Fourth wave feminism.

There's a lot more to feminism than rights: the right to to a club, have a good time, not have your ass grabbed by a random stranger who thinks he's Mr Wonderful (despite lacking basic communication skills) and maybe have a shag without being labeled a slut, for a start.

But yes: equal pay and equal access to paternal leave, even if you're not married to the child's mother for a start. Also equal rights for seperated and divorced Father's to see their kids. Sometimes, women are their own worst enemies.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

There's a lot more to feminism than rights: the right to to a club, have a good time, not have your ass grabbed by a random stranger who thinks he's Mr Wonderful (despite lacking basic communication skills)

But everyone, regardless of their gender, already has that right?

and maybe have a shag without being labeled a slut, for a start.

Everyone, regardless of their gender, already has that right too!

But yes: equal pay and equal access to paternal leave, even if you're not married to the child's mother for a start.

There are more factors are considered other than gender in determining a persons employment criteria and assessing their contribution and value to their employer.

Also equal rights for seperated and divorced Father's to see their kids. Sometimes, women are their own worst enemies.

The family courts mandate is to act in the best interests of the children, not in what their parents feel is their best interests. Separated and divorced fathers already have equal access, guardianship and parental rights, and the circumstances of each individual case are determined in family courts again in the best interests of the children, not their parents. The same could be said of anyone that they are their own worst enemy, regardless of gender.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But everyone, regardless of their gender, already has that right?

Everyone, regardless of their gender, already has that right too!

There are more factors are considered other than gender in determining a persons employment criteria and assessing their contribution and value to their employer.

The family courts mandate is to act in the best interests of the children, not in what their parents feel is their best interests. Separated and divorced fathers already have equal access, guardianship and parental rights, and the circumstances of each individual case are determined in family courts again in the best interests of the children, not their parents. The same could be said of anyone that they are their own worst enemy, regardless of gender.

1 - eh, no? they dont...?

2 - regarding the employer... um, yes? of course...

(what did i write that made you think i thought othetwise...?)

3 - courts: in theory, yes, but not always in practice (although frequently more common, thsnkfully) But there are wonen who play (or try to play) the "mother" card to get more access. Doesnt always eork, granted - but even trying it is sn attempt at inequality.

Galwayguy35

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

There's actually quite a big gender imbalance in the bin collecting profession.

Women should strive to break down that wall and take their place in the industry.

Also in the other male dominated trades like fishing and fixing sh1tters and sewer systems.

I do hear the bin truck passing at 5.30 am, the fella driving isn't too bad but the guy standing on the back of the truck getting the bins earns his money in winter all right.

Don't see the ladies queuing up for that job anytime soon.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

1 - eh, no? they dont...?

Yes they do, we have laws in Ireland that carry penalties which act as a deterrent against sexual assault.

2 - regarding the employer... um, yes? of course... (what did i write that made you think i thought othetwise...?)

You wrote this -

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But yes: equal pay and equal access to paternal leave, even if you're not married to the child's mother for a start.

3 - courts: in theory, yes, but not always in practice (although frequently more common, thsnkfully) But there are wonen who play (or try to play) the "mother" card to get more access. Doesnt always eork, granted - but even trying it is sn attempt at inequality.

In both theory, and in practice, the only discrepancy in law between mothers and unmarried fathers is that the father is not entitled to automatic guardianship. Ironically enough, this goes back to your earlier point about "women should have the right to a shag without being called a slut" (they already do have that right), because while it's obvious that a woman who gives birth is the mother of the child, the same cannot be assumed about the potential father. That's why only married men are assumed to be the father of their spouses children, and are conferred with automatic guardianship rights. For that reason too it's unlikely that parental leave will be granted to fathers who have no wish to pay maintenance for their children.

They cannot be denied access, but do you wonder why the family courts appear to be biased? Because in most cases the mother is the primary caregiver of the children, and she is providing an unpaid service to society. Again, that's the whole reason behind the historical context of a woman's place being in the home enshrined in the Irish Constitution. It looks archaic now, but back then it was necessary.

Of course women are going to play "the mother card" as you put it, in the very same way as men will play "the father card", and of course neither party is going to give a shìte about gender equality if they are more concerned about their own rights as an individual. That's only common sense. As I mentioned earlier though, with marriage equality given legal recognition now, the old moulds of fathers rights and mothers rights will cause all sorts of consternation for advocacy groups who claim to want "equality for all". They're not fooling anyone with that nonsense.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes they do, we have laws in Ireland that carry penalties which act as a deterrent against sexual assault.

You wrote this -

In both theory, and in practice, the only discrepancy in law between mothers and unmarried fathers is that the father is not entitled to automatic guardianship. Ironically enough, this goes back to your earlier point about "women should have the right to a shag without being called a slut" (they already do have that right), because while it's obvious that a woman who gives birth is the mother of the child, the same cannot be assumed about the potential father. That's why only married men are assumed to be the father of their spouses children, and are conferred with automatic guardianship rights. For that reason too it's unlikely that parental leave will be granted to fathers who have no wish to pay maintenance for their children.

They cannot be denied access, but do you wonder why the family courts appear to be biased? Because in most cases the mother is the primary caregiver of the children, and she is providing an unpaid service to society. Again, that's the whole reason behind the historical context of a woman's place being in the home enshrined in the Irish Constitution. It looks archaic now, but back then it was necessary.

Of course women are going to play "the mother card" as you put it, in the very same way as men will play "the father card", and of course neither party is going to give a shìte about gender equality if they are more concerned about their own rights as an individual. That's only common sense. As I mentioned earlier though, with marriage equality given legal recognition now, the old moulds of fathers rights and mothers rights will cause all sorts of consternation for advocacy groups who claim to want "equality for all". They're not fooling anyone with that nonsense.

"Right" is probably the wrong word for the club scenario, ability would be a better word. Also, a lot men don't actually see grabbing someone's ass as a sexual offence (we had a thread on this in here recently - a lot people described it as 'a bit of craic'). And believe me, it happens.

Also, most sexual assaults go unreported.

Regarding employment - i know what i said but there's still no connection with your response. I never spoke of getting the job in the first place, or hiring criteria. I spoke of equality after the position is appointed.

We seem to be in agreement on the third part.

Pac1Man

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Also, most sexual assaults go unreported.

How do they know this and why are they not reported?

buckwheat

I wouldn't worry about it. As far as I can tell it only exists on the Internet and in universities. I've never encountered any of it in real life. Never even heard it mentioned.

222233

Sweetemotion wrote: »

What is all that about?

We have our national papers giving columns, to people like Louise O Niell and Rosemary Mc Cabe.

Both activists for Womens rights in Ireland and the Repeal the 8 campaign.

The only argument now in Ireland they have left, is the right to abortion.

After repeal the 8 is granted is that the end of feminism in Ireland as we all have equal rights?

What's wrong with "feminists" getting airtime or a column in a paper? What's so frightening about that.

I'm pretty sure it's not an argument or the only argument they have left, it's a very serious issue that affects the women of this country, just because certain people speak about it doesn't solely make it a feminist issue - it could be a human rights issue, a mental health issue, a medical issue, a discrimination issue.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

"Right" is probably the wrong word for the club scenario, ability would be a better word. Also, a lot men don't actually see grabbing someone's ass as a sexual offence (we had a thread on this in here recently - a lot people described it as 'a bit of craic'). And believe me, it happens.

Also, most sexual assaults go unreported.

It's not the wrong word at all, it's just that you really don't have a point, as both men and women have that right, and they also have a right to make a complaint and seek justice through legal means if their rights are violated. The fact that most sexual assaults go unreported isn't something that the law can address as people cannot be forced to report assault. That doesn't take away from the fact that they have the right to report it.

Regarding employment - i know what i said but there's still no connection with your response. I never spoke of getting the job in the first place, or hiring criteria. I spoke of equality after the position is appointed.

Yes, and that's why I spoke of the fact that it's more than just a persons gender that determines the value of their contribution and conditions of employment to their employer. There can never be equality in those circumstances, simply because of the fact that there are far more criteria used in making determinations regarding employment conditions for an employee than solely their gender.

steddyeddy

I think feminism should do more the address how class affects women. A lot of feminists seem to be from privileged backgrounds and already have a huge advantage through private schools ect. Their situation will be different from most women.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Awot-d8U9Cc

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

"Right" is probably the wrong word for the club scenario, ability would be a better word. Also, a lot men don't actually see grabbing someone's ass as a sexual offence (we had a thread on this in here recently - a lot people described it as 'a bit of craic'). And believe me, it happens.

I don't think that bolded part is true. In fact, I believe it was slammed by nearly everyone. Some said it was the behaviour of dickheads, others said it was sexual assault. Nobody from what I recall reading,and certainly not a lot of people, said "sure it's just a bit of craic".

silverharp

this is worth a watch, Jordan Peterson buts a good case for the balance of men/women "at the top"

222233

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think feminism should do more the address how class affects women. A lot of feminists seem to be from privileged backgrounds and already have a huge advantage through private schools ect. Their situation will be different from most women.

The concept of feminism is to liberate women as a whole, it doesn't matter what background the people discussing it are from.

222233 wrote: »

The concept of feminism is to liberate women as a whole, it doesn't matter what background the people discussing it are from.

Ahh it does though, because their background influences whom they perceive as their oppressors that they feel a need to liberate women from. Their perception (which is informed and influenced by their own background) causes them to have a rather tunnel-vision view of society. That's why there is no such thing as liberating all women any more, they just want people to agree with them and don't ask any questions.

222233

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahh it does though, because their background influences whom they perceive as their oppressors that they feel a need to liberate women from. Their perception (which is informed and influenced by their own background) causes them to have a rather tunnel-vision view of society. That's why there is no such thing any more as liberating all women any more, they just want people to agree with them and don't ask any questions.

I don't really see it that way at all, I would say the opposite, it seems to me that these so called privileged feminists are the same people speaking up for women who are less fortunate than them.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

"Right" is probably the wrong word for the club scenario, ability would be a better word. Also, a lot men don't actually see grabbing someone's ass as a sexual offence (we had a thread on this in here recently - a lot people described it as 'a bit of craic'). And believe me, it happens.

Yes, it does... but there's a flip side. I've never grabbed a strangers ass, but mine has been grabbed before. My crouch has been grabbed too. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that women are probably more likely than men to grab strangers ass.. for a bit of craic.

Most men I'd know are nowadays much more hesitant about initiating first physical contact. Too many chances for an assault or rape charge.

If you feel offended by someone grabbing your ass, charge them. We all have that ability. Alas, men would likely be laughed out of the police station if we tried to charge a woman for such an offence. I shudder to think of trying to report that in my local police station.

Also, most sexual assaults go unreported.

Then how do we know they happened? Seems a bizarre statement to me.

They were reported to someone... just maybe not the authorities responsible for stopping such behavior. And that comes down to a persons choice as to how to deal with the problem.

222233 wrote: »

I don't really see it that way at all, I would say the opposite, it seems to me that these so called privileged feminists are the same people speaking up for women who are less fortunate than them.

And that's exactly why there are now so many different strands in modern feminism, because the privileged few feminists who thought they were speaking on behalf of all women, are now having to face the reality that in fact they do not, and cannot speak for all women who they perceive to be less fortunate. They're trying to, of course, but it just comes across as insincere platitudes for the most part when they start talking about intersectionality, but always with themselves as the focus point.

In trying to address as many issues as possible, they've actually diluted feminism to the point where it can mean anything anyone wants it to mean, and is therefore open to attack rather than acceptance from all comers. That's why so many, many young women just cannot relate to many of the ideals of modern feminism, because it simply isn't representative of, or relative to, their experiences and their lives.

steddyeddy

222233 wrote: »

The concept of feminism is to liberate women as a whole, it doesn't matter what background the people discussing it are from.

But they're not targeting all women. Like I said one of the biggest determinates of where you end up in life Is class. I think feminism should address the issues that affect working class women like access to quality education. A lot of the people who speak for feminism don't do this because they themselves received a very privileged education.

Pac1Man wrote: »

How do they know this and why are they not reported?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/making-choice-to-seek-help-is-a-big-decision--80-of-sexual-violence-cases-go-unreported-308891.html

A lot of victims go to crisis centres rather than actually reportign the crime.

Why are they not reported? Various reasons: not wanting to relive the ordeal, finding it too stressful, the fear of publicity, not wanted to face the attacker, the fear of not being believed...

Is there such a thing as fifth, sixth or seventh wave feminist that's what I want to know.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not the wrong word at all, it's just that you really don't have a point, as both men and women have that right, and they also have a right to make a complaint and seek justice through legal means if their rights are violated. The fact that most sexual assaults go unreported isn't something that the law can address as people cannot be forced to report assault. That doesn't take away from the fact that they have the right to report it.

Having the right and having the ability are two different things. Having the right means nothing if you don't have the security of the social situation: and the scenario I'm talking about is one where it doesn't happen (and it does happen - and a lot more to women than to men)

Example: a transgender has the right to go to the bathroom of their chosen gender, but will be beaten up if they do. Hey - they still have the right, so all is fair and equal...

[/QUOTE]
Yes, and that's why I spoke of the fact that it's more than just a persons gender that determines the value of their contribution and conditions of employment to their employer. There can never be equality in those circumstances, simply because of the fact that there are far more criteria used in making determinations regarding employment conditions for an employee than solely their gender.[/QUOTE]
Again - I never argues for or against this.

Omackeral wrote: »

I don't think that bolded part is true. In fact, I believe it was slammed by nearly everyone. Some said it was the behaviour of dickheads, others said it was sexual assault. Nobody from what I recall reading,and certainly not a lot of people, said "sure it's just a bit of craic".

Fair point, btu there were definitely people sayign that is wasn't unacceptable.

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, it does... but there's a flip side. I've never grabbed a strangers ass, but mine has been grabbed before. My crouch has been grabbed too. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that women are probably more likely than men to grab strangers ass.. for a bit of craic.

Who said it had to be a woman? How owuld you feel if it was another man who grabbed you, followed you around and made unrequested sexual advances on you?

Most men I'd know are nowadays much more hesitant about initiating first physical contact. Too many chances for an assault or rape charge.

If you feel offended by someone grabbing your ass, charge them. We all have that ability. Alas, men would likely be laughed out of the police station if we tried to charge a woman for such an offence. I shudder to think of trying to report that in my local police station.

I totally agree. Again, women/feminists can be their own worst enemies.

Then how do we know they happened? Seems a bizarre statement to me.

They were reported to someone... just maybe not the authorities responsible for stopping such behavior. And that comes down to a persons choice as to how to deal with the problem.

Answered above.

TheDavester

222233 wrote: »

What's wrong with "feminists" getting airtime or a column in a paper? What's so frightening about that.

I'm pretty sure it's not an argument or the only argument they have left, it's a very serious issue that affects the women of this country, just because certain people speak about it doesn't solely make it a feminist issue - it could be a human rights issue, a mental health issue, a medical issue, a discrimination issue.

I Think it's a certain type of feminist like LON & Una mullally (this 4th wave) who are irritating to a lot of people here and other places with their 'first world problems ' and are allowed to bash men - quite a few women I personally know are getting sick of them and the media allowing them to act as the perpetual victim ... It's these type of feminists who ruin it for other feminists who do good work/ and there genders were reversed - Larry o Neill for example would be roundly criticised

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Having the right and having the ability are two different things. Having the right means nothing if you don't have the security of the social situation: and the scenario I'm talking about is one where it doesn't happen (and it does happen - and a lot more to women than to men)

Example: a transgender has the right to go to the bathroom of their chosen gender, but will be beaten up if they do. Hey - they still have the right, so all is fair and equal...

Hold on a minute, if I'm to understand you correctly, then you're talking about two completely different things. Nobody has the right to assault anyone. You qualify your own statement by referring back to the scenario you previously gave as an example, and say that it happens to more women than men... and then run off on a completely different example of people who are transgender being assaulted?

So when a person who is transgender is assaulted, is it a violation of women's rights or men's rights, and is their use of the bathroom they prefer, a violation of other people's right to personal safety which you argue should have the security of the social situation?

Who's rights are being violated there exactly, because I'm lost now?

Sweetemotion

222233 wrote: »

What's wrong with "feminists" getting airtime or a column in a paper? What's so frightening about that.

I'm pretty sure it's not an argument or the only argument they have left, it's a very serious issue that affects the women of this country, just because certain people speak about it doesn't solely make it a feminist issue - it could be a human rights issue, a mental health issue, a medical issue, a discrimination issue.

Nothing frightening about that. Just hypocrisy, can you name one MRA getting the same "air time" in a national paper?

As for the repeal the argument, can you tell me one other right that men have that women don't?

That's why I asked will it end feminism in Ireland.
Feminism is for equal rights for both genders. When asked what rights do men have that women don't in Ireland, is met with the answer body autonomy.

So just curious after body autonomy is allowed in Ireland we have equal rights, will it end feminism in Ireland?