Silentcorner wrote: » You are aware that women have a head start when it comes to opportunities in life. The education system across the west benefits females affording them better opportunities and career options. Don't get me wrong, I believe men are well capable of toxic behaviour, but women are just as capable, I can't see how this wave of feminism is not yet considered toxic? Is feminism capable of toxic group think? I get a little annoyed over the use of the term "equality", when it seems to be just "equality" for a particular class or demographic of women? It seems to be driven by the educated class of women who don't give a monkeys about women outside of that class/demographic.
Brian? wrote: » You’re redefining the meaning of feminism to suit yourself. The definition is fairly clear.
Silentcorner wrote: » I haven't redefined anything. You have posted a definition of Feminism. It is vague. You have identified as a feminist, you have done nothing to clear up that vagueness. You pointed to an image problem that feminism suffers from, do you not think, for one second, that the vagueness of the definition is the problem, if so how could you have any issue with people like me and a lot of other posters in this thread who are obviously confused by the vagueness of the definition. Do you think that you are capable of redefining the meaning of feminism to suit yourself?
listermint wrote: » White males like you..... What sort of ugly divisive stuff have you as an Irish white man had to put up with ? I'd garner like me an Irish white male. Nothing! Because I don't spend my time on alt right American websites. I'd laugh at you in the pub if you came out with this sort of ****e. America has alot to answer for .
Brian? wrote: » I didn’t post a vague definition of feminism. I posted the correct dictionary definition of it. If you can’t understand that, I can’t help you.
Sweetemotion wrote: » Your opinion is pretty decisive stuff. Disagree with you and your alt right. Especially if your white. I'd laugh at you if came up to me in a pub with this sort of ****. America does have a lot to answer for when people like you try to bring their race war here.
listermint wrote: » Ha. Did you even read the post I replied to ? I didn't bring up white male that poster did I asked them a question on it. I guess you get bonus points for not reading posts in full? Feeling kinda silly now? No guess not rare to get an apology on boards
Sweetemotion wrote: » I read the post and also your rehearsed nonsense response. Not feeling silly at all. You should though.
Lash Into The Pints wrote: » I’m a feminist. My wife is a feminist. All of my female friends are feminist. The vast majority of my male friends are feminist. My mother is a feminist. My sister is a feminist. My Da is a feminist. None of them hate men. Some of them may be harridans.
Brian? wrote: » What % of feminists are man-hating harridans? I’m a feminist. My wife is a feminist. All of my female friends are feminist. The vast majority of my male friends are feminist. My mother is a feminist. My sister is a feminist. My Da is a feminist. None of them hate men. Some of them may be harridans.
SecretsOfEarth wrote: » https://twitter.com/Rubberbandits/status/1025069781253283841 For someone who's meant to be advocating for and promoting Limerick, he'd want to be fairly clueless not to know this.
Lash Into The Pints wrote: » He probably considers hurling to be an expression of white supremacy.
Lash Into The Pints wrote: » What about your wife's son, is he a feminist too?
SecretsOfEarth wrote: » https://twitter.com/Rubberbandits/status/1025073664981647365 His reply to someone who questioned his apathy was equally bizarre. He seems to wear his lack of interest and disconnect from the event as a badge of honour. Bit embarrassing to not know of your county's biggest sporting event in over a decade, possibly verging on history and winning a national title after 45 years. Maybe he deems himself above something as common and rudimentary as hurling :rolleyes:
Silentcorner wrote: » I know exactly what you posted. You posted the dictionary definition of Feminism. That definition is vague. "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes". Does that include all the inequalities men suffer from? Because if it does not include the inequalities men suffer from, then how can it be defined as "equality of the sexes" If women were concerned with the inequalities men suffer from then can they be considered feminists?
Brian? wrote: » The definition isn't vague. It's pretty clear.Idiot fringes like to twist the meaning.
Silentcorner wrote: » You're resorting to that, ok fair enough... This is how the dictionary defines Feminism. "The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes" I think the following is a more definitive description "The advocacy of women's rights" Do you see the difference? Leave equality out of it because equality is causing the confusion. I believe in Equality of class and gender, that is equal opportunity for all genders and class in the pursuit of Education, Opportunity, Health and Justice, I'd be horrified if that made me a feminist! There is a huge difference, can you at least see that?
Brian? wrote: » There is a huge difference. Your definition gives precedence to women's rights. That's not acceptable to me. The important part is the "equality of the sexes", if you leave that out it's very easy to attack feminism. And rightly so. Advocating one groups rights over another is wrong. The correct definition of feminism is fine with me. Handy, as it is correct.
Silentcorner wrote: » But feminism is only concerned with women's rights! There is no confusion about that. It is quiet explicit in that.
I believe in the equality of the sexes (and class), that is not feminism, by the definition you provided!!! That kind of makes Feminism the idiot fringe of the people who pursue Equality....does it not!!
retalivity wrote: » SecretsOfEarth wrote: » https://twitter.com/Rubberbandits/status/1025073664981647365 His reply to someone who questioned his apathy was equally bizarre. He seems to wear his lack of interest and disconnect from the event as a badge of honour. Bit embarrassing to not know of your county's biggest sporting event in over a decade, possibly verging on history and winning a national title after 45 years. Maybe he deems himself above something as common and rudimentary as hurling :rolleyes: The reply is weird, isnt tv and radio their 'art' and how they make/made their money? Surely they'd have some passing interest in it so. Also, the rubberbandits are a duo, why are all responses in the singular? Does the other lad get a word in at all?
smurgen wrote: » The reason the bag is an issue is that we don't know uf he practices what he preaches or is just a hypocrite.like he could be talking about feminism etc to flog books etc but in real life be carrying on like harvey weinstein.we have no idea how authentic he is.
Brian? wrote: » SecretsOfEarth wrote: » https://twitter.com/Rubberbandits/status/1025073664981647365 His reply to someone who questioned his apathy was equally bizarre. He seems to wear his lack of interest and disconnect from the event as a badge of honour. Bit embarrassing to not know of your county's biggest sporting event in over a decade, possibly verging on history and winning a national title after 45 years. Maybe he deems himself above something as common and rudimentary as hurling :rolleyes: I guarantee if he was supporting Limerick at this stage he'd be accused of jumping on the bandwagon. The chap can't win. Some people don't like sport. I find it weird, but I don't accuse them of snobbery. I just think they're weird.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/11f397efbb618f280f346771bb290fe0.svg)
