Why is sexism such a difficult topic?

Feathers wrote: »

That's true, I'm not saying all feminists have the same opinion, but you'd have to agree surely that for someone not involved in a feminist movement, the NWC comes across very much as the official mouthpiece of feminism in the country.

& the fact that there are conflicting views "within feminism" further makes the point that it's surely about lots of small issues & doesn't need this banner of feminism over the top of it.

Well, if you think of it this way, take socialism for example. Socialism is a huge and varied political stance. Under that heading you have moderate socialists, republican socialists/nationalist socialist, Marxist communism, libertarian socialism, Christian socialism etc. etc. Just as the Labour Party is very different to Sinn Féin or the SWP, so too are different feminist groups. Reasonably, you wouldn't think that Sinn Féin were the official mouthpiece for socialism in Ireland, so why thing the NWC is the mouthpiece for feminism?

Feathers wrote: »

Because of their name, the National Women's Council of Ireland? Also their website says:



& I don't really hear them getting challenged over it. So hardly an unreasonable assumption to make for the uninitiated.

I was actually unaware that they called themselves the "voice of women" in Ireland. I'm a bit annoyed by that really. I take your point there. They really are not the voice of women in Ireland. The voice of some women, sure. I would find the presumption by them that they speak for all women in Ireland a bit much and quite frankly a little ironic, given that women have fought a long hard battle to speak for themselves.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If women are entitled to equal representation then why not redheads, baldies, short, good looking, ugly, etc.

What?!

Just returning to the theme of women's sport. I posted on how women's rugby was chronically unfunded when I played in the late 1990s but that things had improved. According to Shane Byrne, the way the women's national senior squad is treated is still an absolute disgrace.

On Monday, rugby legend Shane Byrne voiced his utter disbelief at the treatment of the women’s squad ahead of their crucial game against France at the weekend.

He gave this description of what had happened to the team last weekend:
“The ladies lost by one point, right down in the south of France. And just to [be] very critical of the IRFU, they had 27 hours travel. They arrived down there [in Pau] at 3 o’clock in the morning [on] the day of the game,” said Byrne. “Absolute disgrace”.

“You know [...] they’re representing the country. They’re putting on the green jersey for us. And they’re amateur, they do it for the joy of it. And to be treated like that, absolutely terrible”.

“They flew into Paris and got the cattle train down to the south of France, when there was umpteen options to fly down south”.

“You know, I just think it’s a disgrace, in this day and age. We’ve heard long ago when the women’s game was set together that that’s the way they were treated, but nowadays it shouldn’t happen”.

“It has to change”.

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-the-ireland-womens-rugby-team-is-being-ignored-they-deserve-better/

The team actually arrived in Pau at 7 a.m., not 3 a.m. as Shane thought. So they played a match after 3 hours sleep and ended up loosing by one point. If the highly paid professionals on the men's senior team showed that much heart we might actually win the 6 Nations some time.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Feathers wrote: »

...I'm talking about how things are perceived by the man In the street not subject experts.

Ah good, it would be terrible to think that the arguments and points being circularly thrown out were based on facts that people had taken the time to get straight...

As good a soundbite as that sounds, the thread is about why threads make little progress when sexism is discussed - are you telling me that people need to be experts in the internal hierarchy of all the different feminist groups in the country before they can even comment?

Secondly, if you in such a position & you think it's unreasonable to view the NWC as "the voice of women in Ireland" which they claim to be, can you point me to examples of other groups standing in opposition to them? Or even a significant number of feminist groups that aren't a member?

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Person1:What's more important under feminist principles, increasing rights for women or gender equality? I feel this is a pertinent question as many people feel feminists only pick and choose when they want equality?

I can't believe we're back to this... lol :pac:
This thread is called "Why is sexism such a difficult topic?"

I'll go ahead and answer the question anyway: Waffle, waffle, waffle... Waffle!



There ya go. :cool:

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

...or wilful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty, as it's more commonly known...

I'd suggest the shouting down & belittlment of honest but contrary opinion probably doesn't help "the cause" much either.

Regarding circumcision, I think a lot of people are missing the point here.
If anyone were to so much as touch a woman's genitals without her consent, for anything other than an absolutely essential medical reason, there would be uproar.

And rightly so.

The foreskin is not analogous to the clitoris, and nobody is suggesting that it is. The point is, however, that it is still important to sexual function and for protection. Mutilation is mutilation, even if it's a different type of mutilation the fact is that it's still a non essential (in most cases) surgically invasive procedure which has an impact on the function of the penis.

Let's get the religious argument out of the way first - do we allow honour killings for "religious" reasons? What if a religion decreed that a baby must be given a tattoo at birth or have one of its toes chopped off? I think it's safe to assume there would be outrage about it and it most certainly would be regarded as child cruelty.

One of the most disgusting arguments I hear in favour of it is that it "looks better", "women prefer it cut", or "it will give more pleasure".
I don't think I'm in any way being sensationalist when I suggest that if anyone suggested an invasive surgical procedure on female babies for cosmetic reasons, or because "men prefer it" / "it will make it better for men when they have sex", there would be an absolute SH!TSTORM in the national press, and again, RIGHTLY so.

There was a case a few years ago in which a woman, with accomplices, lured her cheating partner to a hotel, tied him up, and superglued his penis to his stomach. She received a suspended sentence.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/women_avoid_jail_in_penis_glue_plot_tJEgBDsYQFiYN1scME6p4K

The judge's remarks were utterly sickening.

The judge acknowledged a possible double-standard with the sentencing. If the incident involved a man who committed similar acts against an unwilling woman, that man would doubtless face prison time, Judge Donald Poppy said.
But in this case the victim and his "bad behavior" were partly to blame, he said.
The victim "started the ball rolling, philandering with others besides his wife, who was putting bread on the table and taking care of his children," the judge said.

So first off, there is proof that in society, a woman's genitals are apparently far more "scared" than a man's. Secondly, we have an absolutely glaring case of victim blaming by the judge himself. Thirdly, the judge ADMITTED the double standard he was enforcing.

Just IMAGINE for a moment that the genders in this case were reversed. The man would be looking at a lengthy spell in prison and a lengthy mention on the sex offender's register, possibly for life.

As a final example, here is a short clip from a TV talk show. Imagine if the genders were reversed here. People would undoubtedly have been fired.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rkl_oLSKQc

So why are men's genitals worth so much less than women's?

Feathers wrote: »

It depends, was this actually a serious point?:



I was asked 'well where have you looked?', so I was asking where I should look.




By default & automatically - no. Do I think a spokesman can speak on behalf of their members, yes. The NWC isn't the RIRA, it's an established, democratic, uncontentious body made up of smaller groups around the country.



Anyway, the point that I was actually making was in relation to the thread topic - that the reason most people are at odds in discussions on sexism is because you have very public groups making statements and pressing for actions which aren't refuted which means people perceive feminism in a certain light.

Feathers, you said you haven't see anything in the mainstream press. Think about that. How much reportage of feminist issues is there in the mainstream press? We get far more 'news' on what celebrity has died, been arrested, broke-up with another celebrity, worn something fabulous/appalling on a red carpet then on any feminist issue.

When an organisation like NCW - an umbrella organisation with a wide and varied membership - issues a statement it may or may not be reported upon. What will never be discussed is the process by which the content of the statement was decided upon.

The exception, of course, being when there is a hint of controversy - and quotas are controversial. But has any reporter commented on how and why the NCW came down on the 'Pro' side of the debate I outlined was happening? Just one 'mainstream' media outlet?

No - it's been all 'oooh the feminists want to shoehorn female candidates into to government which will mean better qualified men will be shoved aside. Proof - the NCW are for quotas'. QED.

I assure you - there was debate and a vote within the NCW. The Pro side won.The fact that it wasn't mentioned in the mainstream media does not mean the debate did not happen. It means the mainstream media did not report on it.

IMHO the whole quota thing is being spun to make it look like 30% of the Dail will have to be female (would that be such a bad thing btw?). It is not. It says that political parties who receive state funding have to have 30% female candidates 0r lose that funding. We hear that this will mean better qualified men being shunted aside so token women can take 'their' place.

I may be cynical in my middle age but forgive me if I can't seem to find that many outstanding men in the current Dail when there are currently no quotas in place so I fail to see where these paragons of civic responsibility who are going to be shunted aside by less qualified women are going to emerge from in the next four years...

Given how many of the candidates selected by political parties are those whose only 'qualification' seems to consist of being related to a previous candidate I find the braying about undermining the selection process a bit rich to be honest.

Feathers wrote: »

There is a logical reason, they're not standing for election. IMO, political parties shouldn't get any funding from the public purse, but if they are going to receive money it shouldn't be based on who they decide to put on the ballot.

(Not saying we should have a redhead quota, before anyone asks, although it would significantly boost my own chances if I went for election :P)

But is there really a logical reason or is it the case, as many believe, that the old boys network is alive and well within our political parties and women find it nearly impossible to fit the list of requirements for what are deemed to be the 'qualifications' needed to be selected?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

When an organisation like NCW - an umbrella organisation with a wide and varied membership - issues a statement it may or may not be reported upon. What will never be discussed is the process by which the content of the statement was decided upon.

The exception, of course, being when there is a hint of controversy - and quotas are controversial. But has any reporter commented on how and why the NCW came down on the 'Pro' side of the debate I outlined was happening? Just one 'mainstream' media outlet?

No - it's been all 'oooh the feminists want to shoehorn female candidates into to government which will mean better qualified men will be shoved aside. Proof - the NCW are for quotas'. QED.

I assure you - there was debate and a vote within the NCW. The Pro side won.The fact that it wasn't mentioned in the mainstream media does not mean the debate did not happen. It means the mainstream media did not report on it.

It's also nowhere to be found on their site either. Anything posted in relation to quotas is strongly in favour of them. In fact they even publically condemned Joanna Tuffy for not attending the women-only TD meeting:

http://www.nwci.ie/news/2011/11/14/women-will-make-politics-better-and-quotas-are-the/

Bannasidhe wrote: »

IMHO the whole quota thing is being spun to make it look like 30% of the Dail will have to be female (would that be such a bad thing btw?). It is not. It says that political parties who receive state funding have to have 30% female candidates 0r lose that funding. We hear that this will mean better qualified men being shunted aside so token women can take 'their' place.

I may be cynical in my middle age but forgive me if I can't seem to find that many outstanding men in the current Dail when there are currently no quotas in place so I fail to see where these paragons of civic responsibility who are going to be shunted aside by less qualified women are going to emerge from in the next four years...

Given how many of the candidates selected by political parties are those whose only 'qualification' seems to consist of being related to a previous candidate I find the braying about undermining the selection process a bit rich to be honest.

I don't think that it has been spun, anyone I've spoken to about it is well aware that it's purely about candidate selection. A lot of the failings of our current system aren't due to the qualifications of the TDs & we're not talking about replacing them with unqualified women, so I don't think that comes into it — the party whip system undermines candidates voting with their conscience or own opinion on any topic; this won't be changed by having women instead of men in the Dáil.

In the end, it's a point of principle though — it's undemocratic to manipulate the ballot paper. Would you be in favour of quotas by the way, for minority religions, gay TDs, disabled, ethnic minorities, etc. in a similar vein? (Obviously in proportion to the % of citizens that fall into these categories.)