Aren't You?

Zombrex

No

The Corinthian wrote:

Speak for yourself.

So you agree it is petty call these things "discrimination"

The Corinthian wrote:

Discrimination against men. You conveniently ignore most examples given to you for various reasons; conscription (no doubt conscription does not concern us because it happens elsewhere in Europe), car insurance premiums (simply ignored) and father’s rights (which you contend is not subject to discrimination, which means that obviously women are always the better parent then).

I haven't ignored any of these issues, in fact I said they are the important ones. I then called for examples of them in Ireland. This was ignored by the people on this thread in favor of arguing about the ones I consider (and you do as well apparently) petty.

Can anyone show me a documented case of sytematic work place discrimination in the child care industry against a man, so we can actually discuss the idea properly?

Zombrex

No

Talliesin wrote:

I'm a white male aged 18-35. It's bloody fantastic. Everyone listens to my ideas no matter how stupid

"Gum 'n Nuts - Together at last"

Nevyn

No

The Corinthian wrote:

I pointed out no such thing.

:rolleyes:

The Corinthian wrote:

Ultimately you cannot say that a movement that concerns itself exclusively with representing one side of the equality debate is about equality. It’s about representing that one side of the equality debate, but it makes no pretence that it represents the other.

The Corinthian wrote:

Feminism is essentially the same thing and in doing so it competently represents it’s constituency - women. It does not represent men, or attempt to redress inequities that would act against the constituency it represents.

in other words: equality for women that Feminism is about.

the_syco

Wicknight wrote:

Neither can a woman ... show me the law that says the state won't prosecute women if they press false charges ... :rolleyes:

I'll look for the law, just for you. Its in the law, as if they pressed charges against those who who were proven to be lying, the women groups feared this would put off women reporting to the Gardai that they were raped, in fear of it being quashed. Thus, they have immunity from getting charged.

Zombrex

No

the_syco wrote:

Its in the law, as if they pressed charges against those who who were proven to be lying, the women groups feared this would put off women reporting to the Gardai that they were raped, in fear of it being quashed. Thus, they have immunity from getting charged.

I find that very unlikely considering women who have made false statements of rape and sexual abuse have been convicted and sentenced in Ireland before a number of times including a women in March 2005 ... but you keep looking for that law :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

Talliesin wrote:

I'm a white male aged 18-35. It's bloody fantastic. Everyone listens to my ideas no matter how stupid

You being a case in point.

Wicknight wrote:

So you agree it is petty call these things "discrimination"

I’ve already pointed out that there are minor or unimportant examples. However you seem to be happy to focus on them so as to give the idea that these are the only cases.

I haven't ignored any of these issues, in fact I said they are the important ones. I then called for examples of them in Ireland. This was ignored by the people on this thread in favor of arguing about the ones I consider (and you do as well apparently) petty.

Are you telling me that men and women have been paying the same for car insurance in Ireland and all those ads that promised preferential rates to women were just a bad dream?

Can anyone show me a documented case of sytematic work place discrimination in the child care industry against a man, so we can actually discuss the idea properly?

Documented, I doubt it if people like you are refusing to do the documentation on the basis that it doesn’t exist.

Thaed wrote:

in other words: equality for women that Feminism is about.

In completely different other words more like. How on Earth did you get that from those two statements? If anything they say the opposite.

Quantum

No

Thaed wrote:

funny how all disscussions on Feminism get turned into poor men threads.

I couldn't agree more. The longer the thread continues two things go with it..... Firstly people continue to misrepresent the meaning of feminism and exhibit utter confusion between equality and equivalence. Secondly the men who do so start to bang on ad nauseum about their own grievances in spite of their irrelevance to the subject of the thread.
Feminism is about achieving equal rights for Women in the law and in Society. It's not about achiving equal rights for everyone in society.
If men feel that we are lacking in such rights then they should start their own campaign, as did the Father's rights group, instead of whining about the feminists not representing them.

Ms Beanbag

No

Quantum wrote:

I couldn't agree more. The longer the thread continues two things go with it..... Firstly people continue to misrepresent the meaning of feminism and exhibit utter confusion between equality and equivalence. Secondly the men who do so start to bang on ad nauseum about their own grievances in spite of their irrelevance to the subject of the thread.
Feminism is about achieving equal rights for Women in the law and in Society. It's not about achiving equal rights for everyone in society.
If men feel that we are lacking in such rights then they should start their own campaign, as did the Father's rights group, instead of whining about the feminists not representing them.

Well said. Some requested earlier, that women should "sacrifice" their rights for men, in areas where women have the advantage. I doubt there would ever be a situation or an area where women will have more rights than men in the eyes of the law, as feminism is about achieving equal rights. As said previously, if men feel they are lacking in rights, (which they certainly are not!) then they should look to their own groups. In fact, men already have hundreds of support groups for various issues..

The Corinthian

Quantum wrote:

Firstly people continue to misrepresent the meaning of feminism and exhibit utter confusion between equality and equivalence.

TBH, you seem to lack a grasp of what equality and equivalence mean.

Secondly the men who do so start to bang on ad nauseum about their own grievances in spite of their irrelevance to the subject of the thread.

Actually, I originally entered this thread to correct the misconception that the purpose of Feminism is equality or equivalence - it is not.

I then left the thread and only returned to it after the question of men’s rights had been broached by someone else and this was being dismissed as unimportant, which I did find quite offensive. So while I would agree that the subject of men’s rights is largely outside the scope of this discussion, the contempt with which it was treated here has naturally inflamed the topic.

Feminism is about achieving equal rights for Women in the law and in Society.

It’s about representing and promoting the rights of women in the law and in Society. That’s not the same thing as achieving equal rights.

It's not about achiving equal rights for everyone in society.

So it’s about “achieving equal rights for Women”, but not about “achieving equal rights for everyone” - so who exactly would women have equal rights to?

If men feel that we are lacking in such rights then they should start their own campaign, as did the Father's rights group, instead of whining about the feminists not representing them.

If Feminism was about equality or equivalence then men would have a perfectly valid right to complain that Feminism was not representing them - after all, you cannot represent equality unless you are non-partisan. The moment a movement becomes partisan and represents only one side of the debate it ceases to be about equality or equivalence.

If Feminism were about representing women (and equality is just a coincidental by-product of this representation), then I’d agree that men should not complain and set up their own groups. Of course, from the reaction of some of the feminists and pro-feminists here, were men to actively pursue these issues, it is likely they would dismiss, belittle or even actively oppose such male moves towards representation.

pretty*monster

No

I'm a woman with a job, I'm currently enroled at ucd, I have a future ahead of me that I have a pretty large measure of control over.
I think these facts alone are enough to call myself a feminist, out of respect. I think it's very dangerous for anyone to forget that our rights and liberties do not come automatically. People have fought and people have died so that we can live the way we live. If we value our rights we have a responsibility to protect them and be vigilant of any forces that seek to limit them.
I think anyone who takes their right to vote, work, marry, be educated, ect. for granted is downright irresponsible.


The following is an excerpt from an article printed in the Los Angeles in 1998 by Ani Difranco

“One of the great lies of conservatism is that feminism and femininity are somehow in opposition to each other. Feminism is simply the belief that a woman has the right to become herself, just as a man has the right to become himself. All decent people, male and female, are feminists. The only people who are not feminists are those who believe that women are inherently inferior or undeserving of the respect and opportunity afforded men. Either you are a feminist or you are a sexist/misogynist. There is no box marked "other."

So what's the big deal, you ask? Why can't women just lead their lives to the fullest, stick up for their own rights as people, without having to identity themselves as feminists? Why don't I just drop it? It's only a word, right? Right. And words are some of the most powerful and important things I know.

I have spent my life as a songwriter, exercising language. Language is the tool of love and the weapon of hatred. It's the bright red warning flag of danger--and the stone foundation of diplomacy and peace. The manipulation, decoration and revelation of language are what songwriting is all about. So how can we, with good conscience, ignore the definition of the word feminism and let it be replaced by a Rush Limbaugh-style connotation? There is, quite simply, no other word in the English language that recognizes the idea that women are just as good, despite any behavior or prejudices to the contrary. How can we, as wordsmiths (or citizens), perpetuate the taboo of the word feminism, and therefore the idea? Any liberated person who does not acknowledge the actual definition of the word "feminist" and refuses to identify as such is effectively helping the right wing to wipe the very idea from our language.”



I think it's a terribly sad state of affairs when it's assumed that someone in favour of female rights is assumed to be some how opposed to, or indifferent to male rights.

The idea that by fighting for female rights one must ipso facto somehow stand in oppositon to male rights is ridiculous.

Each of us is only human, we can't all fight against every problem in the world. I mean, would you call Martin Luther King a racist for not doing enough to help poor whites?

tomireland

Women belong in the kitchen and having babys. Thats why they were created.

Shabadu

No

tomireland wrote:

Women belong in the kitchen and having babys. Thats why they were created.

The kitchen was created before women? I don't remember seeing that in genesis.

rsynnott

No

There does seem to be a perception here that granting women rights is automatically denigrating men's rights. This is odd. Similar argument as is used against gay marriage ("Oh, oh, but it would devalue marriage!")

Also please note that Mr Hilter there doesn't know how plurals work. So much for his white master race.

pretty*monster

No

Shabadu wrote:

The kitchen was created before women? I don't remember seeing that in genesis.

Don't feed the troll.

Shabadu

No

pretty*monster wrote:

Don't feed the troll.

But it's fun...

Nevyn

No

ah yes the Kitchen
where all the sharp knifes are.

CathyMoran

I have already stated my views earlier in the thread, however, I do not see how we can have our cake and eat it. I would be all for equality but am faced with being unable to reconcile work and family commitments - to do well in work I seem to have to give up all social and family life, there seems to be no compromise. Yes, I admit, I would like to take time off in the next few years and be a mum but I do not want to end up like my mothers generation who left it too late to get back into the workforce. Something has got to give somewhere. I do believe that family friendly policies should be more in place and that people who want to have family as well as work should not be penalised in terms of promotions etc. The reasons why I harp back to feminism is that the family seems to have been lost in our quest for equal rights.

the_syco

CathyMoran wrote:

Something has got to give somewhere. I do believe that family friendly policies should be more in place and that people who want to have family as well as work should not be penalised in terms of promotions etc. The reasons why I harp back to feminism is that the family seems to have been lost in our quest for equal rights.

No offense lass, but this is proberly the reason why I dislike feminism. For a guy to get promoted, he must work, and work hard. Long hours, etc. I too wish for the family friendly policies, that benifit both man and woman, and not just the mother.

people who want to have family as well as work should not be penalised in terms of promotions etc

Actually, they should. If two women are going for the same job, and one takes leave to raise her child, its of no fault of the other woman, so its not the other womans fault that the 1st woman had to raise her child.
But, on her return, the promotion is no longer there (as it was filled), and she has to retrain for another promotion. I'm aware this is not what actually happens every time, but this is what does happen.

=-=

One off topic question, tho: the family friendly policies at the moment; can both male and female take equal amount of time off? If you don't want to answer, could you give me a link? I've checked http://www.oasis.gov.ie/ but with no luck. Also, how do they work? Sorry for going off topic, but I've been unable o look up the "family friendly policies" in work places.

The Corinthian

rsynnott wrote:

There does seem to be a perception here that granting women rights is automatically denigrating men's rights.

Where has this automatic assumption been stated?

The Corinthian

Ms Beanbag wrote:

I doubt there would ever be a situation or an area where women will have more rights than men in the eyes of the law

I'll remember that if I ever need paternity leave.

neuro-praxis

No

the_syco wrote:

No offense lass, but this is proberly the reason why I dislike feminism. For a guy to get promoted, he must work, and work hard. Long hours, etc. I too wish for the family friendly policies, that benifit both man and woman, and not just the mother.

"lass" - how patronising.

The sad reality is that men are not willing in general to take career breaks and stay home to rear children. Your attitude is one of blatant sexism. The problem of women leaving work for 1-4 years would not be an issue particularly if 50% of men left work to care for their children instead.

Do you suggest that people ought to stop having children?

No - what you want is for women to continue to be penalised for having them.

I am surpised you can walk at all, considering the size of the chip on your shoulder.

simu

No

neuro-praxis wrote:

"lass" - how patronising.

The sad reality is that men are not willing in general to take career breaks and stay home to rear children. Your attitude is one of blatant sexism. The problem of women leaving work for 1-4 years would not be an issue particularly if 50% of men left work to care for their children instead.

Do you suggest that people ought to stop having children?

No - what you want is for women to continue to be penalised for having them.

I am surpised you can walk at all, considering the size of the chip on your shoulder.

Yeah, but is that really a feminist issue? I mean, rasing the next generation is something that affects all of society and by calling it a feminist issue, you're just enforcing the traditional assumptions that kids are women's work.

Indeed, are there any feminist issues left in countries like Ireland where we already have a fairly high degree of equal rights for the sexes? It's time to forget about organised feminism and think in terms of equality instead imo!

neuro-praxis

No

simu wrote:

Yeah, but is that really a feminist issue? I mean, rasing the next generation is something that affects all of society and by calling it a feminist issue, you're just enforcing the traditional assumptions that kids are women's work.

1) When did I refer to it as a "feminist issue"?

2) Why on earth would addressing the need for men to care for children equally (if that is what a family wants) enforce the traditional assumptions in any way whatever? It would do the opposite.

Indeed, are there any feminist issues left in countries like Ireland where we already have a fairly high degree of equal rights for the sexes? It's time to forget about organised feminism and think in terms of equality instead imo!

If you've read any of the statistics in this thread you will see that inequality remains. If you are so happy about fighting for "equality" instead of the dreaded "equality for women, who have not yet fully achieved it" then you will be glad to do so on behalf of your fellow women.

The Corinthian

neuro-praxis wrote:

1) When did I refer to it as a "feminist issue"?

Referring to men’s lack of involvement with their children as tantamount to wanting “women to continue to be penalised for having them” would be a classic example of turning it into a feminist issue.

2) Why on earth would addressing the need for men to care for children equally (if that is what a family wants) enforce the traditional assumptions in any way whatever? It would do the opposite.

Men don’t get paternity leave - a workplace is not legally obliged to give a man the day off even to go to the birth, let alone to take time off to stay at home and care for the kids. Ireland is particularly unfriendly to men in this regard, leaving men who do want to share the burden of child rearing in a position that they must either be lucky enough to have an understanding employer or use their holiday allotment for the purpose.

Of course many men still hold traditional attitudes towards male and female roles in child rearing too and many men refuse to take time off to help in caring for their own children, but to argue - as Feminism (or maybe just you) seeks too - that this is all there is to the problem is a tad idiotic.

If you've read any of the statistics in this thread you will see that inequality remains. If you are so happy about fighting for "equality" instead of the dreaded "equality for women, who have not yet fully achieved it" then you will be glad to do so on behalf of your fellow women.

You should lynch her for being a gender traitor :rolleyes:

neuro-praxis

No

Yeah...with a baseball bat. And a stun gun. And a two hour of tape of Ed Byrne's standup.

Nevyn

No

Back to that pesky self determination.
A lot of women see the femnist movement and ideals as something historic
and not effecting them at all.

simu

No

neuro-praxis wrote:

2) Why on earth would addressing the need for men to care for children equally (if that is what a family wants) enforce the traditional assumptions in any way whatever? It would do the opposite.

Having feminist organisations calling for such policies would enforce these assumptions and might alienate men who had nothing against such policies in principle because they will suspect that the feminist organisations will put women affected by the problem first.

If you've read any of the statistics in this thread you will see that inequality remains. If you are so happy about fighting for "equality" instead of the dreaded "equality for women, who have not yet fully achieved it" then you will be glad to do so on behalf of your fellow women.

Sure, but I don't see the benefits of partitioning such drives for equality into gendered sections. It made sense back in the days when women had far fewer rights than men and when the very idea of treating women fairly was alien to most but nowadays, it seems inefficient.

And a two hour of tape of Ed Byrne's standup.

Poor Ed - he's not that bad!

Quantum

No

CathyMoran wrote:

I have already stated my views earlier in the thread, however, I do not see how we can have our cake and eat it. I would be all for equality but am faced with being unable to reconcile work and family commitments - to do well in work I seem to have to give up all social and family life, there seems to be no compromise. Yes, I admit, I would like to take time off in the next few years and be a mum but I do not want to end up like my mothers generation who left it too late to get back into the workforce. Something has got to give somewhere. I do believe that family friendly policies should be more in place and that people who want to have family as well as work should not be penalised in terms of promotions etc. The reasons why I harp back to feminism is that the family seems to have been lost in our quest for equal rights.

I don't buy this one bit. The purpose of feminism has been to GIVE you that choice. It has not been to pressure or push you to make one choice or another.
Forty year ago you would have no choice. If you married you had to give up your job. Now you don't.
However you are correct in that the choices are difficult. I can understand your dilemma completely. However this dilemma is nothing to do with your rights or with feminism.

In life there isn't always a 'perfect' solution. Sometimes there is only the best solution for the circumstances. It's all about compromises. Which do we value more . . family and being at home with your childen . . or becoming a senior executive where your committment must be to the job and the company. This ' choice' thing also extends to our choice or partner. Is s/he going to share our priorities when it comes to chosing career or family ?

The success and value of the feminism movement has been to give you those choices. Don't then blame them because making choices is damned difficult sometimes.

Quantum

No

neuro-praxis wrote:

"lass" - how patronising.

Agreed.

The sad reality is that men are not willing in general to take career breaks and stay home to rear children. Your attitude is one of blatant sexism. The problem of women leaving work for 1-4 years would not be an issue particularly if 50% of men left work to care for their children instead.

Do you suggest that people ought to stop having children?

No - what you want is for women to continue to be penalised for having them.

I am surpised you can walk at all, considering the size of the chip on your shoulder.

I think you are being extremely unfair to what he wrote.

He simply pointed out the realities of the world and the perfectly reasonable way business and work should and must operate. We cannot force business to promote people who are not going to be there to do the work, ahead of people who are willing to make that committment. This is not sexism, it is life.
When a woman makes choices she has to bear the consequences of those choices, as a man must.
Women may gain equal rights under the law and in society - and we can make changes to society to help alleviate the differences between women and men - but we cannot change the whole way the world works because of these differences.
Women will always be the ones who have children. This is a fact of life. Women will always be faced with more difficult choices as a result. Thankfully men are catching up and realising what they are missing when they make the same choices. But remember who made the rules - it was men, so they cannot whine about who is to blame.
When a woman is working in business, she has to accept some simple facts of life imho. A company is entitled to value an employee/manager according to their committment to the business. They must have this freedom. So when decisions are made by a woman or man about what they do in life outside the workplace and how it affects their career, they must accept that it will have consequences.
Similarly a business that values it's female employees must make it's own choices about how far to go to help them stay in the workplace. Maternity leave and paternity leave are significant nowadays in the EU and I cannot see them continuing to increase in the future. It is already an enormous drain on small businesses, which form the backbone to all successful economies.

Altheus

No

I would not, and have never read "Feminism" as an attempt to create equal rights for women. I always saw it as a mechanism for women to achieve rights (determined via a female populace) that they as a female movement felt just.

I dont believe a man can be a "feminist", based purely on gender.

Likewise I dont believe a woman could be a "masculinist", however many women would argue that most societies are.

I would align myself along a central line of a human equalist, respecting both the rights of men and women in civil matters, however, it seems to me odd that a movement should actually allow itself to deviate and differenciate rights based purely on gender.

It likewise seems odd that women have a huge amount of control on what I believe to be a shared process (that of child bearing) in modern society. While I understand this is foremost for the protection of the woman concerned, it's my personal belief that the right of the child is foremost in every respect.

To live in a society where we embrace sexism if it is beneficial towards women is just as corrupt as the system that predicated that movement. A progression of equality based on human being regardless of gender is not only a wild dream and fantasy, but very much a reality.

As long as women are receptive to misogynistic behaviour on one hand and and receptive to an exchange of some rights on the other, there will be no equilibrium. It seems to me that feminism is become less and less about rights, and more and more about privilege.