Aren't You?

CathyMoran

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.

Sorry, only back now (work does not have Boards access ) One point that I was trying to make is that feminism has seen an increase in 2-parents working full time, while I understand that this is a financial necessity in many cases it means that there is no longer a "stay at home parent" - I feel that working society has yet to catch up to "family friendly" (BOTH parents equally). I was brought up equally by both of my parents BTW.

pretty*monster

No

Umm, I don't want to get pedantic or cause but a number of people have described themselves as "equalists" which a) isn't a word and b) would be a really awful word if it was a word. I think the word you're looking for is egalitarian.

Altheus wrote:

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.

What exactly do you mean by this?

Altheus wrote:

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.

Why should a child have more rights than a woman?

Altheus

No

Umm, I don't want to get pedantic or cause but a number of people have described themselves as "equalists" which a) isn't a word and b) would be a really awful word if it was a word. I think the word you're looking for is egalitarian.

Now, I think THIS is patronising

I think you'll find my Engleesh is purrfect [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalist ]

The goal is the same, the methodology is different.

kthnx

As for child-bearing being in female control, post contraceptive measures such as abortion are entirely in female hands, and not one precedant for legal male inclusion in this decision making.

Secondly, go to the courts and see what happens most fathers looking for rights to see their children. In this country (and probably not unwarranted either), the benefit of the doubt is given towards the mother, and the law protects the mother as the majority rights holder to the child. Then there is maternity leave being severely out of sync with paternal leave even in the case where the father wishes to be with his child.

As for the rights of child being protected ahead of those of an adult, it's irrelavant of it's sex, so it essentially invalidates your question, in the case that the child is female. I do however feel that law should always try it's utmost to protect the rights of the weakest (i.e. children) ahead of anyone else in society, so that is why I think a child should be put ahead of man or woman or adult in general.

Karl Hungus

pretty*monster wrote:

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?

I don't think that anyone here is saying that if you're for female rights, you're automatically against male rights (I could be wrong, I didn't read the entire thread) but rather the misrepresentation of the term "Equal Rights" with the keyword here being equal, when you're obviously only representing one side of the equation.

And I think a lot of the female posters are simply getting uppity because of some precieved implication that respresenting solely their own side is wrong... It isn't. It's adressing the balance, and shoving things towards equilibrium. And that's a good thing.

The_Conductor

Karl Hungus wrote:

I don't think that anyone here is saying that if you're for female rights, you're automatically against male rights (I could be wrong, I didn't read the entire thread) but rather the misrepresentation of the term "Equal Rights" with the keyword here being equal, when you're obviously only representing one side of the equation.

And I think a lot of the female posters are simply getting uppity because of some precieved implication that respresenting solely their own side is wrong... It isn't. It's adressing the balance, and shoving things towards equilibrium. And that's a good thing.

What really does my head in is people who claim to be fighting for "equal rights"- who are only representing their own side of arguments......
There are several people posting in this thread who also posted in the PI thread about car insurance. In that case- they were fighting to keep lower car insurance premia for women, because they have a lower risk of being involved in a serious accident- but claimed I was sexist to suggest that by the same brush they should be paying much higher health and pension premia as they represent a greater risk in those categories.......

If sounds very much as though feminism is a case of wanting your cake and eating it. Quite how this equates with "equality" or "equal rights" is beyond me. I am not a feminist, and do not claim to be. I do however believe in equal rights. That is- people doing the same job with the same experience and qualifications, should be paid similar salaries- that is equality. Positive discrimination- is not equality though- discrimination, regardless of who it is in favour of, is still discrimination. Thus- I do not believe that x% of positions should be reserved for any particular group- male/female/minorities etc- each and every person should have an equal chance to fight for each and every opportunity on their own merits. Life isn't perfect- I admit that- but stacking the deck is hardly striving towards an egalitarian perfection?

Accepting that people are different, that none of us are perfect and that we all have different aptitudes- is accepting the inevitable, and is not anti-feminist in any manner- its realism. It is not typecasting- to suggest that women 'in general' make better nurses- or to suggest that men 'in general' might be better at chasing criminals down the street as Gardai. This generalism- does not rule out male nurses or female Gardai..... Would I be correct in assuming that feminists would be far more likely to fight the corner of the woman who wishes to join the Gardai- over better qualified male colleagues, than the man who wishes to become a nurse over better qualified female colleagues? Where is the equality there?

Likewise- "women's rights" is a wonderful bandwagon- politically and socially. Its seen as a great thing to fight for more parental leave for women, for the freedom to workshare or work 'termtime', for any of a number of other 'rights'. Why is it a 'right' though- when it is actively discriminating against other people who just happen to be male- who might similarly like to spend time with their children / taking care of elderly relatives / gardening- whatever..... Its not equality- so how is it a right?

An example of this might be where women who work in the public sector and who have children are entitled to apply for the summer months to be with their children when they are off school- but men do not enjoy the same entitlement (totally ignoring the financial aspect- most people don't get paid for taking a 3 month summer holiday like teachers do......)

I've given up trying to reason with people who equate feminism with equality- they are two utterly and totally seperate things- but as is obvious in this thread the concept is alive and well.....

Quantum

No

pretty*monster wrote:

Umm, I don't want to get pedantic or cause but a number of people have described themselves as "equalists" which a) isn't a word and b) would be a really awful word if it was a word. I think the word you're looking for is egalitarian.

I agree. However it has become slightly popular among men who feel threatened by women's eagerness for equality and who have no understanding of how male dominated society has been for centuries, indeed millenia. There are some women who also use this word, and I would suggest that most of them are the kind that hanker for the old days of gentlemanship and who deeply dislike pushy women - but who are extremely happy to embrace the rights won by feminism.

Quantum

No

smccarrick wrote:

What really does my head in is people who claim to be fighting for "equal rights"- who are only representing their own side of arguments......

With respect - this strikes me as the typical kind of response from a perosn who has never had to fight for their rights or for equality.
Campaigns for the rights of the disadvantaged have never achieved anything in history. The disadantaged have always had to fight for their own rights every step of the way. Do you expect that black people should have represented both black and white people ? and they would have been equally successful. How nonsensical. Do you think that homosexuals should be out campaigning for both sides ? for "Equalism". if you do then you have a lot to learn.

No. Minorities and disadvantaged groups have to get down and dirty and they have to battle and fight for everything they get - and they have to do it for themselves. This is the way it is and has always been and always will be. Otherwise they wil never get it.

While saying that - there si no doubt that there are ppeople who spring from equality campaigns and who then push beyond equality toward societal engineeering demands and priveledge. It's silly not to recognise that they exist.
However they are a tiny minority and it is unfair and uninformed to tarnish the original campaigns validity by associating the two together. Feminism was and is about equality. Any other group that pushes beyond that in the way that so many guys here feel threatened is not feminism, but something quite differrent. Call it what you like but try not to smear the original campaign by using the same name.

Personally I think of them as neo-feminists.

simu

No

Quantum wrote:

I agree. However it has become slightly popular among men who feel threatened by women's eagerness for equality and who have no understanding of how male dominated society has been for centuries, indeed millenia. There are some women who also use this word, and I would suggest that most of them are the kind that hanker for the old days of gentlemanship and who deeply dislike pushy women - but who are extremely happy to embrace the rights won by feminism.

Uh, this is what you say to people who say they are egalitarian rather than specifically feminist? The past doesn't matter all that much - we're living now. It's great fun reading up and getting all indignant about past injustices but you have to look at the present in the face too! I'm sure I could dredge up some incidents from my life and use them to show how oppressed I've been as a woman but it would be forcing things as I haven't been properly discriminated against at all.

I've already said I'm a feminist to the degree that I'm in favour of women having the same rights and opportunities as men but if the question was asked whether I believe that men should have the same rights and opportunities as women, black people as white or whatever, I would also say yes. So, if I were to feel the sudden urge to improve the lot of those worse off than me, I would go for some non-sex specific organisation because in the developed world, things really aren't all that bad for women in general.

The_Conductor

Quantum wrote:

With respect - this strikes me as the typical kind of response from a perosn who has never had to fight for their rights or for equality.

You couldn't be more wrong there- I'd rather not go into details, as its personal, but I've done my share of fighting, and continue to do so. What I have found is that in many cases- a perceived slight may be a lack of understanding on the part of another party- often corrected through education over and above militancy......

Quantum wrote:

Campaigns for the rights of the disadvantaged have never achieved anything in history. The disadantaged have always had to fight for their own rights every step of the way.

It doesn't have to be a fight- often its not people protecting the quid-pro-quo, its more a misunderstanding of the fundamentals of the other person's position. A little research or education in certain matters often may influence the mindset of the other party.

Quantum wrote:

Do you expect that black people should have represented both black and white people ? and they would have been equally successful. How nonsensical.

This very example was brought up in the local elections- where a candidate in one of the Dun laoghaire - Rathdown wards was standing on a refugee rights "ticket". This individual was interviewed on Newstalk and a caller asked what the candidate would do for locals if they were elected- to which the reply was- "nothing.... I don't care if you vote for me, but I would like your vote- but I will not represent you"...... Perhaps the truth should not have been spoken, even if the candidate was honest. I think that a public representative- should represent the public- not a subsection of the public, as did the voters in that particular ward......

Quantum wrote:

Do you think that homosexuals should be out campaigning for both sides ? for "Equalism". if you do then you have a lot to learn.

There is a difference between fighting for equality- and fighting against discrimination. It may be a line in the sand- but its there nonetheless. I have a few gay friends, one in particular who is involved in politics and interested in antidiscrimination. His main weapon of choice, is, once again, education.....

Quantum wrote:

No. Minorities and disadvantaged groups have to get down and dirty and they have to battle and fight for everything they get - and they have to do it for themselves. This is the way it is and has always been and always will be. Otherwise they wil never get it.

I beg to differ. Delibertly picking a fight, is a controversial manner of highlighting differences and making demands- instead of educating and questioning peoples perceptions. Sure- people notice a march on the Dail- and it makes the news. But what does it achieve other than 15 minutes of infamy? Not an awful lot- politicians are adept at paying lipservice to empty promises. I think I'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Quantum wrote:

While saying that - there si no doubt that there are ppeople who spring from equality campaigns and who then push beyond equality toward societal engineeering demands and priveledge. It's silly not to recognise that they exist.

I'm confused as to what you're saying here- can you explain?

Quantum wrote:

However they are a tiny minority and it is unfair and uninformed to tarnish the original campaigns validity by associating the two together.

They are associated, and intertwined in each other. Only an idealist sees them as two self standing entities.

Quantum wrote:

Feminism was and is about equality.

Feminism is in fact- the policy, practice or advocacy of political, economic, and social equality for women. Its not about equality in an egalitarian sense- its sole interest is in women- and women's rights- not rights in general, and definitively not in equality as a universal right- women's rights, full stop.

Quantum wrote:

Any other group that pushes beyond that in the way that so many guys here feel threatened is not feminism, but something quite differrent. Call it what you like but try not to smear the original campaign by using the same name.

Personally I think of them as neo-feminists.

Neo-feminists, has dangerously rightwing connoctations- but true nonetheless.

CathyMoran

A lot of people in minorities perish the thought of being positively descriminated against - they just get to where they want to be on their own merit. Having said that sometimes positive descrimination (such as access to education) is needed for some minorities to achieve their full potential , but this is more to achieve an equal playing field at the begining.

Altheus

No

I'm sorry if I'm missing something, but those posters who believe that having an equalist viewpoint from a male perspective, is one coming from a side who "have a hankering for gentlemenship", please justify your comments.

Also, those who say that the comments come from someone who has never fought for rights, please justify those comments, or retract them. They are not merely statements of opinion, but judgments of opinion.

If we are to get somewhere with this discussion, can we discuss specific viewpoints, and then decide which is a feminist, which is an equalist, which is an egalitarian, a "positive discrimination" and base ourselves on those rather than the pedantic semantics we're caught up in.

From my viewpoint I have seen first hand the effects of feminism, from a family of 7 feminists (5 sisters, my mother and father), according to the definition of equal rights of women.

It is my personal viewpoint that the feminist movement while supporting similiar motions to me (equal wages, the female vote, sexual harassment), also seem to support female-centic viewpoints (a proportion in favour of female dictated abortion, the view that a mother has greater right by default of the child, positive discrimination on the grounds to equalise society.)

It is the female-centric viewpoints that I would have argument with, and would use to differenciate myself from being viewed as feminist. Bear in mind the feminist movement is not the Oxford English dictionary's definition, but a mass of the action and viewpoints of the movement.

Perhaps another thread may be needed to have a female perspective to reflect my view on the world, or maybe we just need a better definition of what the current works of the feminist movement strive for as opposed to the merit of it's predessors.

If a feminist viewpoint actively encourages and supports positive-discrimination against men, then I will actively oppose that positive-discrimation on the grounds that as a man, it unfairly infringes on my rights as a male citizen.

If a feminist viewpoint actively encourages and supports a progressive equal viewpoint (no discrimination based on gender) then I will support it.

Likewise this would mean that my viewpoint would automatically disqualify any law, government action, or business discrimination on the grounds of gender.

This for me is a pure interpretation of equal rights.

I believe that civil rights are a thing apart from masculinity or feminity.

I believe that current systems are not equal and continually discriminate based on gender in a negative manner. The workplace, religion and the media all discrimnate against women, and both men and women should act against this.

I also believe the current systems cannot condone the use of any kind of discrimination based on gender, and any use of 'positive-discrimination' is retrograde and damaging to any future society where equality can truly exist.

Quantum

No

Altheus wrote:

Also, those who say that the comments come from someone who has never fought for rights, please justify those comments, or retract them. They are not merely statements of opinion, but judgments of opinion.

Well . . .

Quantum wrote:

"With respect - this strikes me as the typical kind of response from a perosn who has never had to fight for their rights or for equality.

I believe that my above opening statement in the post to which you refer was more than sufficiently qualified as an opinion, and not even one aimed at a person, but a class of people based on their experience or lack thereof. I see no need to retract.

If we are to get somewhere with this discussion, can we discuss specific viewpoints, and then decide which is a feminist, which is an equalist, which is an egalitarian, a "positive discrimination" and base ourselves on those rather than the pedantic semantics we're caught up in.

I would suggest that you have gone a long way toward perpetuating this very semantic confusion with your post.

The Corinthian

Quantum wrote:

I believe that my above opening statement in the post to which you refer was more than sufficiently qualified as an opinion, and not even one aimed at a person, but a class of people based on their experience or lack thereof. I see no need to retract.

You mean based on your opinion of their experience or lack thereof.

Which ironically is based upon your experience or lack thereof.

Trojan

"feminist" has serious negative conotations, regardless of what the intended message is.
The message is what is received by the recipient, not that which is meant by the sender
[1] [2].

I used to use the term hacker to describe myself.

I would not now do so, to a general audience. I would use the term in front of techie aware audiences

I think "feminist"suffers the same fate.

Fortunately or not, language is evolving

1. http://www.vtaide.com/lifeskills/verbalC.htm
2. http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/wiio.html is also interesting

--

I believe in the equal rights of all humans. (this discussion reminds me of Animal Farm)

Tristram

No

Question:Are you a believer in the advocacy of equal rights for women?
Answer:Yes.

ignored the i.e. feminist part to avoid the BS.

Tangent:
gender as a socio-cultural construct?implies feminist movement tethered to gender binary is self-defeating as cannot escape underlying patriarchal structures of language?

neuro-praxis

No

Ha ha, very good Tristram.

Quantum

No

The Corinthian wrote:

You mean based on your opinion of their experience or lack thereof.
Which ironically is based upon your experience or lack thereof.

And 90% of all posts on discussion fora are not ?

No

Question:Are you a believer in the advocacy of equal rights for women?
Answer: Equality, yes. Superiority, no. Men Bashing, no.

Tristram

No

Thank u kindly neuro-praxis.

Now that iv found the Humanities board ill have to remember how i got here so i can come back and join in these lil debates.gr8 fun.

Kell

Evil Phil wrote:

generally mocked in the media as being thick and useless. I don't like this any more than the next guy but I do realise that its not the fault of feminism....

I have pondered that many times. However, I am coming to see another side to it.

Take any household cleaning product advert with the exception of those gimps in the Mr. Muscle and Flash ads. First of all the guy is portrayed as a gimp, but the crucial bit for me is the part where the woman steps in to do the job properly. This ultimately puts her back into the traditional image of the "house-wife" i.e. cleaning, washing etc.

So- are these adverts seeking to subjugate men as arse holes or are they sneakily putting women back into the roles they were supposed to have shrugged off years ago?

K-

Catsmokinpot

No

Wicknight wrote:

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

the law says alot of things..........

Thaed wrote:

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

strange that all discussions on feminism where men arent involved are poor woman threads........ you cant have a discussion about feminism without one side or the other getting offended

Zombrex

No

Kell wrote:

So- are these adverts seeking to subjugate men as arse holes or are they sneakily putting women back into the roles they were supposed to have shrugged off years ago?

K-

It is trying to make women feel good about the fact that they are still in these roles ... you may have to do the washing but at least you are smarter than your dumb husband and you have to do it because he can't..

it is kinda flip on the idea that women are bad at things like DIY or car maintence. You used to get a load of ads where the man would rescue the little lady from having the change a tire or some such, ads directed towards men to promote an idea that they were handy with things women weren't, and therefore the women needed the mans help.

The modern washing powered ads are a flip on this. While a bit of comedy comes from the fact that it is probably true that a lot of men don't really know how a washing machine works (especially ones who are married a while and just don't do that part of the house work), the vast majority probably have no trouble with it (just like a lot of women have no trouble with their car), so it is not surprising that some men think "hold on, it ain't that hard to load a washing machine" or "I think I would know my own son in a play group" and get offended about the male portrail in these ads. But that is advertising, it has been manipulating the sexual relationship for years. Do you think women don't get offended by ever Lynx ad, shaving foam ad or male orintated ad trying to sell products to men so they can "get the girl"

I would be careful about not asssuming too much about society as a whole from the protrail of men and women on TV. TV is trying to sell you something, and as such it is not interested in being a commentary for how things really are, all they are interested in is fantasy

Nasty_Girl

No

Kell wrote:

I have pondered that many times. However, I am coming to see another side to it.

Take any household cleaning product advert with the exception of those gimps in the Mr. Muscle and Flash ads. First of all the guy is portrayed as a gimp, but the crucial bit for me is the part where the woman steps in to do the job properly. This ultimately puts her back into the traditional image of the "house-wife" i.e. cleaning, washing etc.

So- are these adverts seeking to subjugate men as arse holes or are they sneakily putting women back into the roles they were supposed to have shrugged off years ago?

K-

Bloody good point. Ads can be interpreted all kinds of ways really.
Well with the flash ads the man is clever sneaky one who knows flash will do the "hard work" so he doesn't have to
A couple of messages could be taken from this:
1. The man is lazy
2. The woman is stupid for not realising flash will do it.
3. The man is weak for letting the woman boss him around in the first place
4. The woman is lazy.

And this goes on and on. Then you have the ad where the voiceover says "See that box in the corner dear its a washing machine" (or whatever it says) meaning "young fellas are crap at washing so we make it easy for them" and the spar ad where the girl fails her driving test meaning "girls are crap at driving". Its everywhere when you look for it but at the end of the day whether men are lazy or women are selfish or whatever the bottom line is "BUY THIS PRODUCT"

Shabadu

No

catsmokinpot wrote:

you cant have a discussion about feminism without one side or the other getting offended

See this is why I consider myself an equalist rather than a feminist. IMO we shouldn't perceive the sexes as different 'sides', unless we think of it as different sides of the same coin.

We have our differences, but we're all people at the end of the day.

Zaph0d

The essence of sex is of course difference between the male and female of the species - so the idea of sexual equality is derisory. We may have equal entitlements or rights but in no sense are we equal. Sexual equality is a juvenile fallacy but a well-meaning one all the same. In fact the world would be a far poorer place if men and women had the same capabilities.

A more effective form of feminism might emphasise the differences between men and women and point out the reasons that their contributions to the common good are complementary and should be equally valued.

Shabadu

No

Er...we're talking about rights here. Obviously men & women are different, hence the 'different sides of the same coin' analogy. But everyone's different. That doesn't mean our differences should split us up into sides. Again, at the end of the day we are all people, who should be afforded the same rights.

Shabadu

No

Sorry, I should be making this clearer. Imo while we very different in general (there is always an exception) at some specific tasks, and in a biological sense, this does not mean we are not equal in the sense of our different accomplishments, and our entitlements. It may be paradoxical, but I belive two differnt things can be equal.