parties that needed to be wiped out.

Jack Killian

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Gender quotas in politics have worked well in countries that they have been introduced into.

In fact it has worked well here in the first time it has been used.

Depends on what you view as "worked well", I'd suggest.

If over one hundred years, women have never reached more than 15% of government, there is discrimination going on.

We are now for the first time ever into the 20% range.

So you're okay with discrimination as long as its in your favour / suits your agenda ? You do realise that the phrase "positive discrimination" still includes the word discrimination ?

And to think you argued earlier that most feminists were looking for equality and that those who wanted an advantage over men were few and far between, and that we shouldn't view them as the norm........

Jack Killian

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I agree as a whole there is so much that can be done.

Look at all the teeenagers that have taken their own lives after online abuse.

It needs to be addressed. Could the websites introduce an automatic crawler to look for and delete certain words?

Sounds good to me. Any site that contained the phrase "positive discrimination" would be blocked due to the presence of the word "discrimination"

steddyeddy

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I can speak for my constituency. Women here were reporting that if they ran for the party nomination, the male candidate was constantly promoted over them, and the male usually won the party nomination'.

This was why the gender quota was implemented countrywide, with severe repercussions, (loss of party funding), if they continued with the discrimination.

So, it is most certainly not all men keeping women out of politics, as otherwise we wouldn't have had the gender quota introduced, it was the old style power abuse of some of the parties that needed to be wiped out.

Did she not get the nomination because she's female or was the othe candidate better? Geniune question. I was beat to a job by a woman but it's because she was more qualified.

Shelga

Are there any reliable statistics on the country as a whole, regarding how many women want to be TDs? Without this it's just anecdotal evidence, IMO.

Absolutely agree it's an old party, who-you-know system, which isn't good. But as others have said, won't this just replace the sons of lifelong TDs with their daughters? How does this encourage diversity? If I was running for election, I would hate to think I got elected in part because I'm a woman. Quotas are never the answer, in my opinion.

Arguably, an average primary school teacher has a much larger influence on a child's life than an average politician. Why no push for quotas for 30% of primary school teachers to be men, so that our children can have a more rounded, gender-balanced style of teaching, with strong male role models in school?

Genuinely don't mean to engage in whatabouttery, but I am a woman and I genuinely believe that all of these measures damage the original intent of feminism, and lend legitimacy to the much-hated 'special snowflake' term.

mzungu

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I agree as a whole there is so much that can be done.

Look at all the teeenagers that have taken their own lives after online abuse.

It needs to be addressed. Could the websites introduce an automatic crawler to look for and delete certain words?

There doesn't seem to be many solutions regarding this. I have heard that some schools try to raise an awareness, whether that be through teachers or anti bullying groups coming in to give a talk. That alone is not enough, half the problem is that it is mostly beyond the school remit.

Regarding the automatic crawler. I would imagine that if it was implemented, a way would be found to circumvent it. Then it's back to square A. Plus, it would be quite unworkable and is not really the best way to tackle these things.

Carlos Orange

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I can speak for my constituency. Women here were reporting that if they ran for the party nomination, the male candidate was constantly promoted over them, and the male usually won the party nomination'.

I have always presumed candidates are selected by a vote of local party members (unless they are overridden by the national party). If this is the case are you saying democracy should be over ruled when it doesn't elect the right people?

Jack Killian

steddyeddy wrote: »

Did she not get the nomination because she's female or was the othe candidate better? Geniune question. I was beat to a job by a woman but it's because she was more qualified.

I was refused entry to a "women only" gym, refused a quote by "its4women.ie" and my membership of a "Women in Business" group was denied.

So it seems like I need to join the equivalents for men instead - anyone know where they are ?

midlandsmissus

Jack Killian wrote: »

Depends on what you view as "worked well", I'd suggest.



So you're okay with discrimination as long as its in your favour / suits your agenda ? You do realise that the phrase "positive discrimination" still includes the word discrimination ?

And to think you argued earlier that most feminists were looking for equality and that those who wanted an advantage over men were few and far between, and that we shouldn't view them as the norm........

How I am I looking for an advantage over men, by reducing the overall advantage of 80% to 20% currently in men's favour?