nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Fourth wave feminism.

Sweetemotion

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

BMMachine

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

One side of the argument seems less calm, rational and substantive that's for sure.

oh the problem in my eyes is there is no argument.
People on here trying to define something extremely complex like feminism and even the original post giving it an end date. Not really understanding that rights issues, for men and women (people, could you believe that!), is something ever changing and ever evolving in society and the world around us.
People wanting to sound like they have purchase on this issue and think that its wrong because through their narrow perspective they only see certain sides have no weight on the matter, their opinion carries no value. What are the problems with feminism? There are none really, unless of course you are really paranoid and full of spite - then Im sure there are loads

thank God those who hate feminism are rational enlightened human beings who are definitely smarter and more intelligent than those who champion it.. who also have great choice in headwear and get nothing but that dankest fluids for their vapes

Zulu

BMMachine wrote: »

.

I'm confused; tbh I'm not up with my memes and online insults - I thought the Fedora was a dig at the SJW/White Knight type?
Is this having a pop at pro or anti feminists?

...either way, when your contribution totals to attempting to insult someone, it speaks volumes about what type of person you are. When it fails it's even more tragic.

El_Duderino 09

Outlaw Pete wrote:

People need to be aware of just how sinister these people are.... young boys are in their cross hairs.

To be fair, I would have thought most people would agree that ridding ourselves of limiting gender stereotypes is a good thing. Especially for children. That's on the very first page of the 'men's rights thread' as one of its main reasons for existing - to get rid of limiting gender roles for men.

If you think they're sinister just for existing, then I'm not sure we're using the same understanding of 'sinister'.

BMMachine

optogirl

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

People need to be aware of just how sinister these people are.... young boys are in their cross hairs.

https://twitter.com/motherhubblog/status/841683360963543040

why is this sinister?

Outlaw Pete

People need to be aware of just how sinister these people are.... young boys are in their cross hairs.

https://twitter.com/motherhubblog/status/841683360963543040

Pac1Man

Glenster wrote: »

I don't understand the logic that, when faced with the fact that women are paid less than men, some people think it sorts out the issue by saying "this is why, therefore it doesn't matter".

Your lack of understanding is shocking. Do you really believe that a man and a woman working the same job with the same experience are paid differently?

I work in a male dominated area, however the women who do work here are paid the same for the same role. There is a structure in place to ensure this. This isn't the 1920s.

The fact that you put your fingers in your ears whenever reasoning is provided means you are not open to debate. Sure why bother trying to discuss then?

optogirl

myshirt wrote: »

How come we only hear from the women shouting loud for all the air conditioned office jobs?

Where are the women who want equality in the jobs as rubbish collectors, landscapers, landfill operators, sewer inspectors, portapotty cleaner, or proctologists even?

Fuc*ing everywhere

silverharp

myshirt wrote: »

How come we only hear from the women shouting loud for all the air conditioned office jobs?

Where are the women who want equality in the jobs as rubbish collectors, landscapers, landfill operators, sewer inspectors, portapotty cleaner, or proctologists even?

careful there, air conditioning is sexist I believe, that blew up as an issue a year or 2 back, its a nighmare

Zulu

Deleted User wrote: »

But men generally have a choice, and women generally don't have a choice. That is the distinction.

My "choice" as you put it, was to take a month unpaid leave. I could only do this as I had a contract which gave me the opportunity to do it. I risked losing that contract. I got "lucky". How many men have that opportunity? Damn all I'd suggest.
By your argument women could "choose" to turn down mat. leave and return to work after a short period of recovery (all going well in childbirth).

I suspect this will continue for as long as women alone are the only ones who can give birth to, and breastfeed, babies.

Breastfeeding isn't a straightforward option. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't. But that's an aside, it will continue as long as men are deprived parental leave. Give couples a choice - give 9 months parental leave to the couple to work out amongst themselves. ....and come up with a system that works for self-employed (good luck with that).

...it's disingenuous to argue that men do not have more choice than women on this issue. They do.

They don't. It's daft to argue they do. You'd compare 2 weeks to maternity leave in all seriousness? Really??

myshirt

How come we only hear from the women shouting loud for all the air conditioned office jobs?

Where are the women who want equality in the jobs as rubbish collectors, landscapers, landfill operators, sewer inspectors, portapotty cleaner, or proctologists even?

optogirl

machiavellianme wrote: »

Looking forward to some parity. Sick of seeing female colleagues getting a six month paid holiday to have a child while I'm slaving in the office with no option for the same.

Whose fault is that? Not your female colleagues anyway.

A six month paid holiday? Troll be trolling

silverharp

Glenster wrote: »

Absolute horsesh*t.

not an argument...I win, well played sir!...well played!

Zulu

Glenster wrote: »

I don't have a problem with men being paid more if they're better, just not because they're men.

Well on this, at the very least, we can agree.

Glenster

silverharp wrote: »

its not an injustice , its just a difference. why are you assuming that men and women are the same when its clear they aren't. Is it an injustice that some men excel in fields like IT which appeal to the male brain? To make society "fair" in your sense would mean forcing men to be less productive so society would lose out because stuff wouldn't get done or innovation would slow down. Society is in a sweet spot at the moment, women aren't kept out of the workforce and everyone is free to compete for jobs/income in the way that works for them
Im amazed you cant see it and you are a man?

Absolute horsesh*t.

[Deleted User]

Zulu wrote: »

However, as a father of two, I took a month unpaid leave (because leave parental or otherwise wasnt available to me) to be there for the first month of my children's lives. I did the night feeds for those months so my wife could recover and rest.

I'm looking for praise, or flowers to be thrown at me, but you really rilled my feathers with your flippant comments - not every man chooses to be so uninvolved.

But men generally have a choice, and women generally don't have a choice. That is the distinction. I suspect this will continue for as long as women alone are the only ones who can give birth to, and breastfeed, babies. The post I responded to viewed maternity leave as a holiday for women: 'Sick of seeing female colleagues getting a six month paid holiday to have a child while I'm slaving in the office with no option for the same.'

It's not, and it's disingenuous to argue that men do not have more choice than women on this issue. They do. That the vast majority of men choose to stay working outside the home after childbirth indicates their working preferences. Given this, it's a bit rich for the above male poster to, without irony, state that it is maternity leave that is a 'six-month paid holiday'.

silverharp

Glenster wrote: »

I respectfully disagree that redressing an injustice would destroy society.

its not an injustice , its just a difference. why are you assuming that men and women are the same when its clear they aren't. Is it an injustice that some men excel in fields like IT which appeal to the male brain? To make society "fair" in your sense would mean forcing men to be less productive so society would lose out because stuff wouldn't get done or innovation would slow down. Society is in a sweet spot at the moment, women aren't kept out of the workforce and everyone is free to compete for jobs/income in the way that works for them
Im amazed you cant see it and you are a man?

Glenster

Zulu wrote: »

Genuinely? Should we disband the mens 100m and introduce a gender neutral quota? What would you do when the men keep winning? Introduce a further handicap??

In more general terms, I worry about the impact of the "everyone's a winner" mindset; "medals for all!"
Life is not fair. And you'd be best set to accept that.

I don't particularly want everyone to get medals.

Though I wouldn't be protesting with placards if they did.

I don't have a problem with men being paid more if they're better, just not because they're men.

Zulu

Glenster wrote: »

I think your gender shouldn't be a contributing factor to how much you are paid, that's why its unjust.

And I'd agree. That said, perhaps the reason the person sitting beside me is getting paid less has nothing to do with gender.
If women are paid less than me because of their gender, this is addressable through the justice system.
If women are paid less than men for other reasons, perhaps there's a good reason for this (eg:less competitive, work less hours, working different roles ).

Has the issue of murder been addressed because there a legal systems in place to punish murderers?

What do you mean "has it been addressed"? Did you raise the issue other than now? Whats the issue you wish addressed? It's illegal.

I agree its logical to look at the reasons, that was the first thing I did, but just because you've explained why something is happening doesn't mean its not happening.

True, but if it's explaining that it's not happening due to "gender" but to other reasons, then it's not problematic in my (and most of society's) opinion.

BTW: the way you reply makes it very difficult to respond to you.

Glenster

silverharp wrote: »

fair has got nothing to do with and to make it "fair" would destroy society and make more people miserable.

I respectfully disagree that redressing an injustice would destroy society.

Billy86

DontThankMe wrote: »

This one

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/gender-pay-gap-in-ireland-has-widened-over-last-five-years-1.2983387

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/ireland-set-to-introduce-measures-to-close-the-gender-pay-gap-35516983.html

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/labour-proposes-bill-to-tackle-gender-pay-gap-780836.html

Something really interesting that was pointed out to me by wibbs I think it was a good while back is that while there is (or at the time was) a 14% difference in the pay gap between men and women, women under 30 without children were actually earning 30% more than their male counterparts.

A big part of the problem is clearly the lack parental leave (with it almost entirely being distributed as maternity leave), meaning that if a couple in their 20s had a child today the woman in the relationship would statistically be earning more money and thus would be classified as the primary breadwinner and one would imagine more likely to have better prospects moving forward. However because of an antiquated law that could surely be changed with very little effort or controversy, if they wanted to raise the child from a young age she would have to be the one to do so, harming not only the family's immediate income but also her career prospects moving forward (and by extension, the family's future income). It really is quite irritating to think about, not least because unlike controversial issues like abortion etc where politicians unfortunately have personal career concerns impacting their decisions or lack of action, all that is holding this back is laziness in terms of acting.

It also seems to point to the fact that the market is correcting itself to a great extent, related to women attending college and upskilling more so than in previous generations, but also to employers being less likely to discriminate against women for career opportunities and pay rates based on gender. That is a very, very good sign in and of itself... but it is being hindered in no small part by them having to take six months out of work after having a child (or hiring someone to look after the baby, which for personal and financial reasons many don't see as an option), which is such an easy change to make that I really can't see any sizable demographic (even those that oppose anything simply for the sake of opposing it) being able or likely even interested to make any decent argument against.

If the couple want the mother to take the most/all of the parental leave as is currently the case, they can continue to do so. If they feel the father doing so would be a better idea, they could choose that option too. If they wish to split it, they could do that too. Or if they wish to continue to work and hire someone to mind the baby, that could also be an option.

Not to say that would immediately solve everything or even be of much use to those who this has already effected, but it's such an easy answer to safeguard against it in future and makes absolutely zero sense to have not been implemented long ago.

Glenster

Zulu wrote: »

A pay gap exists between the people sat on either side of me, and myself. You say it isn't just. Why? Simply because it exists??

I think your gender shouldn't be a contributing factor to how much you are paid, that's why its unjust.

Hyperbole aside - yes it does. And it does it in the fairest way possible.

Has the issue of murder been addressed because there a legal systems in place to punish murderers?

Well it's sensible to consider "why" this might exist. Personally I don't understand the logic of ignoring the reasons. Frankly, it's foolish, ill conceived and dangerous to ignore the reasons.

I agree its logical to look at the reasons, that was the first thing I did, but just because you've explained why something is happening doesn't mean its not happening. What's foolish and Illogical is to react to the news that there is a pay gap partly because women aren't managers and to respond to that by saying "Grand then, there's not really a pay gap at all then"

Certainly. And were you to live on the slopes of that Volcano wouldn't you like to understand why it erupts?

Again that was the first thing I did

Or would you prefer to just cry about it not being fair that other mountains don't?

I don't think I'd cry, I would tell people that the mountain is erupting and that its impacting a lot of people, then I'd lobby whatever agency is in charge of dealing with the mountain to put sufficient controls in place to either stop the mountain erupting or reduce the damage caused if the mountain erupts again.

All the while doing this I would continually draw attention to the damage that the eruptions cause by citing specific instances of damage in order to ensure that the issues doesn't become forgotten and gets swept under the rug

Carlos Orange

Glenster wrote: »

I don't think someone's opportunities should be limited by their biology. Doesn't seem fair.

All people are is biology.

silverharp

Glenster wrote: »

I don't think someone's opportunities should be limited by their biology. Doesn't seem fair.

fair has got nothing to do with and to make it "fair" would destroy society and make more people miserable. Everything you buy for instance has something from the ground like metals etc. are you suggesting that women should be forced to be miners 50/50 with men? even though women wouldn't want to do the job and if they were forced to their productivity would be lower?

Glenster wrote: »

Also I'm not sure its fair to peg women as more nurturing than men. I'm pretty nurturing.

as dads maybe but most men wouldn't want to be paid to looks after infants and toddlers

Zulu

Glenster wrote: »

I don't think someone's opportunities should be limited by their biology. Doesn't seem fair.

Genuinely? Should we disband the mens 100m and introduce a gender neutral quota? What would you do when the men keep winning? Introduce a further handicap??

In more general terms, I worry about the impact of the "everyone's a winner" mindset; "medals for all!"

Life is not fair. And you'd be best set to accept that.

Zulu

Glenster wrote: »

A pay gap exists and it is not just.

A pay gap exists between the people sat on either side of me, and myself. You say it isn't just. Why? Simply because it exists??

Explaining why it exists and that there are systems in place where you can spend years and 100's of thousands to prosecute an employer who breaches it does not redress the problem.

Hyperbole aside - yes it does. And it does it in the fairest way possible.

I don't understand the logic that, when faced with the fact that women are paid less than men, some people think it sorts out the issue by saying "this is why, therefore it doesn't matter".

Well it's sensible to consider "why" this might exist. Personally I don't understand the logic of ignoring the reasons. Frankly, it's foolish, ill conceived and dangerous to ignore the reasons.

There is a reason why volcanos erupt, it doesn't mean its not an issue.

Certainly. And were you to live on the slopes of that Volcano wouldn't you like to understand why it erupts? Or would you prefer to just cry about it not being fair that other mountains don't?

silverharp

Glenster wrote: »

I don't understand the logic that, when faced with the fact that women are paid less than men, some people think it sorts out the issue by saying "this is why, therefore it doesn't matter".

There is a reason why volcanos erupt, it doesn't mean its not an issue.

maybe you don't understand logic? choices and individual incentives make up the "wage gap" . you should look at male traits like innovation and risk taking or the male obsession with very narrow fields as to why they tend to work in a way which extracts the most green.
Maybe if you spent some time looking at his with some biological inputs or look at evolutionary biology and psychology you would have a more rounded view, instead of resorting to gender studies talking points or the evil patriarchy.

Glenster

silverharp wrote: »

there are biological differences between men and women, this affects choices , if there are gender stereotypes its because they have biological influences. Even in feminist utopia Sweden they never got equal numbers of men and women to take engineering . why it this? because all things being equal and with no particular financial or cultural stresses men prefer working with things whereas women prefer people centered jobs or nurturing jobs like childcare and that is why you will never get women in large numbers working on oil rigs or mining metals from the ground nor will you see a large movement of men into working in creches

I don't think someone's opportunities should be limited by their biology. Doesn't seem fair.

Also I'm not sure its fair to peg women as more nurturing than men. I'm pretty nurturing.

Glenster

Zulu wrote: »

Simply put, there is legislation in place to protect the citizen from being paid less for the same job when they have the same credentials. Instances in breach of this can be redressed and compensated through the courts.

When broad sweeping and poorly considered surveys are carried out they appear to support the notion of a "pay gap", but these are so broad as to be meaningless - save to support a simplistic notion to further an agenda.

A pay gap exists and it is not just.

Explaining why it exists and that there are systems in place where you can spend years and 100's of thousands to prosecute an employer who breaches it does not redress the problem.

I don't understand the logic that, when faced with the fact that women are paid less than men, some people think it sorts out the issue by saying "this is why, therefore it doesn't matter".

There is a reason why volcanos erupt, it doesn't mean its not an issue.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote:

So when a person who is transgender is assaulted, is it a violation of women's rights or men's rights [...]

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

That question only makes sense in the men's rights Vs women's rights paradigm. If you'reâ€‹ interested in equal rights, then the question becomes easier meaningless