Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

How do you view Feminism in Ireland?

124

Comments

  • #92
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,711 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    LostinBlanch wrote: »
    Pat Mustard wrote: »
    10. Previously, when it was suggested that posters should consider disengaging from discussion with this guy, he characterized those suggestions as some sort of moral cowardice or attempting to silence a legitimate point of view. In fact, posters are bit tired of his extremely dishonest posting, at this stage.

    You forgot no 11. Dishonestly pretending that a link rebutting his argument doesn't exist then attempt to use this "fact" :rolleyes: to denigrate that poster and disregard his rebuttal. When this was pointed out to him and that the link worked for others his reply was along the lines of "Lol, it doesn't work for me."

    Now, I have no idea who this poster is, nor do I care. I had no idea they existed until seeing replies on this and other threads on here. I have no idea of their motivation, but when it comes to their debating style and contributions on here, one word that comes to mind is dishonest.

    Dishonest was part of point 10. That was the case with that link. I pressed the link and got an error message.

    Earlier today I asked for examples of behaviours the poster claimed was so common that the majority of men do it. And instead of providing any examples, I was accused of deflecting.

    There's a problem when any old Finnish is accepted without any need to even provide examples. The claim that the majority of men worship women is a big claim. Providing assertions like women get different leeway in a crisisIs as a manifestation of woman worship. Is it an opinion that lots of poster share? Or just willing to let any old garbage go completely unchallenged?


  • #93
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Interestingly one could argue that this is also an aim of The Money™ (which tends to be overwhelmingly Right leaning). Monetising a housewife isn't so easy, especially if it's shared money with her partner. However push women into the workforce as a "freedom" and you double the number of consumers and the workers required to fulfil their needs. Now we regularly hear of the glass ceiling and not enough women at the very top and how this is a very bad thing, but I would argue not that why are so few women at the top, but why so many men choose that path and all its attendant sometimes extreme effort and fallout on a personal level. Now if someone wants to work every hour god sends almost to the exclusion of the rest of one's life, then fine and I'm glad some do, as it generally drives humanity forward, even at a cost to the individual, but is it a healthy aspiration for the vast majority who are told that it is? A vast majority that won't reap the benefits of such a trajectory.

    Look at how women are increasingly delaying starting a family to keep their career on track, all too often rushing into marriages to start one in their 30's. Some can end up not being able to find someone in time. Now it is what it is, but again is it particularly healthy? I can think of three women I know that had/have good careers that they worked damned hard to foster, who went through a few relationships in their 20's, some of which may have had legs, some of which didn't, but who then settled(and usually with much haste) with men that I know they wouldn't have chosen in their 20's and I've seen the low level disgruntlement in both sides in the aftermath of the weddings and births.

    Now I'm just shooting the breeze here, nothing amounting to much serious consideration on my part TBH, but it is a question I've asked myself off and on down the years, knowing very clever and high performing women and watching their life paths unfold. And I think it's a question we should be asking in a wider context. IE are the modern world's measures of success worth revisiting and questioning? For both men and women.

    Will be brief...
    I think the aim of The Money is to get people spending it, consuming, and that is the route to happiness as promoted by Captlsm. As brutal as unrestrained Capt. can be, i think i'd prefer it to the alternative.

    Women are the drivers of economy in 1st world countries - whether it is her own earned income or her being in charge of husbands while she runs the household. Ever wonder why the majority of advertising is aimed at women? That's not accidental.

    We are all chasing one carrot or another in the hope of lasting happiness, contentment or satisfaction. At least in a free society, we choose which carrots we chase*, even if they have previously been shown to be dead-ends or not supplying the feelings they were supposed to.


    *using the stick/carrot analogy implies someone is dangling the carrot in front of us, directing or leading us where to go.


  • #94
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    I disagree to be honest. Companies and public sector bodies are already under huge pressure to hire more women and people from BME backgrounds. If there are 160 women's groups then there can't be much room for many more.

    BME? What is that?

    I see that there is pressure to have more 'diversity' in the workplace but that's a load of crap...unless a gay man has ideas that a straight man can't have, or an Asian woman has a thought that a South American woman is incapable of having. My jibe is that 'gender studies' graduates could be the ones who are recruited and paid handsomely for such pointless 'professional' advice. Either that or working for an ngo salary.


  • #95
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,360 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    TBH I'm in two minds about diversity programmes. I can defo see the reasoning behind it, when particular groups have been left to the side regardless of their talent for a role, just because they were particular groups. And it would be a damned fool who suggested that this didn't and too often doesn't happen. I have always favoured a society which gives equality in opportunity and diversity programmes are a part of that. Though IMHO they're actually an indicator of the failure of a society to nip that crap in the bud from the start.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #96
    Middle Man
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Middle Man


    Poll Update: Wed 20th Sep 2017 @ 23:00

    How do you perceive Feminism in Ireland? (Total votes: 166 (+50))

    13.25% (22 votes (+8)) - Promotion of female supremacy;

    36.75% (61 votes (+17)) - Misandristic + Disregard for men;

    16.87% (28 votes (+8)) - Exclusive and somewhat misandristic;

    16.27% (27 votes (+8)) - Female-centric, but somewhat inclusive;

    16.87% (28 votes (+9)) - Inclusive, fair and balanced.

    Regarding the secondary poll ‘How relevant to you is the controversy over feminism?’, two of the options therein will be included for the final calculations of this poll after both polls conclude:

    33 votes (+1) - Neither concerned nor interested - has no real effect on me;

    2 votes (=) - Not sure.

    Note: At least one person has voted on the secondary poll, but not this one - there has been feedback from a couple of users relating to the complexity of the options and how it mightn’t fit all opinions - this I have noted and will consider in future polls. If anyone else would like to make observations regarding the poll, please feel free. Due to the surge of interest in the secondary poll, the results for all the options therein are published as follows:

    How relevant to you is the controversy over feminism? (Total votes: 80 (+6))

    3.75% (3 votes (=)) - Very concerned as I’ve been intimately affected (bad relationship etc.);

    13.75% (11 votes (+1)) - Quite concerned as I’ve been affected somewhat (in family, public etc.);

    23.75% (19 votes (+3)) - Not greatly affected, but concerned for the future (for me and others);

    15.00% (12 votes (+1)) - Not very concerned, but nonetheless interested (curiosity/research etc.);

    41.25% (33 votes (+1)) - Neither concerned nor interested - has no real effect on me;

    2.50% (2 votes (=)) - Not sure.

    Note: The next poll update will be Wednesday 27th Sept…


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    Wibbs wrote: »
    TBH I'm in two minds about diversity programmes. I can defo see the reasoning behind it, when particular groups have been left to the side regardless of their talent for a role, just because they were particular groups. And it would be a damned fool who suggested that this didn't and too often doesn't happen. I have always favoured a society which gives equality in opportunity and diversity programmes are a part of that. Though IMHO they're actually an indicator of the failure of a society to nip that crap in the bud from the start.

    Equality in opportunity? Anyone can apply for an advertised position but the decision to hire, imo, should be based on their skills and ability to perform the task - not on gender or skin colour or from a desire to show that 'race doesn't matter to me but you got the job because you are not white and we have enough males already'.
    To me, diversity programs are based on factors that it is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of.


  • #98
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,360 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    Equality in opportunity? Anyone can apply for an advertised position but the decision to hire, imo, should be based on their skills and ability to perform the task
    I agree 100%. However as I said it would be foolish to believe that people's backgrounds, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, gender(I remember reading that in the US bodyweight was a selection bias) don't have an impact on the selection process. By how much this is the case is the question.

    By the time a job application gets to the interview stage personal selection biases are nigh on a given, what with human nature involved. For example it's been shown time and time again that taller, more attractive people get preferences at interview over people who are shorter less attractive, regardless of qualifications.

    TBH I dunno how such human factors could ever be taken out of the mix.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #99
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    there is no such thing as equality it only makes sense in the legal or state sense, everything else is competition and hierarchy. its probably one of the most abused term of the last 20 years

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #100
    Middle Man
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Middle Man


    Wibbs wrote: »
    I agree 100%. However as I said it would be foolish to believe that people's backgrounds, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, gender(I remember reading that in the US bodyweight was a selection bias) don't have an impact on the selection process. By how much this is the case is the question.

    By the time a job application gets to the interview stage personal selection biases are nigh on a given, what with human nature involved. For example it's been shown time and time again that taller, more attractive people get preferences at interview over people who are shorter less attractive, regardless of qualifications.

    TBH I dunno how such human factors could ever be taken out of the mix.

    Perhaps some sort of points system that pertains only to certain skill sets - an online screening process (specialised tests etc) could be used prior to the interview phase hence making personal selection bias more questionable and therefore, more open to litigation. Now I don't know how workable that would be, but I'm just putting out an idea.


  • #101
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    Wibbs wrote: »
    TBH I dunno how such human factors could ever be taken out of the mix.

    They can't, unless a computer programme is invented whereby human decision-making is removed all together from the process. But the software should ideally be developed by a woman of colour...


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 16,208 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    Women are the drivers of economy in 1st world countries - whether it is her own earned income or her being in charge of husbands while she runs the household. Ever wonder why the majority of advertising is aimed at women? That's not accidental.

    It's interesting that claims of sexism are so common when women have so much control over spending both their own money, but also of their spouse. The quote above got me thinking. I honestly hadn't thought about it that way.

    Oh, I was aware of the heaps of industries out there which have been geared to cater to women as opposed to women. The fashion industry is a prime example. Ever visit the huge department stores in countries like America or in Asia? Maybe half of a floor for men's products, and 6 floors for women's. Go to a shoe shop and the men's shoe area will be in a corner, a small area for children, and a huge area is given over to women. Same with beauty/health products.. one/two shelves for male items, and a lot more for female products like makeup (which will have people to serve them). Even an area for shampoo/conditioners is likely to be bigger than the area for male products.
    My hometown has two barbershops, and I think there are as many as 11 hairdressers geared for women.

    So when I think of all these claims by feminists. I'm thinking our (male) sexism has provided a rather comfortable environment for them, created by, well, women.
    We are all chasing one carrot or another in the hope of lasting happiness, contentment or satisfaction. At least in a free society, we choose which carrots we chase*, even if they have previously been shown to be dead-ends or not supplying the feelings they were supposed to.

    I'm not so sure of that. If you consider both marketing (with the use of psychology, nlp, and serious research/testing), and social conditioning, there seems to be a lot of other forces at work to convince us what our drives should be.

    And while there is less in the way of obvious rules or demands for us to behave a certain way, there is still a lot of regulation going on. I noticed this when I lived in China. I was living in what was essentially a police state, and yet, there was less actual direct law applied than in Ireland. (you were only in trouble when the officials focused on you, but that was easily avoided) Everything in Europe has some form of regulation applied to it. for example, I can get wonderful street food in China, but you can't in Ireland because it would never pass the strict hygiene standards required for selling food. All for our benefit.. and yet, it is still a way of controlling how we live our lives.
    *using the stick/carrot analogy implies someone is dangling the carrot in front of us, directing or leading us where to go.

    Didn't see this until I'd written the above. Gotta start reading everything before I just in to post. :D


  • #103
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,566 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Oh, I was aware of the heaps of industries out there which have been geared to cater to women as opposed to women. The fashion industry is a prime example. Ever visit the huge department stores in countries like America or in Asia? Maybe half of a floor for men's products, and 6 floors for women's. Go to a shoe shop and the men's shoe area will be in a corner, a small area for children, and a huge area is given over to women. Same with beauty/health products.. one/two shelves for male items, and a lot more for female products like makeup (which will have people to serve them). Even an area for shampoo/conditioners is likely to be bigger than the area for male products.
    My hometown has two barbershops, and I think there are as many as 11 hairdressers geared for women.

    So when I think of all these claims by feminists. I'm thinking our (male) sexism has provided a rather comfortable environment for them, created by, well, women.

    You couldn't be more wrong. The increase in comestic, fashion, grooming and sanitary products for women is a sign of the heteronormative patriarchy asserting itself. Fashion magazines are run exclusively by a few men and a lot of women who suffer from internalised misogyny which reinforces the partriarchial message that women should look pretty for their men. They even lie to women with such transparent slogans as "Because I'm worth it" or the suggestion that women dress up for other women instead of doing it to impress men. It's such a subtle conspiracy, you'd be forgiven for thinking it doesn't exist.

    But to make matters worse, the massive increase in female centred services has allowed the Pink Tax, whereby the government requires female marketed products to be up to 30% more expensive. Without feminism's help, women wouldn't even realise this and would be under the mistaken impression that men's products are cheaper because they use lower quality ingredients or because less demand = lower price. But if you drill a little deeper into that, you will find that capitalist patriarchal concepts of money, supply and demand are just wrong when you look at them through a feminist perspective.

    I'm not one of the extreme feminists however. Some extreme feminists believe that women spending large amounts of money on high heeled shoes is akin to the prisoner gilding his own cage, as the high heels make women less mobile in the urban environment, forcing them to be less able to run away from the men who pursue them in the street and force them to laugh at their jokes and say thankyou when they are bought an oppressive dinner. I don't believe that there is enough evidence for this (subject to my right to not require evidence to back up my views on other issues).

    So to conclude, you should never suggest to a woman that she purchased that "must have" handbag or spent 3 hours getting her nails done and face masked voluntarily, because to imply that women have free will is a classic example of how patriarchy denies women their free will. It's basically like the people who talk about free speech only ever want to say horrible things so we shouldn't allow them.


  • #104
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 16,208 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I'm pretty sure that my razor blades are more expensive than the ones women use.

    So, in essence, we're damned unless we agree with the extreme feminist ideology? Amazing language btw. Just like the interviews of the black panthers or the communist party meetings. Gosh. Do people really get away with talking that rubbish?


  • #105
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,566 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure that my razor blades are more expensive than the ones women use.

    There's an answer for that too. #notallrazorblades
    So, in essence, we're damned unless we agree with the extreme feminist ideology?

    Well there are at least four different and conflicting extreme feminist positions on pretty much every issue, so as long as you pick one of those you'll be fine.


  • #106
    Saruhashi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 591 ✭✭✭Saruhashi


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Well there are at least four different and conflicting extreme feminist positions on pretty much every issue, so as long as you pick one of those you'll be fine.

    This is one of my biggest issues with the movement. So many contradictory points being made.

    From the more "academic" side of Feminism you have concepts such as looking at things "through a Feminist lens" which are deemed perfectly valid but which would so OBVIOUSLY give rise to contradictions and bias.

    They won't admit though that their Feminist "interpretation" of an aspect of society is just and interpretation and not a statement of fact.

    The Patriarchy, for example, strives to create an environment that favors men at the expense of women but AT THE EXACT SAME TIME is also the reason why so many men are miserable.

    So, thanks to The Patriarchy men have privilege and that privilege comes at a cost to women. Also though The Patriarchy makes men miserable and dysfunctional. So men are the privileged beneficiaries of Patriarchy when it suits but also the victims of Patriarchy when it suits too.

    Even the razor blades conversation is full of weirdness. What stops a woman from just buying the razor blades with the "for men" label? If mens blades are cheaper than womens blades then just buy the mens ones.

    Are we saying that women are so weak willed that they are afraid to buy razor blades marked "for men" in case they lose face? Or are we saying that they are too dumb to realize that you don't actually have to be a man to buy the "mens" blades?

    If the answer is that a woman wants to buy a very specific type of blade then why shouldn't she pay extra?

    If a man or woman wants to buy the good old orange bic razors then they can. If you want a razor with 4 or 5 or whatever blades then you pay more. If you want a razor with a curvy handle and lubricating strips in a limited edition Ferrari Red then you have to pay extra.

    I'm not understanding the logic going on in the head of a consumer who wants to buy a very specific product, instead of the most basic version of that product, but who wants to pay the same price as a different product in the same category.

    On one hand we want to be independent women who go against the system but on the other hand clever marketing forces us to buy the more expensive razors.


  • #107
    Middle Man
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Middle Man


    Poll Update: Wed 27th Sep 2017 @ 23:00

    How do you perceive Feminism in Ireland? (Total votes: 192 (+26))

    13.02% (25 votes (+3)) - Promotion of female supremacy;

    34.90% (67 votes (+6)) - Misandristic + Disregard for men;

    16.67% (32 votes (+4)) - Exclusive and somewhat misandristic;

    18.23% (35 votes (+8)) - Female-centric, but somewhat inclusive;

    17.19% (33 votes (+5)) - Inclusive, fair and balanced.

    Regarding the secondary poll ‘How relevant to you is the controversy over feminism?’, two of the options therein will be included for the final calculations of this poll after both polls conclude:

    33 votes (=) - Neither concerned nor interested - has no real effect on me;

    2 votes (=) - Not sure.

    Note: At least one person has voted on the secondary poll, but not this one - there has been feedback from a couple of users relating to the complexity of the options and how it mightn’t fit all opinions - this I have noted and will consider in future polls. If anyone else would like to make observations regarding the poll, please feel free. Due to the surge of interest in the secondary poll, the results for all the options therein are published as follows:

    How relevant to you is the controversy over feminism? (Total votes: 80 (=))

    3.75% (3 votes (=)) - Very concerned as I’ve been intimately affected (bad relationship etc.);

    13.75% (11 votes (=)) - Quite concerned as I’ve been affected somewhat (in family, public etc.);

    23.75% (19 votes (=)) - Not greatly affected, but concerned for the future (for me and others);

    15.00% (12 votes (=)) - Not very concerned, but nonetheless interested (curiosity/research etc.);

    41.25% (33 votes (=)) - Neither concerned nor interested - has no real effect on me;

    2.50% (2 votes (=)) - Not sure.

    Note: The provisional poll results will be posted Monday 2nd Oct…


  • #108
    Middle Man
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Middle Man


    Mon 2nd Oct 2017 (Both Polls Concluded)

    How do you perceive Feminism in Ireland? (Total votes: 194 (+2))

    12.89% (25 votes (=)) - Promotion of female supremacy;

    35.57% (69 votes (+2)) - Misandristic + Disregard for men;

    16.49% (32 votes (=)) - Exclusive and somewhat misandristic;

    18.04% (35 votes (=)) - Female-centric, but somewhat inclusive;

    17.01% (33 votes (=)) - Inclusive, fair and balanced.

    Regarding the secondary poll ‘How relevant to you is the controversy over feminism?’, two of the options therein will be included for the final calculations of this poll due Wednesday coming:

    33 votes (=) - Neither concerned nor interested - has no real effect on me;

    2 votes (=) - Not sure.

    Note: At least one person has voted on the secondary poll, but not this one - there has been feedback from a couple of users relating to the complexity of the options and how it mightn’t fit all opinions - this I have noted and will consider in future polls. If anyone else would like to make observations regarding the poll, please feel free. Due to the surge of interest in the secondary poll, the results for all the options therein are published as follows:

    How relevant to you is the controversy over feminism? (Total votes: 80 (=))

    3.75% (3 votes (=)) - Very concerned as I’ve been intimately affected (bad relationship etc.);

    13.75% (11 votes (=)) - Quite concerned as I’ve been affected somewhat (in family, public etc.);

    23.75% (19 votes (=)) - Not greatly affected, but concerned for the future (for me and others);

    15.00% (12 votes (=)) - Not very concerned, but nonetheless interested (curiosity/research etc.);

    41.25% (33 votes (=)) - Neither concerned nor interested - has no real effect on me;

    2.50% (2 votes (=)) - Not sure.

    Many thanks to all who participated in the polls.

    Note: The combined poll result will be posted Wednesday 4th Oct…


  • #109
    Sleepy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,877 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    You couldn't be more wrong. The increase in comestic, fashion, grooming and sanitary products for women is a sign of the heteronormative patriarchy asserting itself. Fashion magazines are run exclusively by a few men and a lot of women who suffer from internalised misogyny which reinforces the partriarchial message that women should look pretty for their men. They even lie to women with such transparent slogans as "Because I'm worth it" or the suggestion that women dress up for other women instead of doing it to impress men. It's such a subtle conspiracy, you'd be forgiven for thinking it doesn't exist.

    But to make matters worse, the massive increase in female centred services has allowed the Pink Tax, whereby the government requires female marketed products to be up to 30% more expensive. Without feminism's help, women wouldn't even realise this and would be under the mistaken impression that men's products are cheaper because they use lower quality ingredients or because less demand = lower price. But if you drill a little deeper into that, you will find that capitalist patriarchal concepts of money, supply and demand are just wrong when you look at them through a feminist perspective.

    I'm not one of the extreme feminists however. Some extreme feminists believe that women spending large amounts of money on high heeled shoes is akin to the prisoner gilding his own cage, as the high heels make women less mobile in the urban environment, forcing them to be less able to run away from the men who pursue them in the street and force them to laugh at their jokes and say thankyou when they are bought an oppressive dinner. I don't believe that there is enough evidence for this (subject to my right to not require evidence to back up my views on other issues).

    So to conclude, you should never suggest to a woman that she purchased that "must have" handbag or spent 3 hours getting her nails done and face masked voluntarily, because to imply that women have free will is a classic example of how patriarchy denies women their free will. It's basically like the people who talk about free speech only ever want to say horrible things so we shouldn't allow them.
    One of the finest pieces of satire I've read on Boards.ie

    Bravo!

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #110
    Middle Man
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Middle Man


    Wed 4th Oct 2017 (Both Polls Concluded)

    How do you perceive Feminism in Ireland? (Total votes: 229)

    10.92% (25 votes) - 1. Promotion of female supremacy;

    30.13% (69 votes) - 2. Misandristic + Disregard for men;

    13.97% (32 votes) - 3. Exclusive and somewhat misandristic;

    15.28% (35 votes) - 4. Female-centric, but somewhat inclusive;

    14.41% (33 votes) - 5. Inclusive, fair and balanced;

    14.41% (33 votes) - 6. Neither concerned nor interested;

    0.87% (2 votes) - 7. Not sure.

    Note: At least one person has voted on the secondary poll, but not this one - there has been feedback from a couple of users relating to the complexity of the options and how it mightn’t fit all opinions - this I have noted and will consider in future polls. If anyone else would like to make observations regarding the poll, please feel free.

    Statistical Breakdown:

    55.02% have a negative view of Feminism in Ireland as they perceive it - of those, 41.05% seem quite concerned about the issue.

    44.10% are not very concerned about Feminism in Ireland - of those, 14.41% seem to have quite a positive view of feminism.

    Despite the issue of confusion surrounding the polling format and the subject thereof, only 0.87% said they were not sure. However, at least one person voted in the second poll for an option not included in the above analysis but yet didn’t vote in the first poll - the number of people in the same category is unknown.

    While some flaws remained in the polling methodology, a clear message that can be taken from the result is that people who are concerned about the issue regarding Feminism in Ireland now have a moral right to have access to a proper discussion on the issue here - no longer can anyone say that nobody really cares about feminism and the topic is unworthy of debate. The poll was made anonymous as I reckoned some men would otherwise be afraid to vote for fear of being found out - the chosen format was intended to allow men to speak without having to identify themselves.


  • #111
    Middle Man
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Middle Man


    On international men's day, it's a timely to bring back a poll result that clearly shows what many men think of feminism as it is presented in the media etc. - we have a right to highlight our concerns regarding the negativity directed towards males. Not only that, but we should celebrate the achievements of men including such pertaining to the arts, cookery, technological advancement and engineering, both civil and mechanical. We have every right to do so, not as a mark of superiority (that we seriously do not need), but as a mark of meaningful intellectual contribution to society.

    In short, men are people!


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,711 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Middle Man wrote:
    On international men's day, it's a timely to bring back a poll result that clearly shows what many men think of feminism as it is presented in the media etc. - we have a right to highlight our concerns regarding the negativity directed towards males.

    A load of old guff. Would a poll in a feminist forum, on their views of the men's rights movement, affect your views much? I wouldn't really think so, nor should it.
    Middle Man wrote:
    In short, men are people!
    Of course.
    Ah here, you hardly needed a feminist bashing poll to conclude that.

    The message of IMD is men's health and issues that affect men. Leave feminism out of the discussion if you give a toss about promoting awareness of men's issues.


  • #113
    Middle Man
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Middle Man


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    A load of old guff. Would a poll in a feminist forum, on their views of the men's rights movement, affect your views much? I wouldn't really think so, nor should it.


    Of course.
    Ah here, you hardly needed a feminist bashing poll to conclude that.

    The message of IMD is men's health and issues that affect men. Leave feminism out of the discussion if you give a toss about promoting awareness of men's issues.
    The thing is that the negativity directed towards males in the media etc. (feminism as presented in the media) is affecting how men feel including myself - the results of this poll is conducive to this conclusion that I've come to. Given that many men feel let down amid the given social attitudes towards males, IMD is an opportunity to make ourselves heard. I've been on the after-hours IMD thread doing just that...


  • #114
    vetinari
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,058 ✭✭✭vetinari


    Outside of child custody, men are pretty well represented everywhere else.
    We dominate most governments, board rooms and indeed any positions of power.
    It's pretty inaccurate to say we've been badly affected by feminism.


  • #115
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,360 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Not quite and though this is a common refrain of feminism and western culture in general, the more accurate statement is a tiny minority of men dominate "most governments, board rooms and indeed any positions of power". When we go down to the average where the majority of us live that picture is not nearly so simple. And provably so.

    If this male domination was in play men would be the ones who would live longer healthier lives, be better educated, have much lower suicide statistics, much lower workplace injuries and deaths, better divorce outcomes(more an issue outside of Ireland), more medical attention and more social support across the board. But they quite simply don't.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #116
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,711 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Wibbs wrote: »
    If this male domination was in play men would be the ones who would live longer healthier lives, be better educated, have much lower suicide statistics, much lower workplace injuries and deaths, better divorce outcomes(more an issue outside of Ireland), more medical attention and more social support across the board. But they quite simply don't.

    That might be true in some cases but it ignores the biological differences. What if men choose riskier jobs, women are more predisposed to sitting and reading textbooks, men choose less healthy hobbies or lifestyles.

    Men could be getting what they choose and having lower outcomes. The two aren’t mutually exclusive


  • #117
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    you could weave the 2 together by saying that men dominate other men, there is no collective attempt by men to dominate women. Men at the top of the hierarchy aren't trawler men or farmers or work construction.
    Feminism is a croc for the very reason it pits men versus women in Marxist terms, society is far more complex

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #118
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,711 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    silverharp wrote: »
    you could weave the 2 together by saying that men dominate other men, there is no collective attempt by men to dominate women. Men at the top of the hierarchy aren't trawler men or farmers or work construction.
    Feminism is a croc for the very reason it pits men versus women in Marxist terms, society is far more complex

    So the men at the top are only against other men and not against women as well? If that’s what you’re saying, it’s rubbish.

    The people at the top are probably intent on keeping themselves at the top to the exclusion of the rest (e.g. opposing inheritance tax) but there’s nothing in that which affects men and not women.

    Imagine your outcry of it was women at the top. Ha! I’ve a sneaking suspicion that you’d see the problem for the other gender (your gender) if that were the case.

    You’re talking about a class issues which are valid too. But they’re not the whole problem. Some issues are specific to gender.


  • #119
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    So the men at the top are only against other men and not against women as well? If that’s what you’re saying, it’s rubbish.

    The people at the top are probably intent on keeping themselves at the top to the exclusion of the rest (e.g. opposing inheritance tax) but there’s nothing in that which affects men and not women.

    Imagine your outcry of it was women at the top. Ha! I’ve a sneaking suspicion that you’d see the problem for the other gender (your gender) if that were the case.

    You’re talking about a class issues which are valid too. But they’re not the whole problem. Some issues are specific to gender.

    you could say an individual man at the top just wants to dominate full stop so gender doesn't matter as such, but if men wanted to dominate women they'd have women working the fields outside of some primitive societies where the men seem to sit around a lot. As such society is run based on having some men being more expendable than others, Army , mining etc. which fall along biological lines.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #120
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,711 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    silverharp wrote: »
    you could say an individual man at the top just wants to dominate full stop so gender doesn't matter as such, but if men wanted to dominate women they'd have women working the fields outside of some primitive societies where the men seem to sit around a lot. As such society is run based on having some men being more expendable than others, Army , mining etc. which fall along biological lines.
    I agree about the people at the top wanting to stay at the top.

    And childcare which tends to fall along biological lines and has the effect of taking women out of the workforce through parental leave, part time working, child related emergencies and ultimately results in pay differences.

    Like I said, if there were women at the top instead of men, I suspect you’d see it as a gender problem as well as a social class problem.

    I always think it’s interesting how women in politics, have their clothes commented on. Obama emptied his wardrobe and got white shirts, a blue suit and a navy suit and a couple of ties. He had a wardrobe full of the same suits like batman. He did it so there was no decision to make around what to wear. I don’t think anyone really commented on his clothes.

    Teresa May has to have a different outfit nearly every day. They have to be different to avoid criticism, and conservative to avoid criticism, and elegant to avoid criticism, not too expensive to avoid criticism, and not too cheap to avoid criticism.

    The pressures on men and women at the top, and every other level, are not the same and are not necessarily equal.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    I agree about the people at the top wanting to stay at the top.

    And childcare which tends to fall along biological lines and has the effect of taking women out of the workforce through parental leave, part time working, child related emergencies and ultimately results in pay differences.

    Like I said, if there were women at the top instead of men, I suspect you’d see it as a gender problem as well as a social class problem.

    I always think it’s interesting how women in politics, have their clothes commented on. Obama emptied his wardrobe and got white shirts, a blue suit and a navy suit and a couple of ties. He had a wardrobe full of the same suits like batman. He did it so there was no decision to make around what to wear. I don’t think anyone really commented on his clothes.

    Teresa May has to have a different outfit nearly every day. They have to be different to avoid criticism, and conservative to avoid criticism, and elegant to avoid criticism, not too expensive to avoid criticism, and not too cheap to avoid criticism.

    The pressures on men and women at the top, and every other level, are not the same and are not necessarily equal.

    I'd say a lot of that clothes pressure is generated by women? for example there is a whole mini industry in filming female celebs without makeup, the market isnt men.

    for biologically essential reasons i would always expect more male than female leaders, if it reversed i'd expect to see men being legally handicapped.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



Advertisement
Advertisement