Why is sexism such a difficult topic?

--Kaiser-- · 16-02-2012 03:55PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

feminism is mainly the preserve of middle class western women , women in countries like the congo or the mid east are more concerned with basic human rights issues , I can't see concerns like toy stores labelling soldier outfits for boys or dolls in the girls section As ever being a big priority to women in those places

Woman's rights and humans rights issues in other, more backwards nations do make some of the problems mentioned by western feminists to be trivial in the extreme

Logical Fallacy · 16-02-2012 03:56PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

feminism is mainly the preserve of middle class western women , women in countries like the congo or the mid east are more concerned with basic human rights issues , I can't see concerns like toy stores labelling soldier outfits for boys or dolls in the girls section As ever being a big priority to women in those places

The "First World Problems" argument isn't really a valid argument though. If it were, then no matter what issue you have on a daily basis you should just be quiet and accept it because someone , somewhere has more problems than you...it's really just an attempt to shut down discussion more than anything else and is pretty much applicable to everything.

Would you turn around to a woman in the congo who has seen horrible things and tell her to stop complaining because those things happened to other people and not her? I doubt it...but it's the same application of logic.

It's flawed. It also hints at a separation between feminist issues and human rights issues, when a lot of the time these issues (and others) will overlap.

hardbackwriter · 16-02-2012 03:59PM

krudler wrote: »

hardbackwriter wrote: »

feminism is mainly the preserve of middle class western women , women in countries like the congo or the mid east are more concerned with basic human rights issues , I can't see concerns like toy stores labelling soldier outfits for boys or dolls in the girls section As ever being a big priority to women in those places

thats an interesting way of putting it, there's a world of difference between viewing a scantily clad woman on tv as offensive and having the right to voice your opinion, and then being told you cant work or drive because you're a woman and that your only role is to feed your man and make babies, thats a reality for a lot of women in other countries.

I wouldn't consider opposition to page 3 or porn etc as being in anyway radical feminist , lots of social conservatives oppose it , I'm talking about feminists who believe all traditional views need reform , like how it's wrong to buy a football for a boy and a doll for a girl, if the girl starts playing football of her own accord , great , but I don't like this authoritarian Pc liberal dogma which sees all traditional notions of masculinity as problematic , I believe it's dangerous to be frank

The King of Moo · 16-02-2012 04:03PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

I wouldn't consider opposition to page 3 or porn etc as being in anyway radical feminist , lots of social conservatives oppose it , I'm talking about feminists who believe all traditional views need reform , like how it's wrong to buy a football for a boy and a doll for a girl, if the girl starts playing football of her own accord , great , but I don't like this authoritarian Pc liberal dogma which sees all traditional notions of masculinity as problematic , I believe it's dangerous to be frank

Personally, I've never come across any mainstream, influential examples of this.

hardbackwriter · 16-02-2012 04:04PM

Sharrow wrote: »

Nice False Analogy you have going there.

Stop trying to use the fact that there are women who have it worse in other countries as a reason to try and paint women here and whinging, which is a way to try and shut women up and not let them talk about how our society and culture effect us.

If these discussions aren't allowed to happen then gendered attitudes and thinking will remain unchallenged and unexamined and things won't change.

how much needs to change and to what extent , who decides what changes are required ? , a lot of feminists are a pretty dogmatic and self righteous bunch with a tunnel vision view of what's morally correct
, thier a like a Pc nun

later12 · 16-02-2012 04:05PM

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Woman's rights and humans rights issues in other, more backwards nations do make some of the problems mentioned by western feminists to be trivial in the extreme

So do disability empowerment issues and disability rights issues in the developed states of Europe.

I cannot think of any other movement which seeks to improve the condition of a segment of society against real &/or perceived injustices where so many people seem to take the view "ah now, sure isn't there worse happening in Eritrea".

There's worse unemployment problems in Greece than there is in Ireland, but you don't see anyone telling the Irish Movement for the Unemployed "Ah sure lads, yee have it easy if you compare your unemployment rate to Greece"

strobe · 16-02-2012 04:05PM

bluewolf wrote: »

sometimes you have to pick a few issues and stick to them

Or how about everyone only picks one issue rather than a few and sticks to that. Something along the lines of:

'All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, sexual preference, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.'

So if a human says "hey look that human isn't getting the same rights as other humans" no one responds "Are they a black disabled woman? No? Not really our area so..." or "is it the gay latino jews that have more rights than them?" but rather says "Are they a human? Not getting the same rights as other humans? Yeah!?!? Check, we care about that. What with being humans and all".

Bannasidhe · 16-02-2012 04:05PM

B0jangles wrote: »

One of the subtler ones was finding out that I was not in any way unique in being automatically nervous when say, out walking somewhere isolated by myself - I, and most other women I know, have had it drummed into us from childhood by both parents and other relatives that women are constantly vulnerable to attack, and how we should take precautions to prevent such attacks - don't walk home at night, don't wear revealing clothes, always watch your drink at all times - essentially telling us that it was our responsibility to prevent ourselves from being assaulted.

This reminded me of my 'hang on, that's not right' eureka moment when it came to women's rights. From 1975 - 1980 there was a series of brutal murders of women in Yorkshire. My aunt lived in the area so my mother watched the news reports about it religiously. One night the Yorkshire police announced they were issuing a curfew for women. Now, this struck me as a bit arseways as to my way of thinking one man was killing women, but it was women who had to stay indoors while men were still allowed freedom of movement. So I asked my mother why the curfew wasn't imposed against men - since it was a man was killing.
I would have been in my early teens at the time and for various reasons (death, emigration, separation) I grew up in a household run by women (grandmother and mother) both of whom were very capable, held down jobs, did all the work in the house from cooking to DIY to gardening to finances. Yet, these two independent women looked at me as if I had asked why I couldn't swim to the moon. The idea that men should be forced to stay indoors while women were left free to go about their business was something they just couldn't get their heads around.

I explained my reasoning, in that pedantic way of the earnest teenager, and while they agreed it did seem logical -it was utterly impossible as the men had work to do. 'Don't the women?'. 'No. Not really. Kind of...it's not as important', 'But you both work. Is your work not as important as a mans? Doesn't your work support your family?' 'Yes, but it's not the same. You can't just order men not to go out.' 'Why not? If you can order women why not men?' 'They wouldn't like it', 'Do you think the women like it? They are trapped in their homes because a madman is killing women but that madman is still allowed freedom to roam while the women are confined. It would make more sense to confine men then any that are out after curfew could be stopped and questioned - might speed up finding the killer.', 'You just can't confine men!' 'WHY NOT? And on and on went the conversation in circles.

The impression I was left with was that these two women, who circumstances had decreed would be left without a husband, had proven themselves more then capable of not just surviving but creating a stable, financially secure, loving home yet they saw themselves, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, as still 'lesser' just because of their gender.
It looked to me like brainwashing...

smash · 16-02-2012 04:06PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

I wouldn't consider opposition to page 3 or porn etc as being in anyway radical feminist

Yea... It's just sad!

--Kaiser-- · 16-02-2012 04:07PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

I wouldn't consider opposition to page 3 or porn etc as being in anyway radical feminist , lots of social conservatives oppose it , I'm talking about feminists who believe all traditional views need reform , like how it's wrong to buy a football for a boy and a doll for a girl, if the girl starts playing football of her own accord , great , but I don't like this authoritarian Pc liberal dogma which sees all traditional notions of masculinity as problematic , I believe it's dangerous to be frank

I have to say I hate this 'gender is a social construct' bull**** you hear now and again. It must be from people who've never seen kids play without any adult intervention because it's obvious to me that, in general and with some exceptions, boys act like boys and girls act like girls

Dudess · 16-02-2012 04:09PM

I do think it's reasonable to say though that women here do not face great hardships in the wider scheme of things.

hardbackwriter · 16-02-2012 04:10PM

later12 wrote: »

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Woman's rights and humans rights issues in other, more backwards nations do make some of the problems mentioned by western feminists to be trivial in the extreme

So do disability empowerment issues and disability rights issues in the developed states of Europe.

I cannot think of any other movement which seeks to improve the condition of a segment of society against real &/or perceived injustices where so many people seem to take the view "ah now, sure isn't there worse happening in Eritrea".

There's worse unemployment problems in Greece than there is in Ireland, but you don't see anyone telling the Irish Movement for the Unemployed "Ah sure lads, yee have it easy if you compare your unemployment rate to Greece"

so what your saying is that the plight of women in Saudi Arabia and sandyford , while different , has a common overlapping theme

Zulu · 16-02-2012 04:10PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This reminded me of my 'hang on, that's not right' eureka moment when it came to women's rights. From 1975 - 1980 there was a series of brutal murders of women in Yorkshire.... since it was a man was killing.

Wait, what? At that time you knew the killer was a man?

In this instance was the curfew legally imposed - were women actually arrested if they went out? Or, was it a case of "for your own safety" please don't go out? Because there is a MASSIVE difference.

Logical Fallacy · 16-02-2012 04:11PM

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I have to say I hate this 'gender is a social construct' bull**** you hear now and again. It must be from people who've never seen kids play without any adult intervention because it's obvious to me that, in general and with some exceptions, boys act like boys and girls act like girls

There is no such thing as no adult intervention though. There was a good discussion around it for the thread about those parents who kept their childs gender secret, and how deeply flawed their efforts were.

We act in a certain way towards certain things...it's just who and how we are.

I don't think the correct thinking is to call social constructs bull****...but rather to honestly think about if social constructs are a good or a bad thing. In my opinion, they are not really a bad thing. Social constructs have a pretty large role to play in the development of a moral view within a society. There will also be a huge amount of other factors though.

They are, most assuredly not bull****, but people seem to understand the social construct concept pretty poorly, so it gets blamed for whatever doesn't suit them.

--Kaiser-- · 16-02-2012 04:17PM

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

There is no such thing as no adult intervention though. There was a good discussion around it for the thread about those parents who kept their childs gender secret, and how deeply flawed their efforts were.

We act in a certain way towards certain things...it's just who and how we are.

I don't think the correct thinking is to call social constructs bull****...but rather to honestly think about if social constructs are a good or a bad thing. In my opinion, they are not really a bad thing. Social constructs have a pretty large role to play in the development of a moral view within a society. There will also be a huge amount of other factors though.

They are, most assuredly not bull****, but people seem to understand the social construct concept pretty poorly, so it gets blamed for whatever doesn't suit them.

Boys and girls have different brains, different temperaments, different glands and different bodies. Saying that gender is a purely social construct is bull****

smash · 16-02-2012 04:18PM

Dudess wrote: »

I do think it's reasonable to say though that women here do not face great hardships in the wider scheme of things.

Must resist inuendo

Scanlas The 2nd · 16-02-2012 04:18PM

bluewolf wrote: »

as well to ask why they don't campaign for every other thing going
sometimes you have to pick a few issues and stick to them

i wish someone would campaign for the rights though, the whole thing is an utter disgrace
frequently heartbreaking stories on parenting or pi

Yes but If you pick gender equality to campaign for then actually campaign for gender equality and not just increasing female rights.

Action speak louder than words. What actions have feminists groups ever taken to increase male rights or to lessen female unfair advantage? If gender equality is really the goal then you would thInk they would campaign for men's rights at least occasionally.

The King of Moo · 16-02-2012 04:20PM

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I have to say I hate this 'gender is a social construct' bull**** you hear now and again. It must be from people who've never seen kids play without any adult intervention because it's obvious to me that, in general and with some exceptions, boys act like boys and girls act like girls

It is often simplified by too many people who are basic arguing that gender doesn't really exist, taking things too far.

There are some general, basic differences between probably most boys and girls, but the problem is when people either deny such differences exist or else proclaim these differences to be universal and true of all boys and girls.

More boys might be into aggressive play and sports, but that doesn't mean all boys are into those things, or can't be into "girly things" too.
I think we're all made up of aspects traditionally seen as masculine and feminine to different degrees. Men might mostly be made up of more masculine aspects, but I doubt there are any men who at don't at least have some potential for liking "girly" things if given the opportunity to do so in an unbiased environment.

Gender is a construct, but one based on differences between the sexes. I just don't think these differences are completely divided up evenly between the genders, and a lot of what kids are taught about gender isn't necessarily tied to their sex.

hardbackwriter · 16-02-2012 04:20PM

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I have to say I hate this 'gender is a social construct' bull**** you hear now and again. It must be from people who've never seen kids play without any adult intervention because it's obvious to me that, in general and with some exceptions, boys act like boys and girls act like girls

There is no such thing as no adult intervention though. There was a good discussion around it for the thread about those parents who kept their childs gender secret, and how deeply flawed their efforts were.

We act in a certain way towards certain things...it's just who and how we are.

I don't think the correct thinking is to call social constructs bull****...but rather to honestly think about if social constructs are a good or a bad thing. In my opinion, they are not really a bad thing. Social constructs have a pretty large role to play in the development of a moral view within a society. There will also be a huge amount of other factors though.

They are, most assuredly not bull****, but people seem to understand the social construct concept pretty poorly, so it gets blamed for whatever doesn't suit them.

the majority of social constructs in Ireland are pretty sound IMO, someone refered to feminism as a form of cultural marxism In another thread , Marxism sees all conventional wisdom on society as something which needs tearing down and thier are definate parallels between it and feminism in how combatitive and adversarial it presents it's case

later12 · 16-02-2012 04:21PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

T
The impression I was left with was that these two women, who circumstances had decreed would be left without a husband, had proven themselves more then capable of not just surviving but creating a stable, financially secure, loving home yet they saw themselves, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, as still 'lesser' just because of their gender.
It looked to me like brainwashing...

I think that goes to the core of the problem, because the treatment of women within society is not just a product of male conditioning (although that is very relevant, since men are the majority in the legal, political and senior administrative roles), but through female conditioning as well.

We sometimes forget that a lot of women are conditioned to want to be the stay-at-home type, to want to have children and to want to enter the nursing, primary school teaching and caring professions.

This does not make the gender disparities that thereafter arise, acceptable.

To compare this to another modern phenomenon, in modern society, the poorest children are often socially conditioned by the influences in their home or community environment not to aspire to a university education, not to aspire to 'the suburban life' (though that may be a good thing) and are sometimes conditioned to want to engage in non-socially productive behaviour.

In that instance, we generally recognize that this social conditioning is unattractive and even dangerous. We generally try (often unsuccessfully) to prevent it or to impede it.

We still haven't got there on how we 'condition' the genders to behave in themselves and with respect to one another. We don't recognize the way we (that includes men AND women) are conditioning gender identities in the way that we recognize how we condition the poor and the socially marginalized.

That is a problem. That is why it is important (as per the other thread) not to see feminism as a line drawn on gender lines, but as a group of human beings who are particularly concerned with how gender identity affects or impedes women.

This is not a war on men - it is not a war on anything- just a struggle against a dominant paradigm.

This paradigm can affect men in ways separate to how it affects women, and that is worthy of its own discussion.

--Kaiser-- · 16-02-2012 04:24PM

The King of Moo wrote: »

It is often simplified by too many people who are basic arguing that gender doesn't really exist, taking things too far.

There are some general, basic differences between probably most boys and girls, but the problem is when people either deny such differences exist or else proclaim these differences to be universal and true of all boys and girls.

More boys might be into aggressive play and sports, but that doesn't mean all boys are into those things, or can't be into "girly things" too.
I think we're all made up of aspects traditionally seen as masculine and feminine to different degrees. Men might mostly be made up of more masculine aspects, but I doubt there are any men who at don't at least have some potential for liking "girly" things if given the opportunity to do so in an unbiased environment.

Gender is a construct, but one based on differences between the sexes. I just don't think these differences are completely divided up evenly between the genders, and a lot of what kids are taught about gender isn't necessarily tied to their sex.

I'm not saying it's as black and white as that, more like a spectrum, but in general, you'll find boys on one side of the spectrum and girls on the other

Scanlas The 2nd · 16-02-2012 04:24PM

If I were to claim I believe in advancing the rights of all marsupials, but only ever did any campaigning for kangaroos I would be a hypocryt.

Chuck Stone · 16-02-2012 04:25PM

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I have to say I hate this 'gender is a social construct' bull**** you hear now and again.

Well it's kinda true.

If your folks had decided to raise you as a girl, only bought you dolls and toy kitchens, grew your hair long and put it in pig tails, dressed you in pink dresses and a bonnet and called you a girls name - do you think you'd have had the wherewithal to push back and fight your corner as a boy?

I doubt it.

dark crystal · 16-02-2012 04:25PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Yes but If you pick gender equality to campaign for then actually campaign for gender equality and not just increasing female rights.

Action speak louder than words. What actions have feminists groups ever taken to increase male rights or to lessen female unfair advantage? If gender equality is really the goal then you would thInk they would campaign for men's rights at least occasionally.

They do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers'_rights_movement

Public supporters of the fathers' rights movement and their issues, include divorced (and subsequently widowed) Live Aid founder, Bob Geldof, Irish writer and journalist John Waters and Karen DeCrow, former president of the National Organization for Women. Other notable commentators include:
Bettina Arndt
Asa Baber
Richard Doyle
Warren Farrell
Michael Flood
Michael Green
Wendy McElroy
Glenn Sacks
Christina Hoff Sommers
Stephen Baskerville
Jeffery M. Leving

later12 · 16-02-2012 04:26PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

so what your saying is that the plight of women in Saudi Arabia and sandyford , while different , has a common overlapping theme

A very slight overlapping theme. But generally feminists, when discussing womens' treatment in the developed world (Ireland) will be discussing Saudi under a very different headline.

Feminism has lots of branches within it... employment issues, perceptions of gender, developing world economic issues, climate justice issues, and so on.

drkpower · 16-02-2012 04:26PM

Was this....

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Eric Cartman, Millicent would like to see your check list and respond to it.

....ever likely to achieve this, I wonder?

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Following on from the male feminist thread, why is it so hard to discuss the topic in a clear reasonable manner?

smash · 16-02-2012 04:31PM

drkpower wrote: »

Was this....

....ever likely to achieve this, I wonder?

He posted it didn't he?

later12 · 16-02-2012 04:31PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If I were to claim I believe in advancing the rights of all marsupials, but only ever did any campaigning for kangaroos I would be a hypocryt.

Would you? Really?

Do you think that people who work for Ada Cole's International League for the Protection of Horses are hypocrites if they look at a beaten circus tiger and say "isn't that terrible, what an outrage, I really oppose such acts of cruelty"

Of course not. They just devote their resources to a very specific group that they personally find appealing for whatever reason. The ILPH does not consume their lives. They are still free to protest for PAWS or against animal circuses in their own free time. You have been told this time and time again and you refuse to engage with it.

Millicent · 16-02-2012 04:34PM

drkpower wrote: »

Was this....

....ever likely to achieve this, I wonder?

I chose to respond to Eric and actually requested to. I don't think much can be achieved if we don't discuss others' opinions. I was infuriated when I thought that people were simply refusing to consider my opinion. Whether I like his opinion or not, I would be a hypocrite not to listen if Eric presented his opinion in a respectful, albeit perhaps personally unsavoury, way.

--Kaiser-- · 16-02-2012 04:35PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Well it's kinda true.

If your folks had decided to raise you as a girl, only bought you dolls and toy kitchens, grew your hair long and put it in pig tails, dressed you in pink dresses and a bonnet and called you a girls name - do you think you'd have had the wherewithal to push back and fight your corner as a boy?

I doubt it.

This is a nonesense hpothethical situation

Why is sexism such a difficult topic?

Comments