Reframing feminism mod warning posts 1 and 50

Jack Killian · 20-06-2016 09:37PM

Faith wrote: »

Is it okay if we just line them up and watch them race?

I think my description in my last post was a little flawed, on reflection. I may edit it to make a note of that

Surely it depends on whether the race is during "family friendly" hours ?

..........that old man might love reading his granddaughter bedtime stories!

Permabear · 20-06-2016 09:55PM

This post has been deleted.

The Pheasant2 · 20-06-2016 09:56PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I think it has been decided by the Governments of over one hundred countries.

Ah so because others are doing something we should do it too? You've rattled off the "over a hundred other countries..." line a few times now without actually expounding on WHY quotas are a better system for IRELAND (the country we are in).

sullivlo · 20-06-2016 10:59PM

Leather Chisel wrote: »

Do you have this weeks lotto numbers?

MOD

Don't be a dick. Final warning.

Warning applies to all. Any further attempt at humour at the expense of other posters will not be tolerated.

Dick phelan · 21-06-2016 12:09AM

Sweden also has a shockingly high rape rate, hardly a female utopia

meeeeh · 21-06-2016 08:58AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Now I get my knowledge of Sweden from books like Girl with th Dragon Tattoo but wasn't there a huge banking crisis in early nineties? That would bring probably bring GDP slightly down. Since then Sweden has reasonably stable growth. Oh and possibly the fact that they did not have to deal with WW2 mess probably gave them a bit of a head start.

Oh and a seperate question, how many speeches where she compliments policies of Schroeder did Merkel made. Or Corbyn about Cameron or Obama about Bush? Just saying.

But then what do I know, Girl with Dragon Tattoo doesn't cover much economy or politics.

midlandsmissus · 21-06-2016 09:23AM

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

Ah so because others are doing something we should do it too? You've rattled off the "over a hundred other countries..." line a few times now without actually expounding on WHY quotas are a better system for IRELAND (the country we are in).

Why are you here on a thread about reframing feminism?

Why are you so vehemently opposed to the gender quota?

Why are there now more men on this thread, (all with the same hive view) than women? Why are you all here? Are you that interested in feminism, or are you coming here to shout people down?

midlandsmissus · 21-06-2016 09:32AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Au contraire, Permabear, Au contraire. Like you know me! I have sung the praises of Rwanda many times on this site.

They are an excellent example of a country with a high number of female politicians - where the country is flourishing.

They introduced a gender quota in the country as they decided to be 'proactive and all-inclusive ' after previous hatred and genocide nearly wiped the country.

They have said that 'women took the lead in healing the deep wounds of our society'.

Shelga · 21-06-2016 09:57AM

Rwanda is flourishing?! You cannot be serious.

Nominal GDP per capita of $769 per capita, 163 out of 188 countries on the Human Development Index.

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have been critical of the political system, stating that "under the guise of preventing another genocide, the government displays a marked intolerance of the most basic forms of dissent", effectively making Rwanda a one-party system. Seems that majority female government is just as corrupt as those of fellow African nations. Who'd have thought it- quotas not a magical fix for all of the ills of the system?

You're now basically saying men shouldn't be allowed come to a female forum and criticise the idea of gender quotas. Again, I'm a woman, and am against them. I just think the debate is going nowhere as I disagree with most of your points and we are going in circles.

ancapailldorcha · 21-06-2016 09:59AM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Au contraire, Permabear, Au contraire. Like you know me! I have sung the praises of Rwanda many times on this site.

They are an excellent example of a country with a high number of female politicians - where the country is flourishing.

They introduced a gender quota in the country as they decided to be 'proactive and all-inclusive ' after previous hatred and genocide nearly wiped the country.

They have said that 'women took the lead in healing the deep wounds of our society'.

Wow. Can't believe I just read that. So, "flourishing" just means "has gender quotas" in your vocabulary then?

tritium · 21-06-2016 10:01AM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why are you here on a thread about reframing feminism?

Why are you so vehemently opposed to the gender quota?

Why are there now more men on this thread, (all with the same hive view) than women? Why are you all here? Are you that interested in feminism, or are you coming here to shout people down?

Men are not a hive mind any more than women. One of the biggest issues many men seem to have with feminism is its failure in many instances to realise or acknowledge that. As far as I can see you seem to be shouting against the tide a bit here and then accusing men of shouting you down instead of acknowledging that many posters, male and female, disagree with you

Jack Killian · 21-06-2016 10:02AM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why are you here on a thread about reframing feminism?

Why are you so vehemently opposed to the gender quota?

Why are there now more men on this thread, (all with the same hive view) than women? Why are you all here? Are you that interested in feminism, or are you coming here to shout people down?

What makes you think that it's a "hive view" ?

Of course we are "interested in feminism" and whether it aims to promote and campaign for true equality or whether it opts instead to refer to history and use that as a flawed basis for promoting women over men, regardless of suitability and qualifications.

I'll ask again:

- You are proposing that 30% or 50% of any committee cannot be men
- I have proposed that up to and including 100% of any committee can be women

- You are suggesting that men cannot represent women
- I have clearly stated how women can, and have, represented me

Which of us do you think is being sexist ?

One eyed Jack · 21-06-2016 10:13AM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why are you here on a thread about reframing feminism?

Why are you so vehemently opposed to the gender quota?

Why are there now more men on this thread, (all with the same hive view) than women? Why are you all here? Are you that interested in feminism, or are you coming here to shout people down?

I can't speak for anyone else, seeing as I don't buy into any of that "hive mind" stuff, but the OP did say they were interested in opinions regarding the rebranding of feminism -

Faith wrote: »

I should add here that I’m interested in hearing feedback on this from both men and women.

And the last few pages have been about politics and gender quotas in international politics and politics in your local area. You wanted to move the discussion on and I tried to move it on, back to the rebranding of feminism which is what I thought this thread was about, but you're not going to let the gender quotas in politics go. Now you have an issue with gender quotas in this thread when the OP asked for feedback from both men and women?

This thread as I understood it wasn't about gender quotas or politics, it was about the rebranding of feminism.

IvyTheTerrible · 21-06-2016 10:16AM

MOD Can we get the thread back on topic please? I think the gender quota issue has been done to death here. No more posts about it please.
And there is no issue with men posting on this thread or elsewhere in TLL once they follow the charter and on-thread rules.

Permabear · 21-06-2016 10:35AM

This post has been deleted.

silverharp · 21-06-2016 10:46AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I agree with your post and parents in particular will be scratching their heads as they want to see all their kids hit their potential. Ill challenge your conclusion as to what you see happening though. I dont think women will "marry down" in any great number. Japan for instance is showing that more people just opt out , 30% or 40% of guys will just give up and stick to low end jobs and the women will just accept that they only have a 50% chance of finding someone.

steddyeddy · 21-06-2016 10:49AM

MOD We're dropping quotas for discussion.

midlandsmissus · 21-06-2016 11:10AM

Back to Feminism as requested by the Moderator.

ancapailldorcha · 21-06-2016 11:12AM

silverharp wrote: »

I agree with your post and parents in particular will be scratching their heads as they want to see all their kids hit their potential. Ill challenge your conclusion as to what you see happening though. I dont think women will "marry down" in any great number. Japan for instance is showing that more people just opt out , 30% or 40% of guys will just give up and stick to low end jobs and the women will just accept that they only have a 50% chance of finding someone.

Hikikomori are very much at the extreme end of the scale though with many man simply "opting out" of society in favour of completely isolating themselves. Various societal shifts have meant that the lesser education, blue collar man is no longer as relevant or important as he once was and, as Permabear notes above there is something of a celebratory attitude among some feminists as though he were an edifice which required taking down.

midlandsmissus · 21-06-2016 11:20AM

Feminism IMO is a good thing. And always was. And is still needed.

Does the OP think that we should come up with a new name for it? As we are moving into a new era?

ancapailldorcha · 21-06-2016 11:26AM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

As we are moving into a new era?

Society is in a state of flux thanks to technology and shifting attitudes so I would say that we are in a vastly different world to even that of 20 years ago. I would say that feminism, as with anything needs to evolve with the times.

meeeeh · 21-06-2016 11:28AM

Discrepancies in educational results are hardly new thing though. It's going on for decades and as I said came across ideas for implementing quotas in certain studies before. I have no intention revisiting the subject but because general consensus on previous pages seemed to be against them I do wonder what other suggestions there are.

Women's issues used to be lack of access to education, men's seem to be academical. I could remember it wrong because it's ages when I read it but I think men catch up at around 22 and possibly outperform women after that (I am not sure about second bit). So do you give extra supports to boys in schools, do you increase points needed for girls, change or dumb down the curriculum? Personally I would first outlaw single sex schools. Girls seem to preform worse in mixed schools and boy's performance improves but I also think both genders benefit from social skill development. But after that I don't know.

Of course there is another point that certain trades have better earning power than some professions that need more academic education. Anyway feminists in west in good measure achieved the equality of opportunity. The question we need to resolve now is how to get the equality in achievement. It's hardly the same problem and I haven't seen many other suggestions than dreaded q word. So it's hardly fair to single out feminism there because nobody else is doing much either.

sullivlo · 21-06-2016 11:30AM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Feminism IMO is a good thing. And always was. And is still needed.

Does the OP think that we should come up with a new name for it? As we are moving into a new era?

I think what the OP was getting at is that the current view of feminism by some people (both male and female) has some negative connotations.

IMO:

Feminism when it is to gain equality for women = good.

Feminism when it is to gain equality for women at the expense of others/for the sake of feminism = bad.

Some people use the cloak of feminism to act in a manner that is not respectful of others. Some people use the cloak of feminism to get away with things they shouldn't get away with.

One small comparison - and I apologise if this is offensive. Imagine you're in a shop. There is a person of Asian descent in the shop. This person picks up a chocolate bar and puts it in their pocket without paying. The shopkeeper notices and calls this person out on it. This person then turns and says "You're treating me differently because I'm of Asian descent", when in reality they're being treated differently because they're thieves.

My impression is that some women (note, not all), can use the term "feminism" or the fact that they're female to get away with things or to get their own way. And IMO that aspect of feminism is what the OP is challenging.

silverharp · 21-06-2016 11:40AM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Hikikomori are very much at the extreme end of the scale though with many man simply "opting out" of society in favour of completely isolating themselves. Various societal shifts have meant that the lesser education, blue collar man is no longer as relevant or important as he once was and, as Permabear notes above there is something of a celebratory attitude among some feminists as though he were an edifice which required taking down.

I assume thats the "herbivore" group , but it is still 20% of males. In japan there seems to be a strong desire to have kids that go through a private school system so basically the income required to be considered marriage material has gone up and up so it doesnt matter if they want to "opt in"
In the European or American setting it doesnt take a genius to work out what will happen if college numbers are 1/4 men 3/4 women with the only proviso that not all college degrees increase your earning power. But there will still be significant mismatches plus it creates negative side effects like more hook up culture

orubiru · 21-06-2016 11:44AM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why are you here on a thread about reframing feminism?

Why are you so vehemently opposed to the gender quota?

Why are there now more men on this thread, (all with the same hive view) than women? Why are you all here? Are you that interested in feminism, or are you coming here to shout people down?

I can't help but feel that when you insist on talking about men and women as though they are homogeneous groups, or even a "hive mind", that you have basically already lost the argument/debate.

Then it really just comes down to how stubborn you are going to be with regards to admitting you got it wrong.

All it needs is one poster to say "well I am a woman and I don't agree" and you're diving down a rabbit hole of "internalised misogyny" and so on.

Any re-branding of Feminism would first of all need to move away from the idea that society is divided into only 2 groups and that our entire culture is built solely on simplified descriptions of the relationship between those 2 entire groups.

You'd have to get away from the idea that men just can't wait to help each other out while simultaneously trying to keep women down. It simply doesn't reflect reality.

For me, and this is what gets me interested in Feminism conversations, there is a fundamental problem with a model or theory of the world that denies individual choice and agency in favour of saying men are like this and women are like that.

In the past, when gender roles were more clearly defined and rigidly adhered to, I can see the role of Feminism as being very important.

However we are now well on our way towards a society where, once a person has a certain amount of financial stability, basically anything is possible. The rigid roles of the past are, well, in the past.

Modern Feminism seems to encourage a regression back to rigid roles. The only role for women in modern Feminist Theory is that of a victim or a survivor or a member of the oppressed class. Young girls must first learn how oppressed they are. Then what? Break their spirit with tales of how terrible it is to be a woman and then send them out into the world or send them off to gender studies class? Seems unfair.

Here is an article from a website called "Everyday Feminism".
http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/06/very-skinny-women-thin-privilege/

Is "acknowledging your Thin Privilege" really what Feminism is about? Actually, is it really even part of what Feminism should be about?

Reading that site, it really does seem like the movement has been hijacked by people who just want to complain about stupid stuff.

If it happens for long enough the public perception of the movement is stubborn people who can't admit they are wrong and complain constantly about stupid stuff.

If you want to use the dictionary definition then I am a Feminist. Fine. No problem.

Rape Culture? Doesn't exist. It's a meaningless, nebulous, term that does not reflect reality.
Objectification in advertising? I don't know. Are the models forced to work as models? Are they paid well for their job?
Smash the Patriarchy? Haha. Conspiracy nut job nonsense.
Thin Privilege? OK, we're done.

Honestly, I think re-branding the movement would require a wholesale move away from First World Problems and nebulous buzzwords and catchphrases like "rape culture" and "mansplaining" and a intensified focus on real problems that women face.

There should be a focus on existing problems and their solutions rather than determined efforts to comb through society looking for more obscure and less well defined "micro-aggressions" against women.

ALSO, these problems should be tackled by professionals in the appropriate fields. Not by internet bloggers looking for clicks and likes.

For example, if I'm going to be hearing about "Rape Culture" I expect to be hearing from Criminologists and experts in behavioural psychology. I do not expect to be hearing from authors of fictional novels taking a shot in the dark that maybe "men" are responsible for these issues because everyone laughs at sexist jokes.

So, in that respect, the movement needs more experts explaining issues in more detail and less "theory" from people who are barely qualified to have an opinion.

IvyTheTerrible · 21-06-2016 11:53AM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Back to Feminism as requested by the Moderator.

MOD Backseat moderation is against the charter. I'm going to ask you to stop posting in the thread.

silverharp · 21-06-2016 12:01PM

orubiru wrote: »

So, in that respect, the movement needs more experts explaining issues in more detail and less "theory" from people who are barely qualified to have an opinion.

I'd agree , also the make up of the leading lights of feminism tend to be drawn from a very narrow group of women. We laugh now at "celibate" catholic priests giving marriage advice yet a disproportionate number of feminist commentators or academics are more likely to be lesbian, not married or have kids themselves, have a phd in "gender studies" yet no expertise in biology. Feminists dont seem to be representative of the women one normally meets in real life hence it is kind of stuck in its own echo chamber and not really a first call for anyone who has an interest in education issues for instance.

Permabear · 21-06-2016 12:02PM

This post has been deleted.

meeeeh · 21-06-2016 12:11PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I understand what you are saying but what are you suggesting. Positive action? You are criticizing feminists for not doing anything but what should they be doing? You offer coherent analysis but you didn't offer one solution or even a pointer. It's very easy just to criticize others how they are not doing anything.

Jack Killian · 21-06-2016 12:18PM

meeeeh wrote: »

I understand what you are saying but what are you suggesting. Positive action? You are criticizing feminists for not doing anything but what should they be doing? You offer coherent analysis but you didn't offer one solution or even a pointer. It's very easy just to criticize others how they are not doing anything.

A possible interpretation of the points in line with the OPs query would be to rebrand as an actual equality movement in general rather than sticking to the somewhat blinkered "our side is disadvantaged" / "men are bad" / "men in history did this" vibe that a significant (and probably the more vocal, rather than the more numerous) number of the "movement" give off.

It's similar to some of the "gay rights activists" in a way; people not actively campaigning to promote their "side" are viewed as being against them, but they're often so blinkered and extreme that they're impossible to support, and Permabear (I think) correction: Silverharp outlined it above - they don't represent the majority who are actually only looking for equality.

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

Comments

Reframing feminism mod warning posts 1 and 50