Why is sexism such a difficult topic?

yawha · 16-02-2012 07:01PM

Ultimately, the precise definition doesn't matter in the slightest anyway.

Let's say Scanlas was right, and feminism universally claimed to be for equality between the sexes while also universally demonstrably didn't care about men's rights at all. So what? It's hardly a heinous sin. It's not like they're actively opposing men's rights.

Feathers · 16-02-2012 07:01PM

later12 wrote: »

Womens' rights and the improvement of their position is the explicit goal of feminism.
Gender equality is one of its implicit goals.

Who here has said that the explicit goal of feminism is the promotion of gender equality without reference to sex?

Who has said that in the 600 odd posts that have been written on the matter over the past 3 days?

Loads of people! The first couple of pages of the thread are about liberal feminists vs militant feminists vs male priviledge etc. The fact of it is that people put across feminism as those who are striving for equality in the main, with 'militant feminisim' being those who just push for women's rights.

From my experience, I don't often find myself agreeing with those who describe themselves as feminists at all, as others have said surely in this day & age, we all should be striving for equality.

While the feminist movement is rooted in securing women's rights, the days of needing a group for women's rights should be over — women now have the same rights as men. Obviously attitudes in certain places still need to change, but this is much harder to legislate for & something that applies equally against men & women.

What I do find annoying in the discussion on sexism/equality is when historical sexism/discrimination is used as a point in favour of things like electoral quotas. It's like me going up to an English guy & personally having a go at him for British rule for 800 years.

Scanlas The 2nd · 16-02-2012 07:03PM

later12 wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I think it was later10 or Millicent who posted the link to the meaning of feminism.

I didn't. I gave my understanding of the term feminism in the OP of the last thread, and later corrected myself, saying I suggested something which was logically unsound. I then clarified the meaning I attach to feminism as the promotion of the condition of women as part of, but not the main instigator behind, an overall egalitarian ideal

Apart from that corrected interpretation, I haven't seen one other person suggest that feminism is about the equal rights of both sexes. Yet you persist in demanding that we all think so.

So why are you ignoring the position of everyone I have seen writing on this matter, and their interpretation of feminism as a specific concern with womens' rights & position, as part of the overall egalitarian movement?

Feminism Is not an egalitarian movement. It is a movement concerned with only gender equality, not race equality etc.

Feminism is about obtaining equality for women. Read wiki.

Equality is symmetrical.

strobe · 16-02-2012 07:08PM

later12 wrote: »

There is a deep and tenacious misunderstanding that feminism is about equal rights from the point of view of both sexes: which is about as silly as suggesting that the father's rights movements should focus on the lack of mothers' rights in some instances.

What's silly? Just approach it from the position that both parents are equal and should have equal rights in regards to the child. I don't see any need for any group to focus on either gender to the exclusion of the other. What could be served or accomplished by a 'Fathers rights' or 'Mothers rights' group that couldn't be accomplished and served by a 'Parents rights' group with egalitarianism and the children involved being the only focus whatsoever?

I'd pose the same question in regards to any female or male group focusing on female or male issues to the exclusion of the other. What advantage do these have over a group that concerns its self with both? From what I can see no advantage is gained from this exclusivity and it only serves to (admittedly often but not always indirectly and unintentionally) sustain or supplement a feeling of division and competition (see this thread) rather than cultivate harmony and understanding and egalitarianism and co-operation and empathy and unity... which should always always be the goal.

Bannasidhe · 16-02-2012 07:11PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

sport stars being idolised is a global phenomenon , most see sport as a terrific influence on kids , as for sports stars getting a big ego , what's so terrible about that

On the topic of sports.

Some years ago I was lucky to be chosen for the Irish Women's Rugby Squad to play in the first officially recognised by the IRB Women's Rugby World Cup (1998, Amsterdam). At the time there was absolutely no funding in place so not only did we have to fund our own travel, accommodation, and food for a month long tournament we had to pay for our own tracksuits and playing kit.

We also had to fund ourselves for squad training sessions. Plus as playing at interprovincial level was a requirement for selection for the national squad - we had to pay out for that too.

One of the players on that 1998 squad (a former professional soccer player in the Italian Women's League as it happens) worked for the post office and had to pay the salary of her 'replacement' while she was representing her country at a world cup.

We were faced in Amsterdam with the professional Gal Blacks (as we liked to call them from the face in the mud position we usually found ourselves in when playing them) and English teams (both were paid salaries by their respective home unions) and a heavily subsidised semi- professional US team.

Only the Irish had to buy our own kits and fund our travel, food and accommodation... we had one doctor - who was also one of the coaches, and 2 physio's who paid for themselves.

Guess which teams were the top three....:rolleyes:

At a provincial level the only reason that the Munster's Women's team was able to compete that year was because a few of the men's team (all Shannon players I should add) donated their match win bonuses from home games to the women's team.

You can imagine our 'surprise' (:mad:) when we learned that while we were shelling out thousands to play in Amsterdam, the boy's under 16 team had been at a tournament in South Africa where even their shoelaces were bought for them.

Things have improved slightly since then but that level of not seeing 'ladies' teams as deserving of as much funding at boys teams, never mind 'men's' is still there.

By the way - why do we have 'ladies' and men's teams?

'Ladies Rugby' is surely an oxymoron.....

midlandsmissus · 16-02-2012 07:11PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

where do you see a need for change within the GAA, they acted with an open mind towards rugby in Croke park , the queen of England to visit Croker last year during her state visit , where else do you think they need to change

Maybe the stranglehold they have on country society.

The GAA has done good, BUT it's dominance in the country is a bit scary, it's like a religion in parts, where nearly to even speak against it is frowned upon.

There IS a very sexist atmosphere, even what you just said there 'what gaa player doesn't have a cracker on his arm', that's what lads are told - be a good player, dominate other men, get a good looking bird. Sums up alot of country mentality. What respect for women is there?

later12 · 16-02-2012 07:13PM

Feathers wrote: »

Originally Posted by later12
Who here has said that the explicit goal of feminism is the promotion of gender equality without reference to sex?

Loads of people!

Ok, that doesn't really narrow it down, though. Can you give me some examples? Any at all will do.

as others have said surely in this day & age, we all should be striving for equality.

And all animal cruelty activists should be, and are striving for animal cruelty issues, but that doesn't mean that horse shelters need to become cat shelters.

We all have our own specialist interests, this applies to feminism as much as it does to the fathers' rights movement.

While the feminist movement is rooted in securing women's rights, the days of needing a group for women's rights should be over — women now have the same rights as men.

It is not only rooted in securing womens' rights, it is rooted in improving womens' position as human beings - that means challenging social structures and social norms pertaining to womens' role in society. Much (but not all) of the legislative reform has been met, the greater challenge now lies with the unresolved social norms that still affect and diminish womens' position.

midlandsmissus · 16-02-2012 07:16PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Feminism Is not an egalitarian movement. It is a movement concerned with only gender equality, not race equality etc.

Feminism is about obtaining equality for women. Read wiki.

Equality is symmetrical.

I think alot of arguments would be stopped if the word feminism was changed to something like equalism, (not the most snappiest of words but bear with me!).

Feminism = people striving for equality of the sexes, so why have one sex in the title. Men aren't going to want to be a feminist, and can you blame them, what man is going to want to be something with feminine in the word.

A word like equalist would make more sense..I'm sure the greater brains on boards than me can think of a better word.

flanders1979 · 16-02-2012 07:19PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

You sound like Tom dunne from newstalk

u hidin in the attic

later12 · 16-02-2012 07:21PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Feminism Is not an egalitarian movement. It is a movement concerned with only gender equality, not race equality etc.

It is part of an egalitatrian movement: a movement made up of many smaller, specialist units who focus on righting the deficiencies of the groups - gays, men, the poor, the disabled, women, mothers, fathers - who comprise society.

strobe wrote: »

What's silly? Just approach it from the position that both parents are equal and should have equal rights in regards to the child.

I think all groups need a focus. Some people are simply not as concerned about, or cannot relate to rights deficiencies in some areas relative to others. Generally this is based on one's own experiences. I see nothing wrong with such a focus.

What could be served or accomplished by a 'Fathers rights' or 'Mothers rights' group that couldn't be accomplished and served by a 'Parents rights' group with egalitarianism and the children involved being the only focus whatsoever?

Some people just don't have the same affinity for mothers' rights as they do for fathers' rights. That's their perogative.

I am interested in horse welfare and the rehabilitation of racehorses, which some might say is a bit silly for its exclusivity of other animals, let alone horses. That's fair enough, but that's just something I find interesting. I know that donkeys are as equally as deserving a cause, i just don't find their cause interests me,for whatever reason. It isn't always a bad thing to have a focus.

yawha · 16-02-2012 07:23PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Feminism = people striving for equality of the sexes, so why have one sex in the title. Men aren't going to want to be a feminist, and can you blame them, what man is going to want to be something with feminine in the word.

Why not? Is there something shameful about something being described as "feminine" or something?

Feathers · 16-02-2012 07:26PM

later12 wrote: »

Ok, that doesn't really narrow it down, though. Can you give me some examples? Any at all will do.

Really? I've just read through a 36 page thread, I don't want to go back to the start of it again...

I'll dig something out I guess.

later12 wrote: »

And all animal cruelty activists should be, and are striving for animal cruelty issues, but that doesn't mean that horse shelters need to become cat shelters.

We all have our own specialist interests, this applies to feminism as much as it does to the fathers' rights movement.

It is not only rooted in securing womens' rights, it is rooted in improving womens' position as human beings - that means challenging social structures and social norms pertaining to womens' role in society. Much (but not all) of the legislative reform has been met, the greater challenge now lies with the unresolved social norms that still affect and diminish womens' position.

But challenging traditional gender roles isn't specific to women. For example, if there aren't enough women in the Dáil or FTSE500 companies, surely having a gender-neutral group looking at parental leave for child-birth & pushing for legslisation around this would be better than the NWC pushing for quotas.

MickyDolenz asked why the issue of sexism is so divisive & I think part of the reason is not just that people have different opinions on what the problems are & what needs to changed, but that the push/voice is coming a lot of the time from these entrenched groups (in media coverage, anyway) like the NWC which naturally draw up the battle lines by focusing issues in such a way as to make them gender-specific.

B0jangles · 16-02-2012 07:29PM

later12 wrote: »

Many. That has been repeated again and again.

It has also been repeated that this has no more to do with feminism than womens' pay has to do with fathers' rights.

There is a deep and tenacious misunderstanding that feminism is about equal rights from the point of view of both sexes: which is about as silly as suggesting that the father's rights movements should focus on the lack of mothers' rights in some instances.

All campaigns have to have a basic focus. The feminist campaign, while part of the overall egalitarian based ideal, focuses upon the lot of women.

I think you misunderstood me - I was trying to point out that I've noticed a lot of acceptance and recognition from ther feminists in this thread that there are men's rights issues, but that the ones who keep bringing time after time after time never acknowledge the validity of anything the feminists say.

See Scanlas The 2nd for example.According to him, if feminists don't campaign to get equality for men in the handful of circumstances where men are at a disadvantage at the same time as campaigning against the vast range of circumstances where women are at a disadvantage, then they are hypocrites.

(I hope I got that right, I've only had his average of about 3 posts a page for the last 38 pages making this point to really understand the argument )

hardbackwriter · 16-02-2012 07:31PM

Feathers wrote: »

later12 wrote: »

Womens' rights and the improvement of their position is the explicit goal of feminism.
Gender equality is one of its implicit goals.

Who here has said that the explicit goal of feminism is the promotion of gender equality without reference to sex?

Who has said that in the 600 odd posts that have been written on the matter over the past 3 days?

Loads of people! The first couple of pages of the thread are about liberal feminists vs militant feminists vs male priviledge etc. The fact of it is that people put across feminism as those who are striving for equality in the main, with 'militant feminisim' being those who just push for women's rights.

From my experience, I don't often find myself agreeing with those who describe themselves as feminists at all, as others have said surely in this day & age, we all should be striving for equality.

While the feminist movement is rooted in securing women's rights, the days of needing a group for women's rights should be over — women now have the same rights as men. Obviously attitudes in certain places still need to change, but this is much harder to legislate for & something that applies equally against men & women.

What I do find annoying in the discussion on sexism/equality is when historical sexism/discrimination is used as a point in favour of things like electoral quotas. It's like me going up to an English guy & personally having a go at him for British rule for 800 years.

women have achieved parity of esteem with men in this country , it's clear from reading this thread however that that isn't enough , men like Rugged GAA players must be civilised and purged of all percieved innapropraite behaviour , essentially , men must be purged of their base traditional charechtetistics

Bannasidhe · 16-02-2012 07:35PM

Seachmall wrote: »

You haven't explained anything. All your explanations thus far started with the presupposition the decision was sexist and built on from there while noticeably lacking any attempt at objectivity.

You seem to have jumped on a bandwagon so far out of touch with reality it's practically hitched to the Magic School Bus and, to be quite honest, it devalues any genuine concerns brought up here over sexism by mere association which is why I've a problem with it.

I heard the original broadcast as a teenage girl. The message I got was that it was acceptable to ask women to curtail their movements at the same time as it was out of the question to ask men to do the same.

That was my experience of it, that was the message I got, I was not along in getting that message as the link I posted earlier re: Leeds Reclaim the Night shows thousands of women felt the same as I did.

I resent you attempts to invalidate my experience, and the experience of thousands of other women, who were there at the time. Yes, I was in Yorkshire between 1975 - 1980 on several occasions.

As for your passive aggressive and uncalled for comments re 'so far out of touch with reality it's practically hitched to the Magic School Bus' - when you experience what women in Northern England experienced while Sutcliffe roamed free you may be qualified to comment on what is, and is not, the reality of women's lives.

Feathers · 16-02-2012 07:35PM

later12 wrote: »

I am interested in horse welfare and the rehabilitation of racehorses, which some might say is a bit silly for its exclusivity of other animals, let alone horses. That's fair enough, but that's just something I find interesting. I know that donkeys are as equally as deserving a cause, i just don't find their cause interests me,for whatever reason. It isn't always a bad thing to have a focus.

The difference to your animal example is that women's rights are defined in binary opposition to men's rights & equality is therefore by definition achieving a balance where neither group has a privilege.

A charity running a women's shelter can give help to women without taking it away from men. But a group looking for equal employment rights, for example, or removing gender stereotypes for children's toys can't do it in isolation for one group — a name suggesting otherwise removes people's focus from the actual issues.

B0jangles · 16-02-2012 07:36PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

women have achieved parity of esteem with men in this country

Do you have any data to back this up, or is it just your personal opinion presented as inarguable fact?

PrincessLola · 16-02-2012 07:37PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion here and then you come along and make stuff up out of thin air.

When did I ever say women's rights equals oppression for men.

When did I say a movement to help wOmen is anti man.

Look for a quote. You won't find it.

I'm all for any demographic to improve their circumstances.

If a billionaire committee is formed to improve their circumstance I've no problem with it, if acrobats decide to campaign for better rights I'm all for that. No one is responsible for campaigning for the rights of others.

But claiming gender equality is your goal whilst ignoring scenarios where one gender is treated worse than the other is hypocritical.

If I say making pop corn is my passion and priority in life but don't bother making popcorn that makes me a hypocrite.

I was making a reasonable inference from your posts.

I have answered the question that you explicitly asked, I told you that feminism has always been primarily concerned with women. This is not a bad thing, nor is it hypocritical.

The feminists on here are educated, thoughtful and always agree that there are areas where men are disadvantaged, however that does not mean we are going to pander to you.
You have to meet us half-way.

hardbackwriter · 16-02-2012 07:40PM

later12 wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Feminism Is not an egalitarian movement. It is a movement concerned with only gender equality, not race equality etc.

It is part of an egalitatrian movement: a movement made up of many smaller, specialist units who focus on righting the deficiencies of the groups - gays, men, the poor, the disabled, women, mothers, fathers - who comprise society.

strobe wrote: »

What's silly? Just approach it from the position that both parents are equal and should have equal rights in regards to the child.

I think all groups need a focus. Some people are simply not as concerned about, or cannot relate to rights deficiencies in some areas relative to others. Generally this is based on one's own experiences. I see nothing wrong with such a focus.

What could be served or accomplished by a 'Fathers rights' or 'Mothers rights' group that couldn't be accomplished and served by a 'Parents rights' group with egalitarianism and the children involved being the only focus whatsoever?

Some people just don't have the same affinity for mothers' rights as they do for fathers' rights. That's their perogative.

I am interested in horse welfare and the rehabilitation of racehorses, which some might say is a bit silly for its exclusivity of other animals, let alone horses. That's fair enough, but that's just something I find interesting. I know that donkeys are as equally as deserving a cause, i just don't find their cause interests me,for whatever reason. It isn't always a bad thing to have a focus.

Do you find that your weighted concern for horses brings you into confrontation with those from the donkey or even zebra welfare societies ?

also, do you mainly focus on female or male race horses

The King of Moo · 16-02-2012 07:42PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

women have achieved parity of esteem with men in this country , it's clear from reading this thread however that that isn't enough , men like Rugged GAA players must be civilised and purged of all percieved innapropraite behaviour , essentially , men must be purged of their base traditional charechtetistics

Who's asking for this? Do you consider a man treating a woman like an object a base traditional male characteristic?

You're arguing against strawmen, creating radical, irrational arguments to get angry about, yet no-one on here is supporting such arguments, or even mentioning them, except you!

Seachmall · 16-02-2012 07:44PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I resent you attempts to invalidate my experience, and the experience of thousands of other women, who were there at the time.

I made no comments about your experience and definitely made no comments about the experience of thousands of other women.

My comments were in reference to your arguments. Which I stand by.

As for your passive aggressive and uncalled for comments re 'so far out of touch with reality it's practically hitched to the Magic School Bus' - when you experience what women in Northern England experienced while Sutcliffe roamed free you may be qualified to comment on what is, and is not, the reality of women's lives.

Once again, I never referred to the reality of anyone's lives, just your argument.

If you had personal experience of it then that's fine, but it doesn't make for an argument as to what the police's intent was.

B0jangles · 16-02-2012 07:44PM

smash wrote: »

Really, a blog is not what's needed. Some new terminology is what's needed.

If you had bothered to actually open the link you would have found that the writer has links to dozens of news stories and academic studies which illustrate the various facets of what is called "rape culture".

I'm assuming you read none of it since unless you are the fastest reader on the planet, you couldn't have take much in in the 3 minutes that passed between me posting it and you dismissing it.

And oddly, renaming something to make it less unpleasant sounding doesn't actually change the thing itself you know.

TheZohanS · 16-02-2012 07:45PM

Be janey the make up sex at the end of this thread is gonna be like a feckin orgy!

PrincessLola · 16-02-2012 07:46PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

women have achieved parity of esteem with men in this country , it's clear from reading this thread however that that isn't enough , men like Rugged GAA players must be civilised and purged of all percieved innapropraite behaviour , essentially , men must be purged of their base traditional charechtetistics

Dear men of Ireland,

wanting you to treat women as equal people and show some senitivity does not equal 'feminist conspiracy to control men!!' You may have instincts, but women are the same species as you and we have instincts we must control too.

Thank you.

Love Princess Lola

Scanlas The 2nd · 16-02-2012 07:47PM

yawha wrote: »

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Feminism = people striving for equality of the sexes, so why have one sex in the title. Men aren't going to want to be a feminist, and can you blame them, what man is going to want to be something with feminine in the word.

Why not? Is there something shameful about something being described as "feminine" or something?

Most people want to be attractive to the opposite sex, masculinity attracts women and femininity attracts men.

yawha · 16-02-2012 07:49PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

men must be purged of their base traditional charechtetistics

If they're sexist or misogynistic characteristics, well then yes. Is that so wrong? There should be nothing sacred about tradition.

B0jangles · 16-02-2012 07:50PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Most people want to be attractive to the opposite sex, masculinity attracts women and femininity attracts men.

But the behaviours and characteristics that are accepted as "masculine" and "feminine" are largely culturally created ideas which change with every generation.

midlandsmissus · 16-02-2012 07:52PM

yawha wrote: »

Why not? Is there something shameful about something being described as "feminine" or something?

Nothing shameful, not at all. I just don't think the word represents the movement well. It's about equality of sexes, why one sex in the title?

Seachmall · 16-02-2012 07:53PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

men must be purged of their base traditional charechtetistics

That's Militant/Radical feminism.

A small division in feminism.

Scanlas The 2nd · 16-02-2012 07:53PM

B0jangles wrote: »

later12 wrote: »

Many. That has been repeated again and again.

It has also been repeated that this has no more to do with feminism than womens' pay has to do with fathers' rights.

There is a deep and tenacious misunderstanding that feminism is about equal rights from the point of view of both sexes: which is about as silly as suggesting that the father's rights movements should focus on the lack of mothers' rights in some instances.

All campaigns have to have a basic focus. The feminist campaign, while part of the overall egalitarian based ideal, focuses upon the lot of women.

I think you misunderstood me - I was trying to point out that I've noticed a lot of acceptance and recognition from ther feminists in this thread that there are men's rights issues, but that the ones who keep bringing time after time after time never acknowledge the validity of anything the feminists say.

See Scanlas The 2nd for example.According to him, if feminists don't campaign to get equality for men in the handful of circumstances where men are at a disadvantage at the same time as campaigning against the vast range of circumstances where women are at a disadvantage, then they are hypocrites.

(I hope I got that right, I've only had his average of about 3 posts a page for the last 38 pages making this point to really understand the argument )

Assuming feminism is about gender equality for women then yes it is hypocritical not to campaign at least rarely for situations where women are treated better.

I have acknowledged that everyone has the right to campaign for whatever they want and are under no responsibility to campaign for others.

I have acknowledged several times that there is nothing wrong with only campaigning for women.

Why is sexism such a difficult topic?

Comments