Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Misogynistic lines/attitudes from porn does it bother you ?

1…457910…17

Comments

  • #182
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    taconnol wrote: »
    So do you think there's something vengeful about women's refusal to acknowledge male discrimination? A kick in the nads for the last 4000 years?

    So true about marketing. I'm not sure it should be regulated any further but we definitely need a module in school teaching kids how to interpret advertising.

    Why do you think there will always be a divide? I think it's because humans are such visual creatures and it's pretty obvious when you first meet someone what gender they are.

    Thats it with gender based feminist models.

    Not only do guys get blamed for everything in the past 40000 years. Ive a secret Ive found out. Only guys like the pharohs had the vote -the rest of the guys were serfs and slaves.

    Cleopatra what a guy. THe Queen of Sheeba. All those women Gladiators.

    All the men during the famine - they didnt have votes.
    They didnt own the land.

    Where this mythical female underclass comes from -I dont know


  • #183
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    ^^ sorry but is that supposed to be an attempt to refute the systematic oppression of women over past centuries, an oppression that clearly still exists in some patriarchal societies around the world today? Pathetic. It's like arguing that the Holocaust didn't happen.


  • #184
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    there was systematic oppression of everyone at the bottom of the pile -men and women

    its a romantic notion that it was limited to women.

    Or that men didnt get a rough time too

    Funny that -men as a different species. I dont feel remotely responsible for the treatment of women in Islamic countries. You would think that women as carers would have brought up a generation of guys sympathetic to them.

    The whole patriarchy thing is a myth - or an intellectual contruction.


  • #185
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,044 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Yes the men did have it hard but at the end of the day they could go home and beat and rape thier wife
    which was considered acceptable behaviour.


  • #186
    Latchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,191 ✭✭✭✭Latchy


    Quality wrote: »
    Was watching this porno one night, Anyhow the guy in it was really getting turned on while flushing the girls head down the toilet in between getting oral sex off her...



    There is some weird stuff out there,, Personally for me I find that a very degrading thing to do...

    I mean is there really a market for this sort of stuff???
    Was the guy not just acting out the role in the same way the girl was getting her head flushed ?
    What's weird to some is perfectly acceptable to others .What you described wouldnt appeal to me niether but humans taste for all kinds of weird **** never ceases to amaze me,and they i would imagine they are not all janitors either .


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Talliesin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,314 ✭✭✭Talliesin


    CDfm wrote: »
    there was systematic oppression of everyone at the bottom of the pile -men and women

    its a romantic notion that it was limited to women.

    No, it's a disingenuous (at best) notion that Feminists have said it was limited to women.

    "Hey look, this strawman I made falls down like a man made out of straw, ergo Feminism is wrong".


  • #188
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    In fairness:




    card02.gif


  • #189
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    Yes the men did have it hard but at the end of the day they could go home and beat and rape thier wife
    which was considered acceptable behaviour.
    Thats hardly fair.

    Interestlingly, Germaine Greers Female Eunuch was judged as a cultural study at first in France - akin to the writtings of Roland Barthes.

    But her own life does not have the same stereotypes she writes about. I read her writtings on her Dad - a mild mannered guy who was very supportive of her. His early life in an orphanage and in WWII and rose to be an officer and subsequent new life in business and suburban husband. She had assumed he had been born priveleged - she was he wasnt. I imagine he didnt tell out of a mixture of privacy and dignity and didnt want her to use the story. Which ultimately she did.

    http://www.amazon.com/Daddy-We-Hardly-Knew-You/dp/0394583132

    If you look at Warren Farrells writtings and he was a gender feminist activist- he has written extensively in the book the myth of Male Power- that women all want the nice jobs - none want to be street cleaners or seweage workers and its these jobs that pay extra money because they are not nice.

    Im all for women in the army -perfect for the infantry - shorter slimmer and less likely to be hit by shrapnel or bullets.

    If you are worried about inequality - women are catching up in all kinds of ways. Look at this synopsis of domestic abuse statistics

    http://www.amen.ie/Downloads/26030.pdf

    My personal favorite and Im not pro-death penalty is the under representation of women on Death Row in the US. You have Cherie Blair arguing for lesser sentences for women who commit crime for social reasons - never coming out and admitting that like men some women can be evil.

    And when in power women dont start wars - Indira Gandi, Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher all did.

    Evita and Imelda Marcos are also feminist icons but hardly role models.

    Even in Ireland the vitriol meted out to Mary Harney - a gifted woman who hasnt used her gender to achieve is nothing less than shamefull. For all her ability I dont think she will ever make President and women of lessor ability have. Life is not fair.


  • #190
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Talliesin wrote: »
    No, it's a disingenuous (at best) notion that Feminists have said it was limited to women.

    "Hey look, this strawman I made falls down like a man made out of straw, ergo Feminism is wrong".
    I am not so sure.

    If you listen to ads by Amnesty International what they say is that women and children are disproportionately affected by war. Usually the men have been imprissoned or worse.

    What is objectional is that the distribution of aid is based on a gender bias. That surely is wrong. It makes me wonder if many women are aware of the philosophy of the organisations they support.How would they feel if it was their sons, brothers or fathers..

    A lot of feminist writings are influenced by the writings of Simone De Beauvoir. I am not being unkind in saying she owes her prominence and excuses/attributes her failures to her role as Courtesan to Sartre.

    She was part of the existentialist movement and this is the problem I have. In existentialism existence proceeds essence so in a gender feminist model boys when they reach puberty morph from victim to oppressor overnight. Rubbish philosphy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_precedes_essence

    What I am saying is that the underlying ideologies are based on existentialism which as a philosophy I find bleak and hard. It doesnt surprise me that gender feminism is therefore bleak and hard. Jeez - Im no expert.

    The existentialist movement in France had writers such as Sartre,Barthes Levi-Strausse etc and were largely more influential and certainly less foppish then their British counterparts the Bloomsbury set. Im not being sexist about De Beauvoir but saying she was eclipsed by others who were exceptional.

    They were philosophers and philosophers are concerned with abstract thought and ethics. I am sure you cant say that the holocaust and oppression of jews and others by the nazis was gender based-so to apply this logic to wars and use gender stereotyping this way is truly shocking.

    The British feminist and founder of Womens Aid - a very interesting person in her own right - parted company with Womans Aid the movement she helped create because she disagreed with this type of philosophy http://www.answers.com/topic/erin-pizzey .

    By no means am I an expert - I read whats available and hanging around - I borrowed Greers book about her Dad because I like biography and because she writes well and its an inspirational book even if it wasnt intended to be.

    That said - after Daniel O'Donnell - that well known misogynist trashed her on the Late Late Show - I dont think we will be seeing her on Podge and Rodge any day soon.


  • #191
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    CDfm wrote: »

    A lot of feminist writings are influenced by the writings of Simone De Beauvoir. I am not being unkind in saying she owes her prominence and excuses/attributes her failures to
    her role as Courtesan to Sartre.

    She was part of the existentialist movement and this is the problem I have. In existentialism existance proceeds essence so in a gender feminist model boys when they reach puberty morph from victim to oppressor overnight. Rubbish philosphy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_precedes_essence

    What I am saying is that the underlying ideologies are based on existentialism which as a philosophy I find bleak and hard. It doesnt surprise me that gender feminism is therefore bleak and hard.


    .

    That's a crock of ****. What about Susan B Anthony? Mary Wolstencraft?Pearl Buck? Jane Adams?Elizabeth Blackwell, Louisa May Alcott,and many more.

    It started a lot earlier than Simone.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    Yes the men did have it hard but at the end of the day they could go home and beat and rape thier wife
    which was considered acceptable behaviour.

    Right. And I believe that marital rape was legal up into the 80s in Britain.

    But, let's not diminish how hard the men had it. Have you read the accounts of WW1? Vietnam? WW2? what men have fought for and put up with? Its just incredible.

    cdfm- How can boys grow up to have respect for women and their mothers in islamic societies when neither the law or their fathers have any? Did you know in places like Morrocco the mother means NOTHING, has no legal status over her child?


  • #193
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    That's a crock of ****. What about Susan B Anthony? Mary Wolstencraft?Pearl Buck? Jane Adams?Elizabeth Blackwell, Louisa May Alcott,and many more.

    It started a lot earlier than Simone.
    I am not saying it didnt - what I am saying is that modern feminism owes a lot to her thinking- and people who are into it should dig deeper -read the stuff and have a healthy balanced view.

    I am not an expert - my interest is in culture and a bit of philosophy and I do read stuff by feminist writers when it is written well.But Im not going to add those writers to my reading list - now Andy McNab- Mills and BOOM.Theres a writer.

    There are feminist writers such as Susie Bright who argue the case for pornography. Interestingly enough when the Canadian courts advocated (and my facts are hazy) Andrea Dworkins views in a ruling the first prosecution was a lesbian bookshop for sado-masochist porn. No message here just amusement.


  • #194
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    metrovelvet wrote: »

    cdfm- How can boys grow up to have respect for women and their mothers in islamic societies when neither the law or their fathers have any? Did you know in places like Morrocco the mother means NOTHING, has no legal status over her child?

    I am not advocating anything. Islam is not my culture and Im not responsible for other men in other countries or societies or in the past.

    All Im saying is we have our own patch of earth that we influence.

    In Western society -legal status or not the mother is the de facto carer of the children. Constitutionally in Ireland the woman has primacy.

    I dont know Morocco specifically but in Islamic countries you have Sharia law which is different to ours. You also have various interpretations of the koran by religious leaders. THis is my comment - given that mothers are the primary carers of children they perpetuate the culture - too right they do- the good and the bad.If you dont believe me live in the Middle East.

    A muslim friend of mine had an arranged marriage. His mother arranged it. Of course, I couldnt influence him but I would disagree with anyone who says that he had any influence over her decision. I wont comment on the marriage- but the women had the power- culturally and within the family he had no option but to go along..

    I disagree strongly with the concept of arranged marriages and with western eyes we look at legality but cultural and familial bonds in other societies have a different dynamic.

    So boys do grow up to respect women in Middle Eastern cultures - and women do have power in the home- legal issues aside courts are run by culture and tradition.

    Mostly these countries are not democratic operate on caste or tribal or feudal systems which are foreign to us. You wont get change with revolutions and stuff and lots of killing. Teenage boys and girls are killed by there families in rural India for dating outside of caste- lots of times at the instigation of women.

    I think we should be more open-minded before stereotyping anything purely on gender lines as its not the only issue.


  • #195
    watna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,367 ✭✭✭✭watna


    monkeyfudge wrote: »
    This is why I stick to nature documentaries about bonobos.

    Did you see that one recently where the Bonobo talked to the guy with a keyboard? It was awesome!

    On-topic - no, misogynistic attitudes in porn don't bother me. It bothers me if people think it's real and carry it over in to real life. I think that thread was a joke and took it as such but some men are serious with it.

    This may have already been said but ~I didn't read past the bonobos part!


  • #196
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,044 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    Right. And I believe that marital rape was legal up into the 80s in Britain.

    It was not a criminal offense or one you could be charged for here until 1990 and do date there has only been 1 prosecution in this country.

    http://www.rcni.ie/MaritalRapeConviction.htm
    RCNI Press Release………… 30th January 2006 ………..RCNI Press Release

    RCNI welcome only Marital Rape conviction

    The Rape Crisis Network Ireland (RCNI) today welcomed the six year sentence handed down by Judge Paul Carney in the central criminal court for Ireland’s only marital rape conviction.

    Kate Mulkerrins, RCNI Legal Coordinator said, ‘today’s sentencing following the re-hearing and conviction in that case is a testament to the fortitude and courage of the victim who had to wait over 8 years for this matter to conclude. Irish society owes her an immeasurable debt of gratitude for seeing this through. This case is the only conviction in Ireland since the marital rape bar was lifted in 1990. It is our hope that this case will help Ireland to face up to the realities of marital rape. Public attitudes are crucial in preventing, overcoming and punishing this crime.’


    http://www.womensaid.ie/pages/domestic/HISTORY.HTM
    Up until the end of the 19th century, the law supported the right of men to control wives by force. When the law intervened it was to restrain violence but not to prevent it.

    In 1772 Judge Butler held that assaults on wives were legal provided that husbands used a stick no thicker than his thumb. This has subsequently become known as the "rule of thumb".

    In the 1840s a judge affirmed the husband's right to kidnap his wife, beat her and imprison her in the matrimonial home.

    In 1878 the Matrimonial Causes Act was passed in the United Kingdom which gave women and children some measure of protection under the law.

    It was only as recently as 1990 that the crime of rape within marriage was recognised in this country. Up till then the law held that rape was something "done to a woman by a man other than her husband".


  • #197
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,044 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    CDfm wrote: »

    In Western society -legal status or not the mother is the de facto carer of the children. Constitutionally in Ireland the woman has primacy.

    That may be the case but but it is only from 1960s that women got given guardianship of her own children up until then she and the children were seen as the "responsibility" of the husband and he had control over them.

    http://indigo.ie/~kwood/acts.htm
    IRISH FAMILY LAWS


    Property (Ireland) Act 1865: permitted a wife to sue her husband in tort if separated or deserted.

    Partition Acts 1868 and 1876: allowed courts to divide up property between spouses.

    Matrimonial Causes and Marriage Law (Ireland) (Amendment) Act 1870: brought civil nullity rules in line with Church rules.

    Married Women's Property Act 1882: allowed married women to hold property in their own name. Replaced by:

    Married Women's Status Act 1957: made wives liable for their own debts and breaches of duty. Allowed courts to decide property disputes between spouses.

    Guardianship of Infants Act 1964: gave parents the right to joint guardianship of their children and allowed courts to make decisions on custody and access.

    Succession Act 1965: reformed the law relating to the estates of people who had died, especially the administration and distribution of property where there is no will. Specified the shares of spouses and children on intestacy.

    Marriages Act 1972: raised the minimum marriage age to 16 for boys and girls, retrospectively validated so-called "Lourdes marriages".

    Maintenance Orders Act 1974: allowed the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders between the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales and Scotland.

    Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and Children) Act 1976: provided for periodical payments by one spouse to another in cases of failure to provide reasonable maintenance, with deductions of earnings at source and barring orders.

    Family Home Protection Act 1976: protected family home and required prior written consent of both spouses for sale of family home or chattels.

    Courts Act 1981: widened the jurisdiction in family law matters.

    Family Law Act 1981: abolished actions for enticement of spouse and breach of promise to marry. Allowed courts to decide disputes over gifts after broken engagements.

    Family Law (Protection of Spouses and Children) Act 1981: gave the Circuit and District Courts power to grant barring and protection orders. (Repealed by Domestic Violence Act 1996)

    Domicile and Recognition of Foreign Divorces Act 1986: confirmed independent domiciles of wives, recognised divorces granted where either spouse was domiciled.

    Status of Children Act 1987: abolished status of illegitimacy and amended law on maintenance and succession for non-marital children. Allowed unmarried fathers to apply for guardianship of their children. Provided for blood tests to establish paternity.

    Family Law Act 1988: abolished actions for the restitution of conjugal rights.

    Children Act 1989: gave health boards powers to care for children.

    Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act 1989: amended the grounds for judicial separation, assisted reconciliation between estranged spouses and provided for ancillary orders such as maintenance, property adjustment and custody of children.

    Child Care Act 1991: gave powers to health boards to care for children who were ill-treated, neglected or sexually abused.

    Child Abduction and Enforcement of Custody Orders Act 1991: dealt with wrongful retention of children. Implemented the Hague Convention 1980 and the Luxembourg Convention 1980.

    Maintenance Act 1994: simplified procedures for recovering maintenance debts from other countries.

    Family Law Act 1995: raised the minimum age for marriage to 18 and required 3 months' written notice to local registrar, abolished petitions for jactitation of marriage (falsely claiming to be married to someone), provided for declarations of marital status, and ancillary orders after judicial separation or foreign divorce.

    Domestic Violence Act 1996: extended safety, barring and protection orders to non-spouses, gave health boards powers to apply for orders, allowed arrest without warrant for breach.

    Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996: allowed divorce and remarriage, with all ancillary orders.

    Children Act 1997: recognised natural fathers as guardians, allowed children's views to be considered in guardianship, access and custody matters, allowed parents to have joint custody.

    Family Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997: amended the law in relation to notification of intention to marry, barring orders, powers of attorney and distribution of disclaimed estates.

    European Council Regulation 1347/2000: allowed - subject to certain conditions - the mutual recognition in all EU Member States (except Denmark) of court orders relating to divorce, legal separation, nullity or child custody.

    Children Act 2001: authorised courts to order health boards to convene a family welfare conference where a child requires special care or protection. The health board can apply for a care order or supervision order if necessary.

    Domestic Violence (Amendment) Act 2002: amended the Domestic Violence Act to provide eight day limit for ex parte interim barring orders, changed grounds on which ex parte orders could be granted.

    So despite the 'enshrine' place of mothers in the constitution it only translated into rights and protection in the last 50 years.
    In some cases is it has swung to far the other way as children have a right to know both their parents and there should be proper evaluations to see which parent should get primary custody, it should be child centric but
    we don't have such a system and no government has show the will to want to put one in place.


    Stats from The National Office for the Prevention of Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based Violence.
    http://www.cosc.ie/en/COSC/Pages/WP08000035


  • #198
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,044 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    The thing is I do think that people do things that anoy other people but when any one disprects another person due to thier gender then there are two people that have been failed if not more.


  • #199
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    CDfm wrote: »
    Where this mythical female underclass comes from -I dont know....there was systematic oppression of everyone at the bottom of the pile -men and women. its a romantic notion that it was limited to women. Or that men didnt get a rough time too
    CDfm, it looks like your argument boils down to this: "systematic oppression happened to lots of people and not all of them were women, therefore one cannot argue that women were systematically oppressed. Sorry that's just bad logic. And if I had a €1 for everytime someone says "oh it wasn't limited to women" - yes, we know. No one here said that it was. You can't blame posters here for what X feminist writer said.
    CDfm wrote: »
    Funny that -men as a different species. I dont feel remotely responsible for the treatment of women in Islamic countries. You would think that women as carers would have brought up a generation of guys sympathetic to them.
    Because it doesn't matter how much power these women have in the home - that is the final limit of it. I have lived in Saudi Arabia and experienced that society first hand. Sure, the women may rule the roost at home but the second they step outside the home, they are made 100% aware of the fact that they are 2nd class citizens.

    And do they rule at home? Who choses who as a partner? Mostly, the man choses the woman. And then how many women? They're allowed to have 4! Are women allowed to do the same? No. Ergo: gender inequality. Male children are celebrated. And children learn from their parents. They will be acutely aware of the power imbalance between their parents and will think that this is the norm, as is the case in SA. Seeing as you like biographies, I suggest you read Princess by Jean Sasson. Women are not treated as equals, they are treated like objects. The testimony of a woman in SA is worth 1/3 of a man's. They are not allowed to drive. Their husband owns their passport and their children.

    And let me tell you, I was there in the early 80s and things have only gotten more extreme. I could tell you stories about Saudi men having affairs with Filipino nurses and their bodies being found in dried up wadis outside of town when they become an inconvenience. I can tell you about my parents going to dinner at a friend's house and the woman disappearing into the kitchen before my mum arrives, and my dad never seeing her throughout the whole visit. My mum had to go into the kitchen to talk to her and she was only allowed to eat when my dad and the husband had finished.
    CDfm wrote: »
    The whole patriarchy thing is a myth - or an intellectual contruction.
    You are having a laugh, right? Read up on Saudi Arabia and then come back and try and tell me it isn't a patriarchy.
    CDfm wrote: »
    If you listen to ads by Amnesty International what they say is that women and children are disproportionately affected by war. Usually the men have been imprissoned or worse.

    What is objectional is that the distribution of aid is based on a gender bias. That surely is wrong. It makes me wonder if many women are aware of the philosophy of the organisations they support.How would they feel if it was their sons, brothers or fathers..
    In times of war, women are subject to systematic ethnic cleansing. Often women are gang-raped and then killed. Pregnant women are disembowled. Men are normally killed on the spot or forced into conscription. Sexual violence and slavery is almost exclusively used against women. Many women are infected with HIV/AIDS. Are you really going to argue that the men have it tougher? Many women end up giving birth to the children of their abusers. Many are left infertile because of repeated gang-rapes. Others are left with serious incontinence issues. Often women are used as prostitutes by gangs and these women are then rejected by their societies if/when they return home. So not only do these women have to deal with the trauma of what they've gone through, they also have to deal with the sexual discrimination inherent in the taboos of their society.
    When women are in refugee camps, they have a greater need for doctors as they don't stop getting pregnant and giving birth just because they are a refugee.

    I'm certainly not arguing that war is harder on women than men but firstly, I think more women are left behind after war and supplies need to go to help the survivors - be they male or female. Women also need more medical care due to their reproductive health.
    CDfm wrote: »
    I am not advocating anything. Islam is not my culture and Im not responsible for other men in other countries or societies or in the past.

    All Im saying is we have our own patch of earth that we influence.

    In Western society -legal status or not the mother is the de facto carer of the children. Constitutionally in Ireland the woman has primacy.
    No you're not, you're also saying that systematic oppression of women, ie a patriarchy, does not exist on this earth.

    Constitutionally in Ireland the woman has primacy..what? in everything? No. Women have primacy over the care of children but can you not see how that legal status is derived from a sexist attitude that children are "wimmins work". Can you not see that this is seriously damaging to men and their role in the lives of their children? Can you not see that this view and the primacy of the family unit in the Irish constitution has prevented us from actually giving children the rights they need, not the rights the Catholic church says they need.
    CDfm wrote: »
    I dont know Morocco specifically but in Islamic countries you have Sharia law which is different to ours. You also have various interpretations of the koran by religious leaders. THis is my comment - given that mothers are the primary carers of children they perpetuate the culture - too right they do- the good and the bad.If you dont believe me live in the Middle East.
    This is just so wrong. You mean by the fact that women exist in these cultures, they are perpetuating the culture, by the fact that they have children? If you can argue that, you can argue that all women, all through history have been complicit in their own oppression, which is just plain nonsense.

    Maybe I'm just being silly but I thought things like actual legislation, the right to vote, the right to divorce, having rights over your own fertility, being given the resources to be self-sufficient, to educate yourself - I thought these were the things that brought about power and allowed women to effect change in the societies in which they are often legal non-entities.

    But you think that the fact that they look after children is an equivalent. Well why don't we strip the men in these places of their positions of power, remove their legal supremacy, leave them in the homes looking after the children and see how many hundreds of years it takes them to throw it all off.
    CDfm wrote: »
    A muslim friend of mine had an arranged marriage. His mother arranged it. Of course, I couldnt influence him but I would disagree with anyone who says that he had any influence over her decision. I wont comment on the marriage- but the women had the power- culturally and within the family he had no option but to go along..
    ...
    So boys do grow up to respect women in Middle Eastern cultures - and women do have power in the home- legal issues aside courts are run by culture and tradition.
    Here, you're using a simple anecdote of one friend you happen to have, to argue that boys grow up to respect women in the Middle East?? That's just totally insane. Yes, courts are run by a culture and tradition that is inherently discriminatory against women. In Saudi Arabia, a man can divorce his wife by saying "talaq, talaq, talaq". Yet we see in the news recently an 8-year old girl having to drag herself through the courts to get a divorce from a man in his fifties, that her father married her off to. Guess what: her mother didn't want the marriage to take place: Guess what: it happened anyway.

    What good is a small bit of power in the home when you have none outside? Ooh I get some input into who my son married but I don't have the right to vote, can be sentenced to 100 lashes if I am gang-raped and am never allowed to be seen in public without a male relative.

    Gah! Just had to let all that out so I didn't explode (hmm lots of talk of exploding lately...hope farohar isn't lurking)
    >_>
    <_<


  • #200
    panda100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,551 ✭✭✭panda100


    taconnol wrote: »
    I remember being 10 years old and finding porn mags under my 11 year-old brother's bed. So yeah, it is happening.

    Porn is out there everywhere, most of us dont really have a choice wether we see it or not. You just have to walk into any local shop and you'll see Danielle loyd or Channelles tits staring you in the face. The types of Zoo, Nuts and FHM are never on the top shelf.
    Also in Easons the 'lads' section is right beside the Just 17,Mizz, Beano and kiddies section. Graphic and highly sexualised images of womens bodies are not just confined to videos in sex shops, there out there among us everyday.
    Or even this which you can see in any department store at the mo:04_woaheva_lgl.jpg

    You'd rarely see David Beckham in such a highly sexualised orgasmic pose. And this is the sad thing is that both men and women are so used to having womens bodies thrown at them as a cheap commodity that they feel its perfectly fine to reduce our sexuality and our bodies for consumption. Women are led to believe that this is some sort of sexual empowerment. But I dont think there is anything liberating or equal about the fact that I still dont receive equal pay to men, that the only two proffesions I actually can earn higher than men is in the porn industry or fahion modelling, and at the same time impoverished women are being trafficked into this country to be sold as prostitutes and lapdancers, while thousands of Irish women are spending thousands of euro's mutiliating their sexual organs to feel more 'confident' about themselves. Wahoo ,how empowering!
    (And before anyone accuses me of men bashing,Im not, I blame the system that will exploit anything in order to make big profits. )

    At the end of her book Female Chauvanist pigs (which tbh isnt very good) Ariel Levy has a pargraphh which I like a lot:

    "Women feel most sexual with their vaginas waxed,their labias trimmed,their breasts enlarged. There is a fixation on a silent girly girls in g-strings FAKING lust. Sex is one of the most intresting things we as humans have to play with and we've reduced it to polyester underpants and implants!"
    CDfm wrote: »
    If you listen to ads by Amnesty International what they say is that women and children are disproportionately affected by war. Usually the men have been imprissoned or worse.

    What is objectional is that the distribution of aid is based on a gender bias. That surely is wrong. It makes me wonder if many women are aware of the philosophy of the organisations they support.How would they feel if it was their sons, brothers or fathers..

    Really do we need to bring Gender stereotypes into war too? War is horrific for everyone wether your man or women, sheep or dog,pensioner or child.

    War screws everyone up and I completly reject your suggested notion that women get of lightly in war situations.
    In war, rape is the weapon used against women. Take Darfur for example,The families lucky enough to escape to refugee camps would have to venture out of the camps to get water. Families had to make the decision would the man find water and risk being found by the janjaweed and being killed or did the women find the water and risk being raped. It was the women then that were sent of to find the water. Most of them returned saying they had been 'beaten up' by the janjaweed, so ashamed were they of having their bodies violated in such a way they couldnt admit they had been raped. After the women were 'beaten up' by the janjaweed the husbands would leave them as it brought shame on them and their families.


  • #201
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    Yes the men did have it hard but at the end of the day they could go home and beat and rape thier wife
    which was considered acceptable behaviour.

    I have to be honest and say seeing things like that really ****ing hacks me off.

    Do you think that everyone would hang up there hats after a day down the mines and wander home and lay into the missus?

    It wasn't "acceptable behaviour", to plenty of men throughout history, that will NEVER be acceptable behaviour.

    I find the implication in that sentence to be wholely insulting.

    And Panda,

    the below was a picture used in a massive worldwide campaign by a massive fashion house.

    http://www.kitmeout.com/img_assets/david-beckham-armani-underwear.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    g'em
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,819 ✭✭✭✭g'em


    panda100 wrote: »
    You'd rarely see David Beckham in such a highly sexualised orgasmic pose. And this is the sad thing is that both men and women are so used to having womens bodies thrown at them as a cheap commodity that they feel its perfectly fine to reduce our sexuality and our bodies for consumption.
    Jeebus, that's some mighty selective viewing you've got. David Beckham in Armani's most recent campaign:

    1112_beckham_sp_lg.jpg

    For similar shots see Calvin Klein underwear ads (Mark Wahlberg, Freddie Ljungberg and others), yer man off Sex and the City for Aero - men are sexualised for the sake of advertising all the time. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the rest of your post but don't skew the truth to suit your argument.

    Can you apply your stance to men:
    panda100 wrote:
    Women are led to believe that [posing provocatively for advertising] is some sort of sexual empowerment.
    So if it's not, then what is it? Whatever it is for women should surely therefore also apply to men.

    Ninja edit: Ha!! Great minds think alike D :D


  • #203
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    That may be the case but but it is only from 1960s that women got given guardianship of her own children up until then she and the children were seen as the "responsibility" of the husband and he had control over them.

    http://indigo.ie/~kwood/acts.htm


    So despite the 'enshrine' place of mothers in the constitution it only translated into rights and protection in the last 50 years.
    In some cases is it has swung to far the other way as children have a right to know both their parents and there should be proper evaluations to see which parent should get primary custody, it should be child centric but
    we don't have such a system and no government has show the will to want to put one in place.


    Stats from The National Office for the Prevention of Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based Violence.
    http://www.cosc.ie/en/COSC/Pages/WP08000035


    I dont know what your point is- but you seem to be saying the gender based models as promoted by womens aid that you quote.

    You seem to be saying that the Gender based model is wrong but dont come out and say it. I would like to see your views on what is wrong with it then a cut and paste from the Womans Aid site.

    Its not the governments fault that the most powerful womans rights group constantly lobby for this system.

    There is no program in place nor do they ask for funding to re-educate female perpetrators of domestic violence or sexual abuse or female abusers of kids.

    Not many people are aware of what an ex-parte barring order is. Its a summary order given by a Judge in Camera behind closed doors for a man to leave his house or be arrested and jailed and hundreds of them are granted every week- on the oral evidence alone of women in relationship breakdown.Nothing has to happen only the woman to claim she is afraid.And bang guy is gone from the house.

    Would any woman lie and do such a thing?


  • #204
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,044 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    I am sorry if I offended you dragan I never said everyone did it but if they chose to and the woman didn't have family or other men in her community to stand up and say "Thats not on" there was no recourse, that is the reality of it.

    I think that the whole backlash against people who stand up for the rights of others or in support of others and say "Thats not on" or "Thats not cool" is one of the things which is very wrong in society atm.


  • #205
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Yeah, good post panda, but I disagree with you on the men not being sexualised bit. However women's bods are used to sell far more than men's.


  • #206
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    g'em wrote: »
    Can you apply your stance to men: So if it's not, then what is it? Whatever it is for women should surely therefore also apply to men.

    Ninja edit: Ha!! Great minds think alike D :D

    *grins* So it seems, we should work on taking over the world.

    With regard to women being told this or that is liberating, and the same for men who the hell is ANYONE in this thread to tell another man or woman what they are allowed to find liberating?

    As a man who was fat, then not so fat, now not really fat and who will eventually be so fit his sexiness his undeniable i have dealt with my own body issues my whole life. I know countless men and women who have done the same.

    If i someday get my body to the point where i want to strip down and pose for the camera then i can guarantee you that i will personally find that liberating. Extrememly so.

    I will have finally overcome every issues that i have with myself. I am sure it is the same for other people.

    Don't judge someone just because they are not falling in to YOUR ideal of how YOU want to present yourself.

    The irony that has unfolded in here since yesterday is both amusing and disgusting to me.


  • #207
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,044 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    I think that primary custody could be child centric rather the assumptive and there should be more cases of joint shared custody were possible.

    Safety orders are more likely to be issues currently then ex parte orders.

    Yes we should have funding to re-educate female perpetrators of domestic violence or sexual abuse or female abusers of kids but should that be left to what is after all a charity doing it's best to deal with all the people who turn to it as society and the state has already failed them ?

    Surely we should have gender studies and domestic voilience education in schools so that young adults are taught it is not acceptable to do to anyone no matter what gender ?


  • #208
    g'em
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,819 ✭✭✭✭g'em


    Dragan wrote: »
    *grins* So it seems, we should work on taking over the world.
    It's on my To Do list, let's conference :pac:

    I'm confused now though (admittedly with regard to most of the rest of the thread tl;dr) - is a woman using her sexuality (something I'd personally consider a wonderful gift to have tbh) something to be frowned upon, or only frowned upon when used for financial/ corporate/ commercial gain such as in the case of advertising.

    And if a woman chooses to use what she has for gains (which, imo she has every right to do, her body, her decision) are we saying that this then has negative connotations for how other women will be seen?

    These are genuine questions btw, I'm not very au fait with feminist arguments and I guess my view on such things would be quite naive.


  • #209
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Dragan wrote: »
    As a man who was fat, then not so fat, now not really fat and who will eventually be so fit his sexiness his undeniable i have dealt with my own body issues my whole life. I know countless men and women who have done the same.
    Good point. I used to have terrible body issues - to the point of being underweight at one stage, and then fairly overweight due to a messed up relationship with food. Now that I'm neither, being able to wear or not wear what the heck I want is exceptionally liberating and a massive ego boost.


  • #210
    panda100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,551 ✭✭✭panda100


    I ,shock horror, actually agree with Dragan that Thaed's statement was a bit harsh.
    Dragan wrote: »
    And Panda,

    the below was a picture used in a massive worldwide campaign by a massive fashion house.

    http://www.kitmeout.com/img_assets/david-beckham-armani-underwear.jpg

    Ok imagine that you had to look at that sort of image hundreds of time a day, that he had his penis on display (which he has got surgically enhanced), have him faking an orgasm and lust at the camera, and this is what us women see everyday, on the newstands, in papers, in advertisments, on tv......
    There is no way you can suggest that male nudity is out there as much as female? [Cue the 'argument' about men being visual creatures and so Its okay to objectify and exploit womens bodys blah blah blah]


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    g'em wrote: »
    I'm confused now though (admittedly with regard to most of the rest of the thread tl;dr) - is a woman using her sexuality (something I'd personally consider a wonderful gift to have tbh) something to be frowned upon, or only frowned upon when used for financial/ corporate/ commercial gain such as in the case of advertising.

    And if a woman chooses to use what she has for gains (which, imo she has every right to do, her body, her decision) are we saying that this then has negative connotations for how other women will be seen?
    I have heard that as an one criticism of the "Female Chauvinist Pigs" book. ie that if a woman does choose to use her sexuality, she's somehow betraying her gender.

    I don't know too much about feminist theories but for me it's all about choice, choice, choice. There a big differences between Eva Mendes or Beckham posing like that to advertise her perfume and a trafficked prostitute but the main difference for me is choice.

    Then again, the over use of overly sexualised images in our society does annoy me because it's just one type of body that we see and that has been proven to lead to lower self-esteem among young people. I suppose it wouldn't annoy me so much if Eva had a few more lumpy bits :)


Advertisement