Louise O Neill

Decent Skin

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

This line of thinking, despite its initial attractiveness to any liberal-minded person, fails to appreciate the inherent flaws in the archiecture of this world, which might as well be called Mantopia, at times. .

Please tell me you're being sarcastic......

silverharp

silverharp wrote: »

why do you assume men and women want to study the same subjects in the same numbers?

I don't.

I accept the strong statistical probability that women and men are biologically different in terms of our cognitive specialties.

But 50% of science doctoral candidates are female in Sweden, whereas it's only 20% in other countries like Ireland.

If it were 20% across the O.E.C.D., we might say 'perhaps women are biologically less-inclined to become science researchers. But that isn't the case, in fact there is a wide divergence across countries. Therefore, we must now make enquiries of the environment and the culture as well as the academic & social institutions that influence the decision to become a scientific researcher.

noaddedsugar

Decent Skin wrote: »

Firstly, the bolded sentence contradicts itself.

Secondly, committing crime (rape or otherwise) is NOT a characteristic or result of BEING MALE!

Thirdly, that post is so sexist and offensive I've to stop typing now so as not to fall foul of the charter - livid that ANYONE could imply (and get away with it) that I'm somehow liable to commit rape!

That poster wasn't saying that you personally were somehow liable to commit rape. The facts are though whether you like it or not that as a man you are far, far more likely to commit rape than I am as a woman(no body is saying you will though because NAMALT). That is just the facts. You are also more likely to commit a violent crime than me, more likely to earn more than me. It's statistics innit, not a personal slight on you.

um7y1h83ge06nx

I just waiting for someone to propose a new Final Solution here at this stage... :eek:

TSMGUY

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I don't.

I accept the strong statistical probability that women and men are biologically different in terms of our cognitive specialties.

But 50% of science doctoral candidates are female in Sweden, whereas it's only 20% in other countries like Ireland.

If it were 20% across the O.E.C.D., we might say 'perhaps women are biologically less-inclined to become science researchers. But that isn't the case, in fact there is a wide divergence across countries. Therefore, we must now make enquiries of the environment and the culture as well as the academic & social institutions that influence the decision to become a scientific researcher.

Girls outperform boys in almost every LC subject and go on to college more often. I think that needs to be addressed ahead of women deciding of their own free will not to enter STEM degrees. The only cause for complaint is that girls' schools often don't offer physics or applied maths, which is idiotic. But that's due to the archaic single-gender schools. The flipside of that is that all male schools have the lowest grades on average and all girls schools have the highest grades, with mixed schools in between.

SHOCK SOLUTION: Stop separating the sexes.

silverharp

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I don't.

I accept the strong statistical probability that women and men are biologically different in terms of our cognitive specialties.

But if 60% of science doctoral candidates are female in Sweden, whereas it's only 20% in other countries like Ireland.

If it were 20% across the O.E.C.D., we might say 'perhaps women are biologically less-inclined to become science researchers. But that isn't the case, in fact there is a wide divergence across countries, we must now make enquiries of the environment and the culture as well as the academic & social institutions that influence the decision to become a scientific researcher.

ok good, but there could be any number of reasons , cost, opportunity cost, job market, fashion, quality of education. Without a really detailed breakdown tracking the quality of students and their choices from school leaving on it would be difficult to make any conclusions even within European countries. You are basically down to what choices do the top ~20% make from school onwards. In Ireland law or finance might soak up more talent compared to Sweden. maybe its easier for graduates to get jobs in Ireland so less reason to do further studies. every minor environmental difference will have a knock on effect on choices and competition

orubiru

noaddedsugar wrote: »

A man telling women how to do feminism, how original :rolleyes:

Actually, I identify as a woman.

Checkmate.

Is it fair to dismiss another persons opinion based solely on their assumed gender?

I don't think it is fair. Do you?

Check your prejudice.

Decent Skin

noaddedsugar wrote: »

That poster wasn't saying that you personally were somehow liable to commit rape. The facts are though whether you like it or not that as a man you are far, far more likely to commit rape than I am as a woman (no body is saying you will though because NAMALT). That is just the facts. You are also more likely to commit a violent crime than me, more likely to earn more than me. It's statistics innit, not a personal slight on you.

Completely untrue because the likelihood of me doing that is zero, and zero cannot be far, far more than another zero.

Elliott S

Widdershins wrote: »

As for caring about more than one thing , I am going by what I personally have seen my self proclaimed feminist friends focusing on and being vocal about and it's quite a narrow focus. They certainly don't act on anything outside of that narrow focus .

Well, sometimes you have to narrow your focus or you'd be spread too thin. Everyone has to pick and choose on this score. What charities to support and fundraise for. What issues to campaign about. You can't do it all.

The Rape of Lucretia

Decent Skin wrote: »

Completely untrue because the likelihood of me doing that is zero, and zero cannot be far, far more than another zero.

It isnt zero unfortunately no matter your own judgement of the odds - if a man, it is non zero. And it is far higher than if you were a woman.

mzungu

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Some of her works are in fact hostile to feminism. How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men reads like something that could have been written by one of the more rubicund, raving contributors to this thread.

The poster I was replying to requested an example of opposing voices in the movement, hence why it was suggested. Regarding the book, was the point of that book not examine areas of the US school system that has left young men behind? It is a fact that less men were attending college across all sections of US society. Although recent studies would suggest that this disparity might be accounted for by the lack of social capital young men have in the US. The solution would appear to be more complex than simply apportioning blame to various lobby groups in the 70s and 80s.

Hoff Somers is feminist in principle, perhaps, but her philosophy is characterised by gender liberalism: leave (mostly) alone, don't intervene, everything will sort itself out. This line of thinking, despite its initial attractiveness to any liberal-minded person, fails to appreciate the inherent flaws in the archiecture of this world, which might as well be called Mantopia, at times. Some especially doltish men cling like ivy to the decaying masonry of her thought, the ruins of 'the second wave'. She is the Caspar Milquetoast of feminist theory. I think quite a lot of women regard her as anti-feminist, sometimes with good reason.

I guess this is into No True Scotsman fallacy territory now. I believe the same happened to Donna Haraway when she spoke out about identity politics in the 1980s. One persons feminist is another persons anti-feminist, who can be the most pure to the ideology etc. You could pick any social theory you like and state that it 'fails to appreciate the inherent flaws in the architecture of this world'. In the end theories are theories, there is nothing absolute. Just a guideline in order to try better understand social phenomena.

She is undoubtedly more intelligent than Louise O'Neill, and her outlook is more coherent. But I'd hardly regard either Louise O'Neill or CH Somers as representing modern feminism.

I never implied that either was, so I'd agree there, I don't believe any one group or person does represent it tbh.

Decent Skin

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

It isnt zero unfortunately no matter your own judgement of the odds - if a man, it is non zero. And it is far higher than if you were a woman.

It is zero. Do not accuse me of being a potential rapist ever again!

mzungu

Aubree Handsome Gerbil wrote: »

I just waiting for someone to propose a new Final Solution here at this stage... :eek:

Ohhhhh...so near the Godwin! :P

kunst nugget

noaddedsugar wrote: »

A man telling women how to do feminism, how original :rolleyes:

How does this help at all?

TSMGUY

TSMGUY wrote: »

Girls outperform boys in almost every LC subject and go on to college more often. I think that needs to be addressed ahead of women deciding of their own free will not to enter STEM degrees.

There's no need to prioritize either issue. We can deal with gender anomalies in the Leaving Certificate exam at the same time as we deal with the relative lack of women commencing & completing STEM doctoral studies.

We have a big government that can walk & chew gum at the same time, and there is no need to 'prioritise' either enquiry.

Having said that, it may well be that there are biological differences between males and females that predispose men and women towards higher education, or particular subject areas. (I already said this but you ignored it) You are failing to take account of that possibility in your concerns about boys performance in the Leaving Certificate and university enrolment.

I am taking account of inherent gender differences when discussing women in STEM. BUT I am looking also at international anomalies (Sweden v Ireland), which would point to environmental and cultural variables as opposed to strictly biological reasons why women here don't tend to pursue doctoral studies in STEM subjects like they do in Sweden, for example.

silverharp wrote: »

ok good, but there could be any number of reasons , cost, opportunity cost, job market, fashion, quality of education.

That's why I said we should make enquiries, I didn't ever claim that Ireland's Research Deans are gathering together in mahogany conclave, maniacally shredding female students' thesis proposals.

The truth is much more nuanced, but I think it's reasonable to suspect a wide variety of local factors, including the nature of local economic activity, but also perceptions of male dominance, a lack of female role models, concerns about that sector's compatibility with child-bearing, cultural attitudes, and so on.

The Rape of Lucretia

Decent Skin wrote: »

It is zero. Do not accuse me of being a potential rapist ever again!

I have not accused you. There is no crime in being a potential rapist, so no accusation is possible. You could only be accused if you indeed were. And I am not for a moment suggesting you are.

mzungu

noaddedsugar wrote: »

That poster wasn't saying that you personally were somehow liable to commit rape. The facts are though whether you like it or not that as a man you are far, far more likely to commit rape than I am as a woman(no body is saying you will though because NAMALT). That is just the facts. You are also more likely to commit a violent crime than me, more likely to earn more than me. It's statistics innit, not a personal slight on you.

Depends on how you use statistics. Statistics show that mothers are just as likely to murder their children as fathers. Seeing as statistics show this, would it be reasonable to begin a 'Fathers don't kill your children' and 'Mothers don't kill your children' campaign? Statistics also show biological parents are far more likely to murder their children than step parents, so how about ' Mommies and Daddies, don't kill the kiddies' ?

Sometimes with the facts and figures, one needs to take a step back and view the bigger picture too.

El Caffo

Lisha wrote: »

I dunno this thread is making me feel very sad.

I thought believed in feminism, but now it seems that being a feminist means you must be a misandrist.
This is news to me.

I believe all people are equal and that it is the person's abilities (and their desire to be happy and successful) that matter not their gender.

I am a mother to a boy and a girl. While they are different people I try to treat them equally and not to limit any ambitions they have. I value both of their educations and I tell them both that the only thing stopping them being doctors (or anything else) is themselves.

I tell them both to respect others and to be kind to others and to themselves. They are young now but when they are teenagers, they will both hear the dangers of excessive alcohol and drug consumption. They will both be told that being too drunk can lead them to be in precarious situations. I will educate them both about sexual boundaries/manners and about making sure any situation they are in is consensual on both sides.

And they better use condoms or I will kill them. They will both be told not to be walking alone after dark. They will both be told to protect themselves .

For me being a feminist meant that my education meant I could achieve any career I chose. It meant motherhood was still possible along with my education and career. That I could walk in to any interview with my head held as high as any man.

I don't hate any man, nor do I want to. I do hate rapists and abusers and those who terrorise people.
I believe in people. It's s pity there are done crap ones in the world but I prefer to concentrate on the good and ignore the bad.

Excellent post.

mzungu

mzungu wrote: »

It is a fact that less men were attending college across all sections of US society.

Yes, but it's a statistic that can be misleading when taken in isolation (in fairness, Hoff Somers is perfectly honest about that).

The problem with males arises at the extremes of the distribution curve: more men than women perform really badly, and more men than women perform really well. Males are a sex of both extremes.

Here's my issue with Hoff-Somers. Any feminist who desires a remedy instances where female participation in academic, political and cultural life is unjustifiably under-represented, is probably only interested in one side of that distribution curve: the part where men are really outperforming women.

They can see & accept the incidence of weak male performance, but feminism rarely claims to be a catch-all term for injustice in the world.

Just like black people are entitled to insist that they are appropriately represented in all of the fields of human activity, so too are men, and so are women... especially when the world, being as it is in a perpetual state of historical hangover, seems to be institutionally designed for generations of dead white men.

Widdershins

Elliott S wrote: »

Well, sometimes you have to narrow your focus or you'd be spread too thin. Everyone has to pick and choose on this score. What charities to support and fundraise for. What issues to campaign about. You can't do it all.

I see what you are saying but that was part of a comment about how commonly or uncommonly irish feminists in the media concern themselves with international feminist issues .

silverharp

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There's no need to prioritize either issue. We can deal with gender anomalies in the Leaving Certificate exam at the same time as we deal with the relative lack of women commencing & completing STEM doctoral studies.

We have a big government that can walk & chew gum at the same time, and there is no need to 'prioritise' either enquiry.

Having said that, it may well be that there are biological differences between males and females that predispose men and women towards higher education, or particular subject areas. (I already said this but you ignored it) You are failing to take account of that possibility in your concerns about boys performance in the Leaving Certificate and university enrolment.

I am taking account of inherent gender differences when discussing women in STEM. BUT I am looking also at international anomalies (Sweden v Ireland), which would point to environmental and cultural variables as opposed to strictly biological reasons why women here don't tend to pursue doctoral studies in STEM subjects like they do in Sweden, for example.


That's why I said we should make enquiries, I didn't ever claim that Ireland's Research Deans are gathering together in mahogany conclave, maniacally shredding female students' thesis proposals.

The truth is much more nuanced, but I think it's reasonable to suspect a wide variety of local factors, including the nature of local economic activity, but also perceptions of male dominance, a lack of female role models, concerns about that sector's compatibility with child-bearing, cultural attitudes, and so on.

all good data adds to the picture however I think it would be an exceedingly difficult exercise fraught with the usual biases of the people looking at this.

looking at it from a society basis there seems to be an awful lot of focus on women's performance and less on men's. we are already in the zone of holding men back to advance women and replacing men with women in areas like the police, army , Fire brigade etc. and lowering entry standards to facilitate this for no good societal reason that I can see and possibly some strong negative ones. looking at in particular men in the lower ~50% of abilities like IQ for want of a better term , there ought to be a strong incentive to engage these men in society because each one that doesnt is one less functional family in the future and possibly more dysfunctional ones. look at Japan , a larger minority of younger men are turning into effeminate weirdos because the traditional economic pathway is cut off for them and it looks like they will spend their adult life in a kind of semi teenager existence and useless to everybody.

Decent Skin

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I have not accused you. There is no crime in being a potential rapist, so no accusation is possible. You could only be accused if you indeed were. And I am not for a moment suggesting you are.

I didn't ask about or refer to any crime. You accused me of being more likely than someone else of being a rapist and you are obnoxiously, deludedly and viciously wrong.

I want an apology.

The likelihood of me being a rapist is zero, and suggesting otherwise would not be tolerated for any other topic or demographic.

Are you male or female ?

Are you straight or a man-hating lesbian ?

If the latter, then because you are female you are "statistically more likely to have sex with a man", however I would never be such an annoying prick as to contradict you if you said that your likelihood of doing so was "zero", on the basis that that your sex and dodgy statistics were the only thing I could see in my world view.

What gives you the right to do so ? Why do you view men as fair game to project your delusions onto, even when they know themselves better than you do ?

silverharp

silverharp wrote: »

all good data adds to the picture however I think it would be an exceedingly difficult exercise fraught with the usual biases of the people looking at this.

All serious research must navigate the same rocks of errors, the shoals of questionable cause. Complexity is never a good reason to avoid undertaking research, it's more of an incentive.

looking at it from a society basis there seems to be an awful lot of focus on women's performance and less on men's.

Leaving aside my skepticism towards that statement, feminism isn't answerable for it, no more than the Civil Rights Movement was answerable for increased poverty among whites. I agree there is a problem with males educational achievement at the lowest part of the distribution curve, as I said earlier, but that isn't a cause that Feminism is obliged to advance, nor Amnesty International, nor the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Find a relevant crowd to advance their rights.

look at Japan , a larger minority of younger men are turning into effeminate weirdos because the traditional economic pathway is cut off for them

If you don't get a career, you'll be an 'effeminate weirdos'. You know you sound as ridiculous as Louise O'Neill sounds, just from the opposite end of the spectrum.

Samaris

Mod: This thread has gone way off topic. The Rape of Lucretia - you have made your point a number of times now and it is doing nothing but derailing the thread. Enough.

Decent Skin - "man-hating lesbian" isn't particularly acceptable either.

silverharp

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

All serious research must navigate the same rocks of errors, the shoals of questionable cause. Complexity is never a good reason to avoid undertaking research, it's more of an incentive.

I cant argue to not do it, if these theoretical studies are done Ill look at them :pac:

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I agree there is a problem with males educational achievement at the lowest part of the distribution curve, as I said earlier, but that isn't a cause that Feminism is obliged to advance, nor Amnesty International, nor the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Find a relevant crowd to advance their rights.

but but feminism is for everybody or so we are told, if it wants to be a woman's Teamster's then fine. in the absence of any significant male lobby one is left poking holes in various feminist talking points

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

If you don't get a career, you'll be an 'effeminate weirdos'. You know you sound as ridiculous as Louise O'Neill sounds, just from the opposite end of the spectrum.

O'Neill is an "all men" critic , Im pointing at a sub group in a particular culture who do appear to behaving in an odd way because of social or economic stress. the group are called "grass eaters" they have given up on careers and sex and marriage, Im not going to cheer it

Decent Skin

Samaris wrote: »

Mod: This thread has gone way off topic. The Rape of Lucretia - you have made your point a number of times now and it is doing nothing but derailing the thread. Enough.

Decent Skin - "man-hating lesbian" isn't particularly acceptable either.

A question if I may.

How else would you differentiate between lesbians who don't hate men (a few of whom I hang around with) and those who do ?

jockeyboard

I would say you could divide them into two groups-lesbian who dont hate men (majority) and the rest (small minority)....does your logic work the other way too? Gay men hating women???
Sorry cant quote

jockeyboard

Plus louise (who the thread is about) has stated many times she dosnt hate men.
Also is not a lesbian.

Decent Skin

jockeyboard wrote: »

Plus louise (who the thread is about) has stated many times she dosnt hate men.
Also is not a lesbian.

Louise has said a lot of things but her opinion of men is fairly clear through how she refers to them.

The question re lesbians was separate, just to draw a parallel in relation to a tangent/vile generalisation that was turned personal, so there's no point following that rabbit hole, particularly in light of the mod warning above.

I was just asking a question, which would also relate to sensible, supportable feminism and the extreme / man-hating / "modern men must pay for 5,000 years of archaic mindsets of their ancestors" version.

Icemancometh

jockeyboard wrote: »

Plus louise (who the thread is about) has stated many times she dosnt hate men.
Also is not a lesbian.

If she says she doesn't hate men, and then says she does, which statement is true?