'Young men in Ireland need feminism'

BalcombeSt4 · 30-11-2016 10:04pm

I don't think I'd call myself a feminist but I do have feminist leanings & symphaties with the feminist cause.

Sn@kebite · 30-11-2016 10:05pm

TheDavester wrote: »

Listened to that interview and you could hear Anton groaning at some of the guff she comes out with - the bit where she said it doesn't matter if its photos of a fella was really moronic, shes a grade A hypocrite

Describing a feminist as a grade A hypocrite is like describing a politician as a grade A liar.

It would be shocking if a feminist wasn't a hypocrite and actually believed in equal treatment of both sexes. But it rarely takes place.

(Western, white) Feminism is like an advert for why men's organisations are needed (as bad as they also are), men would be wasting our time with that anti-intellectual muck.

FortySeven · 30-11-2016 11:46pm

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

I don't think I'd call myself a feminist but I do have feminist leanings & symphaties with the feminist cause.

So go and crawl back under your rock then. You're not needed here.

steddyeddy · 01-12-2016 11:34am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

No. I really didn't. That's your hobby horse but I've never said I disagree with you and I moved on from that point. I was pointing out the fact that if someone mentions the notion of privilege it's likely to be shot down immediately by more than one poster (see the posts above). A story about a woman with privilege, used to bad feminism (your anecdote) received 6 thanks. That's what I'm saying.

I'll repeat it for clarity;I don't disagree with your point, in highlighting the difference in the way the notion of 'privilege' is treated by the posters in this thread.

Yeah, I'm really not saying any of that though. I'm pointing out the way the notion of privilege is treated in this thread and similar anti feminist threads

In theory yes. In reality some people have more choices than others.

My original post was about how privilege was treated differently depending on the source, and how this particular feminist seemed to ignore that by referring to "men" as privileged. I'm using this experience to illustrate that attacking someone for privilege isn't the way to do things. It leaves you opening to people questioning your privilege.

For instance most people would agree that division of subject by gender is wrong. Yet I don't think the same is true of wealth selection.

For example. In theory I think all genders should have the same education. However, in reality some people have more choices, wouldn't go down well with any feminists but it's what you said to one type of child discrimination.

silverharp · 01-12-2016 12:30pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

My original post was about how privilege was treated differently depending on the source, and how this particular feminist seemed to ignore that by referring to "men" as privileged. I'm using this experience to illustrate that attacking someone for privilege isn't the way to do things. It leaves you opening to people questioning your privilege.

For instance most people would agree that division of subject by gender is wrong. Yet I don't think the same is true of wealth selection.

For example. In theory I think all genders should have the same education. However, in reality some people have more choices, wouldn't go down well with any feminists but it's what you said to one type of child discrimination.

to tease it out though I'd prefer something like the German system where there are Grammar schools at one end and Vocational schools at the other and where the kids are educated based on their ability. There might be some gender specific issues to deal with for example Im guessing working class dropout rates for boys are the highest, so the question might be tailoring the system to suit them, maybe get them to transition to the workforce earlier

FA Hayek · 01-12-2016 12:52pm

Telling someone they are privileged is just a pejorative to make someone else shut up and guilt them into staying quiet, to make out that you or someone else is a victim.

Its the 21st century use of blasphemy, where the new religious zealots are the femnazi's and SJW types. They cannot win an argument using logic, facts or reason so they whine and wail insults hoping to guilt the other party into staying quiet.

I think people are seeing through this trick though.I hope it gets destroyed.

steddyeddy · 01-12-2016 3:21pm

silverharp wrote: »

to tease it out though I'd prefer something like the German system where there are Grammar schools at one end and Vocational schools at the other and where the kids are educated based on their ability. There might be some gender specific issues to deal with for example Im guessing working class dropout rates for boys are the highest, so the question might be tailoring the system to suit them, maybe get them to transition to the workforce earlier

That's exactly what I'd prefer. Education by ability. This is another form of selection but at least it was based on merit.

Either way criticising someone for perceived privilege isn't the way to go for gender or class inequality.

Renegade Mechanic · 01-12-2016 3:29pm

FA Hayek wrote: »

Telling someone they are privileged is just a pejorative to make someone else shut up and guilt them into staying quiet, to make out that you or someone else is a victim.

Its the 21st century use of blasphemy, where the new religious zealots are the femnazi's and SJW types. They cannot win an argument using logic, facts or reason so they whine and wail insults hoping to guilt the other party into staying quiet.

I think people are seeing through this trick though.I hope it gets destroyed.

Give it time, they'll cannibalise themselves. We're already seeing arguments to eject bisexuals because they're not apparently as high on the "oppression scale" as gays, and white gays because they're "more privileged" than other gays.

Just sit back and enjoy the ride

_Jamie_ · 01-12-2016 7:13pm

brickmauser wrote: »

Good looking young and attractive confident wealthy men and women have the best of all possible worlds.
The fat ugly unhappy sexually dysfunctional malcontents want to crash and ruin the party.
In the past these freaks were the religious fundamentalists and became monks and priests and nuns and pushed supetnatural gibberish about heaven and hell to make us all guilty.
Now they are feminists and social justice warriors and we all have to check out privilege.
That is essentially what has happened.

I'm confused. Why do I know some young, good-looking, intelligent feminists if the above is true? Oh right, trololololol.

ligerdub · 01-12-2016 7:29pm

_Jamie_ wrote: »

I'm confused. Why do I know some young, good-looking, intelligent feminists if the above is true? Oh right, trololololol.

Because that's an example, not the rule. You could also be quite young.

_Jamie_ · 01-12-2016 7:40pm

ligerdub wrote: »

Because that's an example, not the rule. You could also be quite young.

What is the "rule" then?

I'm youngish. Not all attractive feminists of my acquaintance are super young. Some are, some aren't.

So yeah, anyway, this rule. What is it? From what I can see, feminists are all kinds of people. Attractive, not attractive, some are wealthy, some aren't, some are more intelligent than others. There is no formula.

Goya · 01-12-2016 8:09pm

I'm just thinking of female feminists I know - six come to mind and they're all attractive and five of them have boyfriends. They're aged early 30s to early 40s. Personally I can't stand what feminism has become but it's just not true that feminist women are only unattractive.

py2006 · 01-12-2016 8:15pm

Flimpson wrote: »

I'm just thinking of female feminists I know - six come to mind and they're all attractive and five of them have boyfriends. They're aged early 30s to early 40s. Personally I can't stand what feminism has become but it's just not true that feminist women are only unattractive.

Ah its the stereotype, short dyed hair etc.

Renegade Mechanic · 01-12-2016 8:35pm

_Jamie_ wrote: »

I'm confused. Why do I know some young, good-looking, intelligent feminists if the above is true? Oh right, trololololol.

“The existence of the exception confirms the existence of the rule”

_Jamie_ · 01-12-2016 8:39pm

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

“The existence of the exception confirms the existence of the rule”

Ah yes, the rule again.

So what is this rule? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Goya · 01-12-2016 8:47pm

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

“The existence of the exception confirms the existence of the rule”

But as myself and Jamie have observed, it's not that rare. Contrary to quite popular belief, it is not just lesbians and unattractive women who don't have success with men, that buy into feminism.

_Jamie_ · 01-12-2016 8:51pm

It kinda seems to me that if someone spies an unattractive feminist, that confirms this putative "rule" to them, even if she is in the minority. That's the idea someone has formed and she confirms that notion.

brickmauser · 01-12-2016 8:58pm

_Jamie_ wrote: »

I'm confused. Why do I know some young, good-looking, intelligent feminists if the above is true? Oh right, trololololol.

There's no such thing.

brickmauser · 01-12-2016 9:00pm

Flimpson wrote: »

I'm just thinking of female feminists I know - six come to mind and they're all attractive and five of them have boyfriends. They're aged early 30s to early 40s. Personally I can't stand what feminism has become but it's just not true that feminist women are only unattractive.

There are aged 30 to 40s and just have boyfriends who are probably losers.
Hit the wall without a helmet.
They haven't got rich husbands so they feel like victims.
It's rich white mens' fault.

Goya · 01-12-2016 9:03pm

brickmauser wrote: »

There are aged 30 to 40s and just have boyfriends.
Hit the wall without a helmet.

Should have been specific - some have boyfriends and some have husbands. You're in your teens/very early 20s are you?

brickmauser · 01-12-2016 9:04pm

Flimpson wrote: »

Should have been specific - some have boyfriends and some have husbands. You're in your teens/very early 20s are you?

No

Renegade Mechanic · 01-12-2016 9:04pm

Flimpson wrote: »

But as myself and Jamie have observed, it's not that rare. Contrary to quite popular belief, it is not just lesbians and unattractive women who don't have success with men, that buy into feminism.

_Jamie_ wrote: »

It kinda seems to me that if someone spies an unattractive feminist, that confirms this putative "rule" to them, even if she is in the minority. That's the idea someone has formed and she confirms that notion.

Depends on what constitutes attractiveness.
Not all unattractive people are feminists, but just about all feminists are unattractive when you dig deeper than the skin. Most people find the values held by feminism today unattractive - myself included, and I'm no show pony...
Some of the most hideously ugly people I've known were absolutely stunning on the outside.

_Jamie_ · 01-12-2016 9:06pm

brickmauser wrote: »

There's no such thing.

Oh right. There is though. You might not want to acknowledge that and that's your call.

Goya · 01-12-2016 9:07pm

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Depends on what constitutes attractiveness.
Not all unattractive people are feminists, but just about all feminists are unattractive when you dig deeper than the skin. Most people find the values held by feminism today unattractive - myself included, and I'm no show pony...
Some of the most hideously ugly people I've known were absolutely stunning on the outside.

Of course, but the original claim that feminists are nearly all unattractive only referred to how they look. Of course it's true a lot of the time but it's simply not the case quite a fair bit too, and this is something that some don't seem to want to believe - seems like it's easier for them to believe feminists could only be "munters".

_Jamie_ · 01-12-2016 9:08pm

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Depends on what constitutes attractiveness.
Not all unattractive people are feminists, but just about all feminists are unattractive when you dig deeper than the skin. Most people find the values held by feminism today unattractive - myself included, and I'm no show pony...
Some of the most hideously ugly people I've known were absolutely stunning on the outside.

Ahhhh ok, the definition of attractive becomes more elastic and amorphous once it has been established that many feminists are physically attractive. I see. Well, that's convenient, I guess.

Renegade Mechanic · 01-12-2016 9:16pm

Flimpson wrote: »

Of course, but the original claim that feminists are nearly all unattractive only referred to how they look. Of course it's true a lot of the time but it's simply not the case quite a fair bit too, and this is something that some don't seem to want to believe - seems like it's easier for them to believe feminists could only be "munters".

That's only because they don't want to admit they're munters too. I've no such qualms

But there's definitely an element of jealousy across a large portion of the movement. Women are jealous creatures moreso than men, the way they tear each other down behind each other's back would give any man pause. They're their own worst enemy at times, yet men get the rap for it...

I've known two ladies that genuinely meant it when they didn't care who they were beside, other's wouldn't admit it, but you could tell that being In the presence of someone way better looking - even just on the surface! - just ruined their damned day.
That is noticeable in a lot of how the movements work. That "good looking" people share their vaules is irrelevant, it's the ones that don't, they're after...

That's just this ugly ****ers take though

mzungu · 01-12-2016 9:17pm

Flimpson wrote: »

Of course, but the original claim that feminists are nearly all unattractive only referred to how they look. Of course it's true a lot of the time but it's simply not the case quite a fair bit too, and this is something that some don't seem to want to believe - seems like it's easier for them to believe feminists could only be "munters".

It all sounds suspiciously like the usual guff about looks that is spouted by "Red Pill" types. Utterly silly stuff.

Renegade Mechanic · 01-12-2016 9:18pm

_Jamie_ wrote: »

Ahhhh ok, the definition of attractive becomes more elastic and amorphous once it has been established that many feminists are physically attractive. I see. Well, that's convenient, I guess.

Yeah, no I don't think so

_Jamie_ · 01-12-2016 9:44pm

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Yeah, no I don't think so

I don't really know what this response means, but you well know that people were referring to physical attractiveness. Don't change the goalposts. People referred to feminists as physically unattractive as a rule, yourself included (citing attractiveness as the exception to the rule). Once it was pointed out that this isn't really the case, you decided it meant metaphorical ugliness. Now, now.

silverharp · 01-12-2016 10:07pm

what about jobs that feminists do? the cliche is that they complain about the lack of women in STEM from their gender studies dept? if they are trying to break stereotypes they should be lepping into fields like engineering and IT but I dont get that sense? they seem to keep to safe fields like quangos or teaching/studying the lite courses in colleges?

'Young men in Ireland need feminism'

Comments