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

Modern Feminism-Good for Society?

John Doe1

I personally believe that the pioneers of Feminism have brought about fantastic change in the western world and brought women to an equal footing today. However, the modern variant just seems just so toxic and divisive for society.

There are so many myths propagated by it, the gender wage gap being the main one. if companies were paying their female employees less than men for the same job with the same experience they would be sued out the eyeballs every day. Not to mention, the fact that women choose different jobs(i.e lack of representation of women firefighters/bin men)

Modern Feminism also ignores the rights of women in Islamic countries or the disproportionate sexual assaults caused by Muslim immigrants because it doesn't fit nicely into their narrative. if they really cared about gender equality this would be cause number one rather than spending their time complaining about manspreading and pretending OnlyFans performers are feminist icons.

This Time article by Christina Hoff Sommers explains things pretty well

https://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/

But, I'd love to be proven wrong so..

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

hatrickpatrick

anewme wrote: »

Because context is everything.

in a thread to discuss feminism (supposedly serious), reducing a persons worth to a pair of boobs reads disrespectful.

Not sure why you cant see that.

There are so many poison and toxic comments about women, that it is almost impossible to see what is a joke and who is serious.

It's After Hours. Nothing is serious. Everything should be taken as a joke. That's the context you're either failing or refusing to see.

If the thread was "supposedly serious", it would have been posted on the Politics forum. AH and CA are for goofing off (CA for political discussions with AH's goofing off culture embedded). That's why it's such a moronic argument. It's like expecting a serious, non-irreverent analysis of a social issue on South Park or Monty Python.

anewme

Mr Pyke wrote: »

How did it reach the stage where feminists get offended by the word 'boobs'?

Because context is everything.

in a thread to discuss feminism (supposedly serious), reducing a persons worth to a pair of boobs reads disrespectful.

Not sure why you cant see that.

There are so many poison and toxic comments about women, that it is almost impossible to see what is a joke and who is serious.

randd1

Tony EH wrote: »

No, it wasn't "edgy" and it wasn't "misogyny" either. It was just a typical, silly, After Hours page one joke. The type of thing that's been going on on Boards.ie since After Hours was created years ago.

You've been here the guts of a decade. You know this.

Why let facts get in the way of a good session of outrage?

What is it the man said, "sticks and stones may break your bones but you'll always find something to offend a feminist".

hatrickpatrick

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The modern WOKE leftists are every bit as priggish as the Conservatives they railed against in the past

I've been saying this for years. It's extremely sad how left-authoritarian has completely consumed the left-libertarian movement of the 2000s.

Tony EH

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Ah yeah.... edgy humour.

Not misogyny.

Mod endorsed.

Keep going as ye are lads, but just in a different forum.

No, it wasn't "edgy" and it wasn't "misogyny" either. It was just a typical, silly, After Hours page one joke. The type of thing that's been going on on Boards.ie since After Hours was created years ago.

You've been here the guts of a decade. You know this.

Tombo2001

echo

echo

echo

echo

thank

thank

thank

thank

meeeeh

I'm starting to think that this sort of threads are a therapy for certain posters with women issues...

And I have nothing of substance to add.

TomTomTim

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I really at this point dont want to participate in the conversation - its not going anywhere.

I'd simply like to hear from the Mods on why the Boobs comment is deemed acceptable.

Is it 'edgy humour'; is it 'misogyny'? The answer is pretty clearcut in my view. But its ok from a MOD pov. Why is that?

Because if thats 'ok', then it sets a tone for the rest of the conversation - and that tone is fairly entrenched.

Bring back the Christian puritans, because they seem moderate compared to supposedly liberal people like yourself.

WrenBoy

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The modern WOKE leftists are every bit as priggish as the Conservatives they railed against in the past

What a great word :pac:

Mad_maxx

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why shouldn't it be allowed stand? This is After Hours. The entire modus operandi of this forum is taking the piss, being irreverent, pushing the envelope. If someone wanted a discussion on this subject which didn't have edgy humour, they should have posted it on the Politics forum which is curated.

The modern WOKE leftists are every bit as priggish as the Conservatives they railed against in the past

hatrickpatrick

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Ah yeah.... edgy humour.

Not misogyny.

How exactly was it misogyny?

Mod endorsed.

How is it in any way mod endorsed?

Keep going as ye are lads, but just in a different forum.

That's sort of the whole point of moving a thread, yes.

Doctor Roast

Tony EH wrote: »

It was a joke in After Hours, where this thread started.

You've been here long enough to know how After Hours works. Someone makes a thread and you can pretty much write off the first 5 or so posts as people having a cheap laugh. It certainly isn't something to be clinging onto 10+ pages into the discussion.

A while ago it wouldn't have even been an issue....

Mad_maxx

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Well, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if boards.ie reflected “real life” Peter Casey would be president.

The anti-traveller sentiment, that is prevalent on this site, does not transfer to “real life”. If it did Peter Casey would be president today.

Only if you use a poll on a site for anonymous users as an absolute guide

Tombo2001

Tony EH wrote: »

It was a joke in After Hours, where this thread started.

You've been here long enough to know how After Hours works. Someone makes a thread and you can pretty much write off the first 5 or so posts as people having a cheap laugh. It certainly isn't something to be clinging onto 10+ pages into the discussion.

Ah yeah.... edgy humour.

Not misogyny.

Mod endorsed.

Keep going as ye are lads, but just in a different forum.

Tony EH

Tombo2001 wrote: »

If you look at the very first page of this thread, the 7th post down is one word - Boobs.

It hasnt been deleted.

It was thanked by 7 people, including yourself.

Not blaming you for this, you are entitled to thank what you want.

I would love however to hear from a Mod as to why it was allowed stand.

What is the thinking behind the moderatorship that makes this acceptable.

It was a joke in After Hours, where this thread started.

You've been here long enough to know how After Hours works. Someone makes a thread and you can pretty much write off the first 5 or so posts as people having a cheap laugh. It certainly isn't something to be clinging onto 10+ pages into the discussion.

karlitob

anewme wrote: »

Is there a script that 'women' are not allowed to deviate from.

Are women pre programmed fitbits that they all say the same thing?

Brilliant.

When the axiom can be undermined by a simple analogy then don’t engage with the point - that men are second class citizens and treated unequally when it comes to their own children.....you know mad things like legislative discrimination where a man has no right to be declared the father of their own child
- instead shift from the point and use another banal axiom (or you could argue that you’ve been gaslighted by your feminist friends) that ‘women’ have to keep to a script. Whatever that means.

Find me any legislation that discriminates based on gender - except the parenthood of a child. It isn’t employment legislation that’s for sure.

Baggly

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I fundamentally object to not getting a shoutout for having been the brains behind this development.

joe-pesci.jpg?width=640&auto=webp&quality=75

hatrickpatrick

Baggly wrote: »

Mod

Thread has not been moved to CA/IMHO.

Please read and observe the local charter.

I fundamentally object to not getting a shoutout for having been the brains behind this development.

Baggly

Mod

Thread has not been moved to CA/IMHO.

Please read and observe the local charter.

Baggly

Mod

Lads, please read the AH charter. Lighthearted discussion.

If you want a serious discussion on Feminism, please visit CA/IMHO.

Wibbs

anewme wrote: »

I get your point on censorship - it is a fine line. There is a view and then there is expressing hate, finding that balance is the key.

what often happens is that one nasty post comes up, then, as that stays, the thread goes downhill with people "pushing the envelope" as you say, until all that is left are the posts expressing the same view.

Which is not what happened in this thread. Again out of two hundred posts many with measured points raised, replied, countered, taken a different direction and so on, you're focusing entirely on the handful of posts you consider nasty. That's the prism you're viewing an entire thread through.

anewme

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The more freedom people have on the internet, the better. That's what makes it such a beautiful place.

I see it differently then. And this is in respect of the wider group rather than this thread.

The internet should not be used as a vehicle to spread hate or belittle others and wrap it up as your opinion. The likes of Facebook / Twitter etc are tasked with cleaning up their act.

And I'd go one step further - in respect of Boards - there is a charter - there is a reason for a charter - it is to afford everyone respect.

Boards is pitched as a Community Forum and it is a Commercial Enterprise. Expressing hatred or extreme right wing views do not align with that objective.

You keep referencing 2010, that was a life time ago in terms of the Internet and Social media - it is constantly evolving and no doubt these things come full circle and will do many times.

Wibbs

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'd argue that this is the internet in general now, tbh.

Yep and I'd very much agree with the sentiment and conclusions of the rest of your post. And I say that as someone who views libertarianism as a politic a nasty one at its core.

And I very much agree with this bit:

The right not to be offended was pushed in the 2010s and it's had horrific consequences for the internet as a whole, splintering websites into enclaves of one view or another and disallowing all dissent. It's one of the reasons the far right has gone off the deep end with regard to conspiracies, the SJW sh!te of ~2012-2015 forced them out of mainstream spaces and into their own echo chambers, where there was nobody to present any alternative viewpoints.

It's one of the main reasons the old style bulletin board layouts have become less and less popular. People want - and it's understandable - to hang out in spaces where what they already believe is reinforced, and not just the topic of this thread. It's across the political and social spectrum. Right wingers are just as raw and sensitive to criticism as anyone else and are just as likely to try and drown it out. Hell it extends to online arenas in sports, films, music, culture, you name it. Hell I've seen it in motoring subs/forums. Add in that pads and phones have taken over from PC's and laptops and by design lend themselves more to short "Tweet" type responses and here we are.

Though I would contend that it's part of human nature and it was actually the earlier days of the interwebs where very different viewpoints from different people were experienced all in together that was the outlier. Birds of a feather and all that. Throughout history the local culture and local accepted truths were paramount and dissent was ignored or belittled or never found a voice.

hatrickpatrick

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

For sure, I have no problem with people discussing “contentious” topics but I’d prefer to keep this forum lighthearted, and irreverent, but also containing some serious discussion.

All this identity politics, anger and spite erases all of that. I’ve been a vocal supporter of the “Current Affairs” forum almost since its inception. I’ve also suggested that it should be almost unmoderated, within reason, to allow a more frank, and robust, debate without taking up so much of the moderator’s time.

100% this. Frankly, I have no idea why this thread wasn't moved to CA days ago - it's literally what that forum was set up to cater to, thus freeing AH for truly nonsensical sh!te like the AH we all used to know and love.

EmmetSpiceland

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's reasonable - this thread belongs on CA/IMHO for sure, and before I took a gander at it I was confused for several days by the fact that it was in AH.

To be honest, I'm kinda done with the whole culture war sh!te this year, Covid has made it pretty much unbearable to try and scrape together the energy for this. I accidentally clicked in here last night though and followed the rabbit hole, and the idea that between this and the thread on TLL there's possibly going to be another push to turn Boards back into a curated space and lose one of the last places on the internet in which left and right can have a proper debate with eachother without the latter being severely restricted, is alarming.

Personally, I come at equality from the libertarian point of view - people should have the right to say whatever they want, and that should apply equally across the board.
One can have an opinion that one view or another is right or wrong, moral or immoral, but it's just that - an opinion. One is free to air that opinion. Attempting to enforce it, however, is authoritarian - and this is why so many people regard 2010s feminism as authoritarian.

This thread is a good example - the "boobs" comment is irreverent, crass humour presumably from a lad. A woman would be just as free to drop an irreverent, crass comment, and that's as it should be, from a libertarian perspective. The idea that it should be censored, however, is authoritarian - and this is just my view, but f*ck authoritarianism. The more freedom people have on the internet, the better. That's what makes it such a beautiful place.

For sure, I have no problem with people discussing “contentious” topics but I’d prefer to keep this forum lighthearted, and irreverent, but also containing some serious discussion.

All this identity politics, anger and spite erases all of that. I’ve been a vocal supporter of the “Current Affairs” forum almost since its inception. I’ve also suggested that it should be almost unmoderated, within reason, to allow a more frank, and robust, debate without taking up so much of the moderator’s time.

hatrickpatrick

anewme wrote: »

I get your point on censorship - it is a fine line. There is a view and then there is expressing hate, finding that balance is the key.

I don't agree. Hate is an opinion, just like love. Everything is subjective. The internet is a beautiful space in which the only limit to one's opinions being aired is one's willingness to fight one's corner when others disagree.

what often happens is that one nasty post comes up, then, as that stays, the thread goes downhill with people "pushing the envelope" as you say, until all that is left are the posts expressing the same view. It is very much that way on certain threads.

That's only because some people are too weak-willed or thin-skinned to stomach posting in a space full of views they don't agree with. I absolutely, fundamentally oppose pandering to those people in any way. People need to learn not to take the internet so seriously.

If women or any person leaves or feels areas are a no go area, then that is basically censorship itself because they are being shut down.

It isn't, though. If people leave because they feel something is a no go area, then IMO that person needs to get over themselves. If people want a bubble wrapped experience, this site isn't the right place to go looking for it. It's not censorship, it's quite the opposite. If I choose to leave because I can't stand the heat, that's on me. Nobody else. It's my choice to take the internet so seriously that it has a material affect on me, and on no account should the internet be moulded or bent into a shape that I find palatable. That's not how it works, and it's not how it should work.

anewme

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Want to jump in here on this one just to illustrate my previous point - I'd have an issue with those views myself, I find them abhorrent. On absolutely no account whatsoever would I report them. Opposing a particular view does not necessarily mean being ok with censoring it.

I get your point on censorship - it is a fine line. There is a view and then there is expressing hate, finding that balance is the key.

what often happens is that one nasty post comes up, then, as that stays, the thread goes downhill with people "pushing the envelope" as you say, until all that is left are the posts expressing the same view. It is very much that way on certain threads.

If women or any person leaves or feels areas are a no go area, then that is basically censorship itself because they are being shut down.

Wibbs

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Well, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if boards.ie reflected “real life” Peter Casey would be president.

The anti-traveller sentiment, that is prevalent on this site, does not transfer to “real life”. If it did Peter Casey would be president today.

The Traveller question is a complex one, but the sentiment must have some legs in wider Irish society as he went from last in the polls to coming second in the election, entirely on the basis of that one comment.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I really at this point dont want to participate in the conversation - its not going anywhere.

I'd simply like to hear from the Mods on why the Boobs comment is deemed acceptable.

Is it 'edgy humour'; is it 'misogyny'? The answer is pretty clearcut in my view. But its ok from a MOD pov. Why is that?

Because if thats 'ok', then it sets a tone for the rest of the conversation - and that tone is fairly entrenched.

Again you're pointing at a handful of posts from a handful of posters and calling misogyny on the entire thread, forum, posters and website and are now looking to authority for clarification. That's certainly a problem I have with identity politics and not just feminism. They don't seem to bear much in the way of questioning and all too often to deflect from that point to whatever "ism" they can find in the conversation. Usually in the hope of closing all debate on the matter.

hatrickpatrick

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I really at this point dont want to participate in the conversation - its not going anywhere.

I'd simply like to hear from the Mods on why the Boobs comment is deemed acceptable.

Is it 'edgy humour'; is it 'misogyny'? The answer is pretty clearcut in my view. But its ok from a MOD pov. Why is that?

Because if thats 'ok', then it sets a tone for the rest of the conversation - and that tone is fairly entrenched.

Why do you believe that something which offends you should be removed? Where does the arrogance in the assumption that your sensibilities matter to enough of an extent that the world should be moulded to fit them? This is the problem I have with your side of the debate. Everybody has the right to feel offended by reading something. Nobody has the right to have others' right to read that removed.

hatrickpatrick

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Again, that’s the problem with AH now. The irreverence is gone and the forum is overrun with, long term, “Current Affairs” type thread where posters are angry and spiteful.

I'd argue that this is the internet in general now, tbh.

People are “invested” in the topic so when someone acts in a lighthearted, or irreverent, manner the tone is missed and it draws negative attention.

That's their problem though. If you can't stand the heat and all that.

When these threads aren’t moved to the, more suitable, “Current Affairs” forum the more we see these posters starting new, unsuitable, threads in AH that attract more of their kind in and the darker, and angrier, the tone gets.

That's reasonable - this thread belongs on CA/IMHO for sure, and before I took a gander at it I was confused for several days by the fact that it was in AH.

To be honest, I'm kinda done with the whole culture war sh!te this year, Covid has made it pretty much unbearable to try and scrape together the energy for this. I accidentally clicked in here last night though and followed the rabbit hole, and the idea that between this and the thread on TLL there's possibly going to be another push to turn Boards back into a curated space and lose one of the last places on the internet in which left and right can have a proper debate with eachother without the latter being severely restricted, is alarming.

Boards is an oasis away from the wave of post-2016 censorship which has swept through the internet. It's such a breath of fresh air to post on a site in which people can just say what they want to say regardless of how "ok" it is, and you can simple engage and debate with those views and speak your mind without worrying about whether you're tripping over any particular sacred cow. Those arguing from the feminist perspective on this thread (not all, but many) tend to argue from the pro-censorship point of view and it's infuriating to see that somehow conflated with "equality" - there are two ways to skin a cat as they say, you can either have equality in that both genders are required to self-censor, or equality in that both genders are allowed to be equally crass and vitriolic.

Personally, I come at equality from the libertarian point of view - people should have the right to say whatever they want, and that should apply equally across the board. Conversely, people should not have the right to have anything done about it when they come across content which offends them. That right should not exist. The right not to be offended was pushed in the 2010s and it's had horrific consequences for the internet as a whole, splintering websites into enclaves of one view or another and disallowing all dissent. It's one of the reasons the far right has gone off the deep end with regard to conspiracies, the SJW sh!te of ~2012-2015 forced them out of mainstream spaces and into their own echo chambers, where there was nobody to present any alternative viewpoints.

Fundamentally, what people need to remember is that there's no such thing as right or wrong in culture or politics. There's only a consensus among humans as to what counts as right or wrong. It doesn't exist as an objective concept - in politics, there are popular views and unpopular views. One can have an opinion that one view or another is right or wrong, moral or immoral, but it's just that - an opinion. One is free to air that opinion. Attempting to enforce it, however, is authoritarian - and this is why so many people regard 2010s feminism as authoritarian.

This thread is a good example - the "boobs" comment is irreverent, crass humour presumably from a lad. A woman would be just as free to drop an irreverent, crass comment, and that's as it should be, from a libertarian perspective. The idea that it should be censored, however, is authoritarian - and this is just my view, but f*ck authoritarianism. The more freedom people have on the internet, the better. That's what makes it such a beautiful place.