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

Male Feminists

1121315171820

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,239 ✭✭✭✭WindSock


    I don't see Fathers Rights groups campaigning for womens rights in Uganda. Bunch of shams...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭Millicent


    Who says it's a massive issue. Feminism seeks equal opportunities for women. So Feminists should not be happy where they have greater opportunities than men. They seek equal oppurtunities for women meaning they seek less oppurtunities for women and/or more oppurtunities for men to achieve the primary goal of equal oppurtunities. Having more oppurtunities is not equal oppurtunities.

    I don't think I've ever come across a real feminist. I've come across people who seek to increase the oppurtunies of women, I don't know what you call that movement, but it sure as hell ain't feminism. Feminism seeks equal oppurtunies for women, not increasing oppurtunies for women.

    How dare you? How dare you try to patronise me and tell me I am not a real feminist? That's commonly known as "mansplaining", just so you know.

    This again boils down to the attitude that, despite a whole theology which works for the equal rights of women, it's unfair that feminists don't campaign for men's rights. Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds? If you're so concerned about those rights, get off your ass and do something about them and stop complaining that a group that isn't set up to deal with those issues isn't working to fix them. I mean, come on, how entitled can you get?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭Millicent


    token101 wrote: »

    Just to point out, Andy Gray got the sack after being on suspension for slagging off the lines-woman after footage emerged of him sexually harassing a co-worker.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭yawha


    WindSock wrote: »
    I don't see Fathers Rights groups campaigning for womens rights in Uganda. Bunch of shams...
    I guess the counter argument is that Father's Rights groups do what they say on the tin, they don't say they're for equality between the sexes.

    It's a load of semantic horseshit really. There's nothing really wrong with saying father's rights groups are for equality between the sexes, even if they only campaign for rights which apply to men, and it's the same with feminism. You can be for more things than you actively campaign for.

    The way some people go on, you'd swear they think every feminist is a hardcore lesbian separatist or something. It's bizarre.


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


    Yeah there seems very little work being done by men to address issues faced by men - it makes the "Why isn't there mich outrage about this?!" comments re, for example men being appallingly ridiculed in so many media, very ironic. There isn't much outrage because instead of mobilising and taking a stand, there's just whinging and blaming women for not doing something about it. It's hostile towards women and cultivates an "us and them" divide.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,239 ✭✭✭✭WindSock


    Having 'hardcore' and 'lesbian' in the same sentence probably won't go down well

    /ooer matron


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,144 ✭✭✭Scanlas The 2nd


    Millicent wrote: »
    Who says it's a massive issue. Feminism seeks equal opportunities for women. So Feminists should not be happy where they have greater opportunities than men. They seek equal oppurtunities for women meaning they seek less oppurtunities for women and/or more oppurtunities for men to achieve the primary goal of equal oppurtunities. Having more oppurtunities is not equal oppurtunities.

    I don't think I've ever come across a real feminist. I've come across people who seek to increase the oppurtunies of women, I don't know what you call that movement, but it sure as hell ain't feminism. Feminism seeks equal oppurtunies for women, not increasing oppurtunies for women.

    How dare you? How dare you try to patronise me and tell me I am not a real feminist? That's commonly known as "mansplaining", just so you know.

    This again boils down to the attitude that, despite a whole theology which works for the equal rights of women, it's unfair that feminists don't campaign for men's rights. Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds? If you're so concerned about those rights, get off your ass and do something about them and stop complaining that a group that isn't set up to deal with those issues isn't working to fix them. I mean, come on, how entitled can you get?

    When exactly did I say it's unfair feminists don't campaign for men's rights. What I said was its hypocritical if the definition of feminism you provided me is correct.

    If you aren't interested in men's rights then you aren't a feminist. It's very simple. I don't campaign for men's rights because I don't care enough to campaign, and I never claimed men's rights were of utmost importance to me. That's why I'm not a hypocryt. If you claim to be a feminist then men's rights should be very important as the central theme of feminism is obtaining equal rights for women. In order to have equal rights you need to be aware what rights both sides have to fix the problem. That might mean increasing men's or women's rights or a bit of both. Your goal as a "feminist" appears to be to increase women's rights which isn't feminism, unless feminism is not about equality of the sexes.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭Millicent


    When exactly did I say it's unfair feminists don't campaign for men's rights. What I said was its hypocritical if the definition of feminism you provided me is correct.

    If you aren't interested in men's rights then you aren't a feminist. It's very simple. I don't campaign for men's rights because I don't care enough to campaign, and I never claimed men's rights were of utmost importance to me. That's why I'm not a hypocryt. If you claim to be a feminist then men's rights should be very important as the central theme of feminism is obtaining equal rights for women. In order to have equal rights you need to be aware what rights both sides have to fix the problem. That might mean increasing men's or women's rights or a bit of both. Your goal as a "feminist" appears to be to increase women's rights which isn't feminism, unless feminism is not about equality of the sexes.

    Are you serious? You don't care enough to campaign for issues which affect your gender and feminists are the hypocrites? That's some bizarre logic.


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


    Like any term though, "feminist" should be allowed to evolve. Originally it was about equality - today it is often applicable to people who want to highlight when women experience **** because of their gender, AS WELL AS when any other group does.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,919 ✭✭✭✭Gummy Panda


    WindSock wrote: »
    Having 'hardcore' and 'lesbian' in the same sentence probably won't go down well

    /ooer matron

    This thread has now showed up on my search filters..


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


    Millicent and Dudess, just found this thread now and haven't read it all, just the last couple of pages, but just wanted to say well done for sticking around, I don't know if I'd have the patience. I think you've both been really patient, reasonable and (probably too) tolerant.

    To have a bunch of men say that feminists should be campaigning for men's rights or they can't call themselves feminists frankly beggars belief.

    Unbelievable levels of mansplaining going on in this thread and well done to both of you for not being silenced.

    Hope this post doesn't come across as patronising, but I know it can often be sooooo much easier to just give up when the people who are arguing against you make it so clear they have no interest in trying to understand your point of view, and just want to prove you wrong that you can end up wondering what the point is?

    But back on topic, most of the really smart, kind, skeptical and self-aware men I know are feminists, and they are wonderful!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Dudess wrote: »
    Anger with women because of personal experiences. I have seen two guys on Boards, who are regularly bitching about this alleged conspiracy against men and doing so by being extremely confrontational with female posters, recently admit to bad experiences at the hands of women. It's grim that there are bitches out there who ruin men's lives, but it doesn't mean all feminists, including reasonable ones like Millicent, should pay.

    I'm not saying I know for certain there is anger against women here, but I suspect it - and with good cause IMO. The hostility and snideness is palpable.

    If there were women saying the equivalent stuff to men I would think the very same thing, genders reversed. Far, far less frequent on Boards though.

    Sums up where I used to be, taking problems I had in family courts as meaning they favour women. Reading up on it and seeing experience from the "other side" made me see it isn't a gender issue at all, its your usual, run of the mill dysfunctional section of Government.

    Family courts kind of remind me of these threads, men and women saying how good the other have, all not seeing the wood for the trees, with family courts it's children, with "equality" debates its equality.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



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


    I avoided it for ages because some of it is really just appalling, but when I saw the attempts to paint Millicent as a man-hater ffs I felt compelled to post.

    Personally I don't identify myself as a feminist - an egalitarian instead, but that in itself would deem me to have feminist leanings, because there is that name for it. If there were other "ists" for all the other causes I'd support, I'd be those too. A person isn't wholly defined by one set of beliefs they hold. And I agree a person doesn't have to call themselves anything to take a stand against unfair treatment - of anyone. But that does not justify complete ignorance and hostility towards reasonable feminists, nor hate-filled lumping them in with man-hating zealots, one of whom I have yet to meet.

    And calling a woman a feminazi because she defends herself and other women is really just the bottom of the barrel. And reeks of projection.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Kooli wrote: »
    Millicent and Dudess, just found this thread now and haven't read it all, just the last couple of pages, but just wanted to say well done for sticking around, I don't know if I'd have the patience. I think you've both been really patient, reasonable and (probably too) tolerant.

    To have a bunch of men say that feminists should be campaigning for men's rights or they can't call themselves feminists frankly beggars belief.

    Unbelievable levels of mansplaining going on in this thread and well done to both of you for not being silenced.

    Hope this post doesn't come across as patronising, but I know it can often be sooooo much easier to just give up when the people who are arguing against you make it so clear they have no interest in trying to understand your point of view, and just want to prove you wrong that you can end up wondering what the point is?

    But back on topic, most of the really smart, kind, skeptical and self-aware men I know are feminists, and they are wonderful!

    I'd very often agree with Millicent and Dudess on many social issues, sure 3 oft derided members of the pinko, liberal, socialist, pc brigade, as you'll see on boards. 2 of the most egalitarian posters I've seen on Boards, and that includes Fathers Rights issues.

    I despise extremism in any subject and I'd say they do too, going on their posts.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    When exactly did I say it's unfair feminists don't campaign for men's rights. What I said was its hypocritical if the definition of feminism you provided me is correct.
    And as you seemed to agree earlier, you could apply this to practically any other group in society from disability action groups, to fathers' rights groups, to gay rights groups, to civil rights campaigners in places like the USA or Northern Ireland, to the Irish association for the Unemployed (why are those bastards arbitrarily limiting their concern to the Irish!!!!)

    You could do that, in theory, but nobody ever seems to do so.

    This issue of hypocrisy is the first time I've ever seen this suggestion in relation to any such social group, and to be quite honest I did think it was a good question when I first read it. Then I thought about it and decided it doesn't much logistical sense.

    One cannot, in practice, campaign for everything at the same time. Nor can one avoid self-appointed tags, nor tags appointed by other people when one simply finds any single group's cause to be particularly appealing to them personally, or at any period in time.

    What I am still trying to figure out,and maybe you can help explain to me, is why this question doesn't quite seem to apply to other movements in the way that has arisen in this thread? Are none of you interested in why the Irish movement for the unemployed is not interested in the Irish employee, let alone the British, French, Zulu or Uruguayan unemployed?


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


    The "equality" thing is a handy stick to beat feminists en masse with. There are so many variables within feminism and some folks would rather ignore that because it's inconvenient. I don't understand the logic of just deciding that anyone who identifies themselves as a feminist, nothing else known about them, is automatically deserving of derision.

    It's not a rational or sound assessment.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,239 ✭✭✭✭WindSock


    Maybe the reason feminism exists...

    Is because of the irrational fear of feminists.

    :eek:

    Keanu.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    Kooli wrote: »
    But back on topic, most of the really smart, kind, skeptical and self-aware men I know are feminists, and they are wonderful!

    Feminist men make the best lovers ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    benway wrote: »
    If I wanted to set up a straw womyn, I would've gone for Dworkin-style "all sex is rape" and its derivatives.

    Funny you should say that, the notion that Dworkin said 'all sex is rape'
    is a myth and a strawwomyn.

    http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinnon.asp
    MacKinnon never made the statement which has been attributed to her. (The quote she never gave has been variously rendered as "All sex is rape," "All men are rapists," and "All sex is sexual harassment.") Critics of MacKinnon's work argue she implies all men are rapists, but the quote given here was created by MacKinnon's opponents, not MacKinnon herself.

    MacKinnon claims the first reference to her alleged belief that all sex is hostile surfaced in the October 1986 issue of Playboy. According to MacKinnon, the statement (which had previously been attached to feminist Andrea Dworkin) was made up by the pornography industry in an attempt to undermine her credibility. It became inextricably linked with MacKinnon's name after she began working with Dworkin in the early 1980s to write model anti-pornography laws.

    Dworkin has also disavowed the quote as a false statement circulated by her opponents. She has denied saying that "all sex is rape" or "all men are rapists." When asked to explain her views on the topic, Dworkin replied: "Penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent. But I'm not saying that sex must be rape. What I think is that sex must not put women in a subordinate position. It must be reciprocal and not an act of aggression from a man looking only to satisfy himself. That's my point."


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,705 ✭✭✭Johro


    Can't be arsed reading the tread, up for work in 7 hours.
    I'm male. Wouldn't call myself a feminist. Don't like the word. I'm all for completely equal rights though.
    Same as I'm all for equal rights for all races but I wouldn't call myself a blackist. It's just got weird connotations to me.
    G'luck lads.
    Well yeah, fair enough.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Actually just to get back to the idea of male feminists for a minute, if some of the guys want to insist I am trolling fair enough, but how do you explain male feminists who I presume you don't accuse of taking the piss? I'm talking about men who wouldn't really stand out as White Knight candidates or "whipped pussy boys" like Garrett FitzGerald and Michael D Higgins, both self professed feminists.

    Why do you think these men called themselves feminists? Do you believe that they ignored or brushed aside other aspects of their belief system for an elitist arrangement for women?

    And to bring women back into it, how do you explain the civil rights endeavours of people like Mary Robinson and Nell McCafferty, who are feminists, but arguably both better known or equally known for their campaigns outside of feminism strictly speaking (human rights/ Northern Ireland conflict/ homosexual law reform/ climate justice & poverty... all quite egalitarian principled movements)?


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


    I wouldn't care whether a guy was feminist or not, as long as he didn't harbour irrational anger towards any group.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭44leto


    I would very much regard myself as a male feminist, women have a long way in this world in the fight for fairness, its getting better in the west, but the west is not the world.

    Yes we can no longer beat them, rape them, kill them, pinch their arse, degrade them or abuse them as second class citizens, that is a very good thing and something we should be proud off. IMO there is still a bit to do even in the west, but its a work in progress. I for one support those efforts and hope the rest of the world catches up.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 965 ✭✭✭johnr1


    I have yet to encounter a bigger trainwreck of a thread on boards. :(

    The bad feeling from this type of pointless viciousness is harmful to the community that is AH.

    I'm not a feminist as far as my understanding of the word goes.

    I do believe in equality of opportunity for both sexes, and will generally fight discrimination against either sex.


    But to berate an orginisation founded on fighting for women's equality for not fighting for men's equality is ludicrious. FFS, grow a pair of balls, and fight your own battles. Found a men's movement if you believe we are worse off in general, rather than blaming a women's movement for it.


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


    And while here in the West, women have it fair most of the time (even having an advantage over men on occasion, which is completely wrong too) globally, women have it worse. That's just a fact. To speak out against atrocities against women around the world of course doesn't require one to be a feminist, but surely as long as this continues, it serves to galvanise the women's movement.

    But it's not a competition either - men experience appalling treatment in some societies too, even those societies where they are deemed superior to women. It's not as if all men are exempt from, for instance, the viciousness of the Taliban. Not because of their gender though - there's the difference.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    later10 wrote: »
    Actually just to get back to the idea of male feminists for a minute, if some of the guys want to insist I am trolling fair enough, but how do you explain male feminists who I presume you don't accuse of taking the piss? I'm talking about men who wouldn't really stand out as White Knight candidates or "whipped pussy boys" like Garrett FitzGerald and Michael D Higgins, both self professed feminists.

    Why do you think these men called themselves feminists? Do you believe that they ignored or brushed aside other aspects of their belief system for an elitist arrangement for women?

    And to bring women back into it, how do you explain the civil rights endeavours of people like Mary Robinson and Nell McCafferty, who are feminists, but arguably both better known or equally known for their campaigns outside of feminism strictly speaking (human rights/ Northern Ireland conflict/ homosexual law reform/ climate justice & poverty... all quite egalitarian principled movements)?

    I don't think Garret was a feminist at all, just an ardent reformer of society. I'd be a major critic of him economically, but socially, spot on, and as it proved way ahead of his time. Divorce was introduced 8/9 years after he was gone.

    I remember watching a BBC Question Time programme, must have been around 95 and the second divorce referendum, long retired at that stage. He was asked about divorce and he was very straight about it and got hissed by many at the start, but at the end, he got a round of applause.

    Basically started saying "he was an ould romantic, marriage is for life, but society has to recognise reality as well". An ould Romantic but Romanticism will die if reality isn't recognised.

    I compare him to Enda now nodding to the Oliver J. Flanagan wing of FG! ;)

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 965 ✭✭✭johnr1


    Now that I think of it, I suppose it's not such a surprise that this war erupted. It's been brewing in skirmishes here and in TLL for a while now, but I suppose at least it's happening in a semi neutral space.

    Seriously though, it's divisive sh1t, and really solves nothing, only widens gaps of misunderstanding. I found it hard to read without getting angry because of stuff said on both sides. I dont think either group would address the other in these terms face to face.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    K-9 wrote: »
    I don't think Garret was a feminist at all, just an ardent reformer of society. I'd be a major critic of him economically, but socially, spot on, and as it proved way ahead of his time. Divorce was introduced 8/9 years after he was gone.
    Couldn't agree more on Garret's legacy. I'm just describing him as a feminist because that's a title he used on himself... he certainly was a reformer of society from various different perspectives, and not just the condition of women.
    I remember watching a BBC Question Time programme, must have been around 95 and the second divorce referendum, long retired at that stage. He was asked about divorce and he was very straight about it and got hissed by many at the start, but at the end, he got a round of applause.

    Basically started saying "he was an ould romantic, marriage is for life, but society has to recognise reality as well". An ould Romantic but Romanticism will die if reality isn't recognised.

    I compare him to Enda now nodding to the Oliver J. Flanagan wing of FG! ;)
    And unfortunately it isn't even just the Endas of the party, but the likes of L Creighton. I find some of her opinions on social reform so disappointingly regressive...compare her (at what 29? 30?) to Garret FitzGerald who in his old age was still talking about reform right up until his last appearance at the McGill summer school.

    This is slightly off topic, but people often wax lyrical about the dead at the time of their death but I think it is indicative of the genuine respect there was for Garret FitzGerald that he as an individual participating in public life is actively and genuinely missed, when we look around at those who have survived him.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    Mary Kenny thought he was a liberal rather then a feminist but he did describe himself as a feminist and on the late late show no less.


    http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/mary-kenny-a-selfprofessed-feminist-who-was-devoted-to-women-in-his-life-2652737.html
    A self-professed feminist who was devoted to women in his life

    THE late Garret FitzGerald was sometimes described as a feminist, in that he sought to advance the liberation of women.

    He certainly thought of himself as a feminist, and in his own life, he never omitted the influence of his mother, and never failed to show both devotion and respect to his wife: and if we judge a man by his actions more than his words, he certainly passed that test.

    He also actively sought to bring women into politics and was both mentor and guide to Gemma Hussey and the late Nuala Fennell, who had such successful political careers under his stewardship. With the full support and encouragement of Garret, Nuala brought through a bill which abolished the archaic status of illegitimacy in Ireland, which had previously stigmatised those born outside of marriage.

    But there were some clashes: and I recall a notable episode on a 'Late Late Show' in 1970 when Gay Byrne had assembled a group of us radical feminists, including Nell McCafferty, June Levine and myself, to devote the whole programme to the subject of Irish women's liberation. It was one of the first times we had the opportunity to speak about this new wave of feminism in the public realm. But halfway through the programme, Gay Byrne suddenly announced that Garret FitzGerald had been sitting watching the show at home and had felt so engaged by the subject that he asked if he could come and join us, and Gay had eagerly agreed.

    The announcement was greeted by a sustained, and entirely spontaneous, orchestra of booing from the assembled group of women, panel and audience. "You're hijacking our show!" we cried. There was huge resentment, both of Gay and of Garret, that these two men couldn't have let the women have their say, uninterrupted, without trying to muscle in on the act. Garret, all innocence, protested that he was a male feminist.

    Oh, yeah? Maybe so, we all agreed afterwards, but he is also a politician. And a politician knows just when to jump on a bandwagon. Even if he was sincere -- and he certainly was sincere -- the prevailing feeling of the sisters was that men just won't let women speak without putting their oar in. It's the "pasha complex": in a hareem of women under the Ottomans, you had to have the male, the pasha, take charge.

    All the obituarists are right about Garret FitzGerald: he was a decent man, a true patriot, a fine intellectual, and an original political presence who advanced the cause of peace and reconciliation.

    His intellectual side had a brilliant edge, sometimes. He was once placed next to Margaret Thatcher at an official European dinner, and Francois Mitterand, the French president was at the next seat along. Garret and Mitterand spoke French literally over Mrs Thatcher's head, mostly discussing the works of French Catholic writers of the 1930s. Mrs Thatcher was puzzled about this discourse about the likes of Georges Bernanos and Francois Mauriac: her father, Alderman Roberts, had taught her that the French were decadent and she quizzed Garret about his common cultural ground with Mitterand.

    But was Garret, as so widely claimed, a feminist? He was really more of a liberal, with a sympathetic opening to feminism. It is sometimes assumed that liberalism and feminism go together, but it isn't always so: radical feminism is more akin to Marxist thinking, and separatist feminism has more in common with a kind of puritanism. Remember that the original slogan of the Suffragettes, under the Pankhursts was: "Votes for women, and chastity for men!" Even in 1911, there was a feminist element which believed that all men were potential rapists.

    The divorce referenda in Ireland brought out some of that tension between liberalism and feminism. As part of a programme to modernise Ireland, and enhance the notion of pluralism, Garret sought to delete the constitutional prohibition against divorce. Liberal feminists were certainly supportive of this -- Nuala Fennell, for example, had done a lot of research on broken marriages and realised that it was altogether necessary to have a provision for divorce.

    Yet, some feminists thought the approach precipitate: you had to introduce property law first, which would give a divorced wife the entitlement to half of the marital property before you went about dissolving marriages. Women from a rural background were particularly aware of this. I remember my late friend and radical feminist Mary Cummins being furious about divorce proposals in 1986: "What would you do with the family farm? Women would be out on their ear!"

    Small wonder it took nearly 10 years to get through a plebiscite on divorce: and even then, in 1995, the result was on a knife-edge. In rural Ireland, marriage has always had a financial dimension. Garret was a sophisticated intellectual, and sophisticated intellectuals can miss some of these bread-and-butter points.

    A liberal is not the same as a radical, either, and in the great condom debate, many liberals were careful to tread prudently. It's just 40 years ago this Sunday that our group of feminists carried out the famous 'condom train' stunt -- provocatively bringing condoms back from Belfast and declaring them at the customs. Liberals, such as Mary Robinson, declined to be part of it -- it seemed a touch vulgar at the time .

    In Dail Eireann, my recollection is that not a single TD, with the exception of the mavericks Dr John O'Connell and Dr Noel Browne, spoke up for the free availability of condoms. Garret would proceed at his own pace towards changing the law: and that is what a wise politician does -- he must lead, but he must not be too far ahead of public opinion. He was a lovely person and a great Irishman, and he respected women fully: but he was, in the end, more of a liberal than a feminist.

    - Mary Kenny


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭Millicent


    johnr1 wrote: »
    Now that I think of it, I suppose it's not such a surprise that this war erupted. It's been brewing in skirmishes here and in TLL for a while now, but I suppose at least it's happening in a semi neutral space.

    Seriously though, it's divisive sh1t, and really solves nothing, only widens gaps of misunderstanding. I found it hard to read without getting angry because of stuff said on both sides. I dont think either group would address the other in these terms face to face.

    I can say genuinely, I stand by everything I have said here and would say it in discussion. I don't think, except when severely pushed, that I have been rude or disrespectful to anyone and even when pushed, I don't think I have been rude but merely angry or saddened. I can't say the same of a lot (not all) of those on the opposite side of the argument. The ferocity and anger behind some of those posts is telling, IMO.

    For my part, and again as a feminist, I will happily discuss any aspect of my beliefs or others' beliefs with relish. I have had my mind changed on issues in the past and am open to being challenged. I am not open to being shouted down, called a radical, chauvinist, hypocrite or having a persecution complex, simply because I subscribe to a certain ideology.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement