Let's all take Blindboy seriously now...

Billy86 wrote: »

I watch a lot of TV shows and whatnot, but the last time I watched actual TV was over a year ago, save for one six nations rugby game where the internet was acting wonky. It's fairly common for people to not actually watch the television anymore,and to go for the likes of netflix etc.

Brian? wrote: »

If you believe in equal rights of men and women, you are completely aligned with the dictionary definition of feminism.

I really don’t see the confusion.

Deleted User wrote: »

So father's being dragged through the courts to see their kids..do they need feminism?

Sal Butamol wrote: »

The probably have to check with their missus first

Brian? wrote: »

"the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes"' - men and women have equal rights. It's a simple definition. It doesn't need to make mention of men's writes because it's explicitly about both genders have equal rights .

I can't see how I've been hoodwinked, when I am quite clear about what I believe feminism to mean. The correct meaning of the word.

"Equality of the sexes" is the qualifier to the notion of " women's rights". Equal rights. Not advocating for women to have more rights. It really is black and white.

Dannyriver wrote: »

Go Irish women , world cup hockey finalists 2018 , Irishmen everywhere will take pride from your achievements and for showing us how its done. Unbelievable performance

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually I would argue that, it was certainly not nearly so clear cut as you paint it. Historically in most cultures and times people had few rights. For much of European history outside of a tiny elite of nobles and clergymen(and women) and a slightly larger merchant class, a large majority of the population were not far above chattel. Actual slavery, indentured slaves and serfdom was the lot of most men and women until well past the Middle Ages(in places like Russia into the 20th century).

Men and women were "valued" differently alright. Men for their muscle power and arrow then bullet stopping abilities, women for their muscle power and ability to produce more bullet stoppers. Because of the latter "ability" women and children were more "valued" by societies. Until mechanised war came along women were rarely involved directly and far fewer women were killed, though rape was common with invading armies. When armies won battles or wars the men on the other side were usually killed outright or if they were lucky enslaved, women were rarely slaughtered in such a manner. Being a vanquished women might not be pleasant, but was rarely fatal.

Take democracy and the vote. In the vast majority of European/Western nations women got the vote at the same time or soon after the common man did(Switzerland being an oddball there). Take our neighbour England, women of wealth and those who paid rates as business owners had the right to vote before the common man(though few took up the option).

In short this commonly repeated notion of Women In The Past© beaten down and enslaved to their male masters is largely a fiction and certainly doesn't paint a true picture of the complexities involved. Inequality was far more based on class, wealth and position. Gender was in the mix certainly in some regards, but it came down the list.

Dannyriver wrote: »

Facts used as fudge....they obfuscate the real issues and deny the experiences of women in history. Known in psychological terms as intellectualisation. Radical Muslims do the same when they are accused of unfairly treating women by denying them legislative power in Sharia law.

How a society operates and who gets what power is based on the legislature and government of each country. Women have been wholly underrepresented in these positions for millennia. Any rights that women have been granted through the years have been given to them either by violent/non violent protest or by left leaning men. Any serious sociological historian would laugh at your claims. Highlighting residual data as more than it is worth is a spurious way of challenging an argument.

And I'm someone who agrees with a lot of what Jordan Peterson talks about from a contemporary point of view and would be very much against the minority radical feminists who stereotype all men as potential rapists Im also against the radical snowflake men who believe all feminists are looking for dominance.