Fourth wave feminism.

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 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.

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

hungry hypno toad

midlandsmissus wrote: »

As a person said to me once 'why are women nice to men, they are not nice to you'.

Was she a feminist by any chance?

Zulu 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.

damn son, think I hit a nerve. gettin the old 'I'll just pretend not to understand it in a sarcastic, smarter than you type fashion'

here
head down to a rape crisis centre and tell them all about how feminism is wrong. Make sure to wear your best lynx as you might score some hot babes who can't resist your dank style and rebel attitude

BMMachine wrote: »

damn son, think I hit a nerve. gettin the old 'I'll just pretend not to understand it in a sarcastic, smarter than you type fashion'

here
head down to a rape crisis centre and tell them all about how feminism is wrong. Make sure to wear your best lynx as you might score some hot babes who can't resist your dank style and rebel attitude

Dank is cool I take it.

What's your point caller? I mean other than attempting to insult people who don't agree with you?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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'.

what more needs to be "done" ? how ought parents change how they raise their sons? all that I would see happening is feminists telling boys to not compete as is their nature and telling boys that masculinity is toxic just like religious people talk about original sin.

Zulu wrote: »

Dank is cool I take it.

What's your point caller? I mean other than attempting to insult people who don't agree with you?

That you and others that think like you are paranoid narrow minded little men who are full of sh*t.
And beneath that I'm pointing out how the way you think about important subjects like feminism is a culture and identity issue. It's one I like taking the piss out of because it's so acidic and self important.

Now off down to the rape crisis centre and tell the people there your views on feminism

BMMachine wrote: »

That you and others that think like you are paranoid narrow minded little men who are full of sh*t.

Ah I see. So you've no interest in civil discussion, only argivation.

Good luck with that.

silverharp wrote:

what more needs to be "done" ? how ought parents change how they raise their sons?

Have you read the link? (Obviously not). The speaker says that girls have been raised more like boys, but boys aren't given the same freedom and choices. I seriously thought broadening choice and getting rid of restricting gender roles was part of the men's rights movement.

silverharp wrote:

all that I would see happening is feminists telling boys to not compete as is their nature and telling boys that masculinity is toxic just like religious people talk about original sin.

All off the top of your head without even needing to know anything about it? Actual information might complicated the issue so best steer clear of any of it. You're psychic prediction is version specific given the headline information in the link. Will it be run by one of the blue haired sociologists from your search history?

Pac1Man

BMMachine wrote: »

And beneath that I'm pointing out how the way you think about important subjects like feminism is a culture and identity issue. It's one I like taking the piss out of because it's so acidic and self important.

You have yet to make a point. In fact it seems you enjoy taking the piss out of it more than actually discussing it. Must not be that important to you then?

Zulu wrote: »

Ah I see. So you've no interest in civil discussion, only argivation.

Good luck with that.

Awww snowflake. So precious. All you were trying to do was needle and undermine a cause you don't understand. How dare I be so direct. Proof is in the puddin darling, you and the others are completely full of sh*t and have the exact same attitude problem as the SJW's you decry. Wanna know why? Because it's not about feminism, it's about you and your identity. Don't dwell on that though, label me and my posts and move on. Retreat from the unknown.

BMMachine wrote: »

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

so why is there a whole feminist industry on US campuses turning out Chanty Binx drones? if the feminism that normal people don't like is coming from academia then that is feminism and you cant park it and say that isn't real feminism.
Going by what the well known feminist Camila Paglia said, all the reasonable feminists were driven out of academia decades ago so all you are left with now are a bunch of extremists and closet Marxists or not so closet even.

Glenster

Pac1Man wrote: »

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?

I do believe that men and women in the same role are paid differently, granular information of this kind is not available in Ireland but I would cite the following studies in the US, EU and UK

http://www.aauw.org/aauw_check/pdf_download/show_pdf.php?file=The-Simple-Truth

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/gender-equality/infographs/equal-pay-day-2015/equal-pay-day/index_en.html

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450878/Gender_Pay_Gap_Consultation.pdf

I don't know anything about where you work.
I know where I work 75% of the partners are men, and 100% of the receptionists and cleaners are women. And there are all sorts of reasons you can use to explain that away. And I'm saying just because you can explain it doesn't mean its not an issue.

I don't think I have my fingers in my ears just because I refuse to turn around and say "Issue dropped" just because someone says that one of the main reasons women are paid less is because more men are in managerial roles.

Pac1Man wrote: »

You have yet to make a point. In fact it seems you enjoy taking the piss out of it more than actually discussing it. Must not be that important to you then?

It's a massive topic with complex strands. The information to be gained out of an After Hours thread on it is f and all. It's better to analyse the psychology behind why people talk about it in the way they do rather than the topic itself. Isn't it amazing how the same attitudes mirror themselves in both support and opposition to it? I find the mentality of the opposers the funnier of the two though. It's all these angry men pretending to be educated and informed of the 'real' truth while stroking each other off. Tell them to go to a rape crisis centre and express their views and their brains cantle handle that reality so they retreat. (What I'm gunning for now is for one to go into detail about how my rape crisis centre analogy is a farce because of x y and Z all while not thinking about how stupid they actually sound but shhh! )

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Have you read the link? (Obviously not). The speaker says that girls have been raised more like boys, but boys aren't given the same freedom and choices. I seriously thought broadening choice and getting rid of restricting gender roles was part of the men's rights movement.

In fairness I wouldn't raise boys to be more like girls, I think its clear that not all boys are cut out to be "roaringly masculine" as in to be fighter pilots or firemen while playing rugby at the weekend in between building their own house from scratch. So I think the pressure to conform to the Marlboro man image isn't there so much now, so great job done!
But at the same time they still need to be career oriented for example because frankly put women don't want men they have to support so I don't see any point in telling boys to abandon their roles completely because it will be the quickest way to have them exit the gene pool

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

All off the top of your head without even needing to know anything about it? Actual information might complicated the issue so best steer clear of any of it. You're psychic prediction is version specific given the headline information in the link. Will it be run by one of the blue haired sociologists from your search history?

Ill not look for them now but there are examples of feminism in schools having a detrimental affect on boys, the last thing I would want is for that to be policy

hatrickpatrick

Jesus this thread is an absolute train wreck. I'm as opposed to discriminatory feminism as anyone, but throwing in comments suggesting that women are crappy workers is just absolutely moronic. You're the type of people who fuel these muppets fires and give them ammunition for their claim that society is still anti-woman. As a counter point, in music I've always found that women are far more likely to turn up on time for rehearsals and recording sessions, as well as more likely to have actually learned the part beforehand so we don't spend half an hour getting it right before we can actually record anything... Lads, particularly lads who are drummers, are generally a disaster. :pac:

Glenster wrote: »

I know where I work 75% of the partners are men, and 100% of the receptionists and cleaners are women. And there are all sorts of reasons you can use to explain that away. And I'm saying just because you can explain it doesn't mean its not an issue.

Do you think that the company you work for is deliberately preventing successful women from becoming partners due to their gender?

Having background in professional services, I see mostly male partners - no argument there - but I see those who create the most revenue being made partner. It's fairly cut-throat, and it's simply a money game.

[Can you bring in and maintain approx €1m revenue? If so, can you pay the fee (although as I understand it there's a preferential loan available repayable from the first few years profits)? If so, sign your life away here, here and here. Welcome to the bottom rung on the partner ladder!]

KKkitty

How do you know if someone is a feminist? They never shut up about it. Today's radical feminists are a bit of a joke. If say a man is walking in the same direction as them but gets to the destination first they'd be up in arms or demand that he walk at the same pace. It's almost like they nitpick at everything to the point it becomes farcical.

silverharp wrote:

In fairness I wouldn't raise boys to be more like girls, I think its clear that not all boys are cut out to be "roaringly masculine" as in to be fighter pilots or firemen while playing rugby at the weekend in between building their own house from scratch. So I think the pressure to conform to the Marlboro man image isn't there so much now, so great job done!

That sounds really like a narrow interpretation of the link posted. You seem to agree with it but you also seem to vehemently opposed it in principle. Are you conflicted because it's feminists doing something you agree with?

silverharp wrote:

But at the same time they still need to be career oriented for example because frankly put women don't want men they have to support so I don't see any point in telling boys to abandon their roles completely because it will be the quickest way to have them exit the gene pool

Sure. Of course all this is in your head. It's nowhere in the link at all. Where do you get this guff about telling boys not to compete? Why do you think the two messages have to be delivered together?

As far as i can see (because I've actually read the link) it's about creating more choices for boys. You agree with that message in principle do you need to inject this narrative about telling boys not to compete. Could see just stick to reality instead?

osarusan

KKkitty wrote: »

How do you know if someone is a feminist? They never shut up about it.

In After Hours it is the other way round.

Boom_Bap

BMMachine wrote: »

Awww snowflake. So precious. All you were trying to do was needle and undermine a cause you don't understand. How dare I be so direct. Proof is in the puddin darling, you and the others are completely full of sh*t and have the exact same attitude problem as the SJW's you decry. Wanna know why? Because it's not about feminism, it's about you and your identity. Don't dwell on that though, label me and my posts and move on. Retreat from the unknown.

BMMachine
You don't seem to be able to post without insulting on this thread.
Please do not post in this thread again.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That sounds really like a narrow interpretation of the link posted. You seem to agree with it but you also seem to vehemently opposed it in principle. Are you conflicted because it's feminists doing something you agree with?

Its obvious that some men have a more feminine nature and there is nothing wrong with that but if I was to suspect a feminist agenda it would be take out men are very masculine in their approach to things when that's their nature too, telling men not to be masculine would be like trying to teach a cat to perform tricks that a dog would normally do, you might achieve it but only with the attachment of electrodes and a lot of pain. :pac:
If feminists were neutral there wouldn't be phrases like "toxic masculinity" . and when it comes to it "toxic masculinity" is what builds roads and cities and is that which rolls out the next technological wonder. the choice is there to be a hipster Barista no shame.

Glenster

Zulu wrote: »

Do you think that the company you work for is deliberately preventing successful women from becoming partners due to their gender?

Having background in professional services, I see mostly male partners - no argument there - but I see those who create the most revenue being made partner. It's fairly cut-throat, and it's simply a money game.

[Can you bring in and maintain approx €1m revenue? If so, can you pay the fee (although as I understand it there's a preferential loan available repayable from the first few years profits)? If so, sign your life away here, here and here. Welcome to the bottom rung on the partner ladder!]

Yes. By virtue of the structure of the partner position.

And they'd want to be maintaining more than €1m in revenue to be made partner.

JupiterKid

Well, this thread confirms my suspicions...

That put the word "feminist" in a given boards.ie thread and all the opinionated loudmouth and downright abusive crazies will be attracted to it like flies to dogsh*te. Never fails!:cool:

That calm, rational posts and posters get drowned out. More heat than light is generated.