Feminist mob attempt to shut down talk on equality for males - MOD NOTE POST 10

Zulu · 14-12-2012 12:52PM

Convenient cop out. Fair enough.

I'm happy to continue a civil discussion with you if you wish to return, but not one of sniping.

LeeHoffmann · 14-12-2012 01:04PM

From google -

Flaming (also known as bashing) is hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users.

Based on the previous posts, I don´t think we can discuss this very civilly or achieve anything through discussion. We´re also taking over this thread. That´s not a cop out - it´s a very good reason to discontinue discussion. Let´s leave it there

awec · 14-12-2012 01:10PM

This post has been deleted.

Madam_X · 14-12-2012 03:08PM

Zulu wrote: »

What?
If I understand you correctly: feminist ideology is against belittling women based solely on their looks, and so, because this is a good point, then feminism has some redeeming qualities, and I should consider this. Is that right?

No, what I'm saying is that some of the aspects of feminist ideology are not unreasonable so it's unfair to blanketly dismiss it all.

Reku wrote: »

Are you honestly trying to convince us you've never been around when women have done the same tearing apart based on looks regarding a male in the public eye (or even male colleague)?!?! Either you have your head in the sand or have just exhibited perfectly the sort of blind spot I complained about the misandrist feminists displaying.

Where have I even slightly implied I've never even been around when women have done the same tearing apart based on looks regarding a male in the public eye or even male colleague? I've said women can be as bad.

I am talking about the situations when it's a group of men ripping into a woman's looks - e.g. on After Hours if a female journalist has the neck to not be that hot. I'm not saying it's only men who do that, but I'm using that particular hypothetical to demonstrate how women getting annoyed isn't always a militant feminist, man-hating thing.

We all judge others based upon appearance, they've even done studies that show given a choice between 2 candidates of equal merit people will usually pick the "more attractive" one for the job.

Moving off the point and I never said we don't judge people based on their appearance, but we don't all tear strips off them if we don't fancy them, or bring their looks into any discussion on them when it's not of relevance.

iptba · 14-12-2012 03:27PM

Regarding the appearances thing: I don't believe I judge professional people, male or female, too much by their appearance.

However, in a dating scene, it does affect who I am attracted to. I'm afraid due to biology, I think women's "overall attractiveness" is more based on their physical attractiveness and appearance than a male's (in heterosexuals).

However, men get judged in other ways: for example, their financial assets, income, and earning potential is a bigger factor in their "overall attractiveness" to women than a woman's financial assets, income, and earning potential is to men.

Men being shorter appears to be a bigger problem for men than it is for women, with women generally not wanting to date men that are much shorter than they are.

Physical strength is something that is also to some extent more important in a man's, than a woman's, attractiveness to the opposite sex.

And your attractiveness to the opposite sex can affect your status.

Also, if one knows what is attractive to people of the opposite sex, one will concentrate on enhancing one's attractiveness more.

Some aspects of feminism seems to say that it is unfair that women are judged by appearances at all. It may come from this idea, from sociology and the like, that men and women are exactly the same. However, I don't think men and women are exactly the same in terms of what (heterosexuals) are attracted to, so expecting "equality" in this area is an unrealistic goal.

Pressure to look physically good is, to some extent, because women are competing with other women. Sometimes feminism seems to ignore it and complain it's all to do with living in a patriarchy.

14-12-2012 03:42PM

Zulu wrote: »

I understand where it comes from. My point is that you can not achieve a balance or an equality when you view the world through a biased lens.

When you choose to focus your attention on one particular sex, you do this to the detriment of the other.

Are black right's activists biased? LGBTQ activists? Fathers 4 Justice?

You get absolutely nowhere if your sole approach to inequality is to say "Everyone should be equal". You have to identify specific areas of actual inequality and act on them.

GalwayGuy2 · 14-12-2012 03:45PM

Hmm, the @Ireland account just replied with this. (Quote signs are what he replied to)

If you don't have a maleist Monday I'm going in the huff.” Right. Cos men are SO oppressed!

Eh, more seeing people's view to this than saying men are rabidly discriminated against:P

iptba · 14-12-2012 03:50PM

One possible distinction is education versus activism.

It is one thing to present the case for your side e.g. in an election, or a particular group you represent in court or when campaigning.

However, the big problem comes when education becomes so biased that it doesn't give both sides, or alternative views, to a story. Similarly if the media doesn't give both sides (I think the latter may come from the former). Quite a bit of third level education (and research) is unbalanced in how it deals with gender. And it's not even simply that other sides aren't given, but giving alternative views isn't really encouraged - perhaps a bit like the protestors discouraging freedom of speech of the speaker in the video. This causes ripples, or perhaps snowballs, throughout society.

Basically even when some feminists are in positions where they should be acting more impartially, giving different viewpoints in education or if they hold an "equality" position working for both genders, they often don't.

Reku · 14-12-2012 05:35PM

Madam_X wrote: »

Where have I even slightly implied I've never even been around when women have done the same tearing apart based on looks regarding a male in the public eye or even male colleague? I've said women can be as bad.

Right here:

Madam_X wrote: »

Come on now, it is both. You know as well as I do there are some men who have to bring a woman's looks into everything and castigate her if she has the audacity not to be hot. I mean, you use the internet.

awec wrote: »

This is true, but I don't see how this falls into the remit of feminism.

Madam_X wrote: »

I would say it falls into the remit of many things, including feminism.

Madam_X wrote: »

I am talking about the situations when it's a group of men ripping into a woman's looks - e.g. on After Hours if a female journalist has the neck to not be that hot. I'm not saying it's only men who do that, but I'm using that particular hypothetical to demonstrate how women getting annoyed isn't always a militant feminist, man-hating thing.

So then you agree that both genders do it to each other and so it is not a feminist issue at all?
This is another thing that will likely turn people away from feminism, the tendency of a number of "feminist" groups to try grab hold of issues that have nothing to do with equality at all:
e.g. rape is a legal issue, not a problem in the rights of one group Vs. another.
Same goes for abuse of one's partner, both genders are capable of it, but yet "feminist" groups try to portray it as solely a man on woman issue.

As a result of this I genuinely know women who are adamant that a woman can't possibly abuse/rape a man, even when I brought up the possibility of the guy being passed out drunk they felt it still was not rape, yet for a man doing so to a woman it would be.

LeeHoffmann · 14-12-2012 06:03PM

I genuinely know women who are adamant that a woman can't possibly abuse/rape a man

Unfortunately this is common among both men and women

source · 14-12-2012 06:29PM

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Unfortunately this is common among both men and women

Well legally speaking, in this country, they're right. In reality, of course a woman can commit rape. But it's yet another example in this country where women are always victims and never perpetrators.

Zulu · 15-12-2012 01:35PM

28064212 wrote: »

Are black right's activists biased? LGBTQ activists? Fathers 4 Justice?

Are you really trying to suggest that they aren't?

You get absolutely nowhere if your sole approach to inequality is to say "Everyone should be equal".

What? I never said "sole approach". However, are you suggesting that the route to solving inequality lies in something other than "everyone should be equal"? If so, genuinely, I'd love to hear it.

You have to identify specific areas of actual inequality and act on them.

True, but doing this with a gender "filter" on isn't working - as we see in current Irish society.

By extension from your post, can I take it that you feel the current approach is working for everyone? I ask because clearly I (and others here) see it as a broken system. And I think I belong to a growing number of disenfranchised people.

Zulu · 15-12-2012 01:40PM

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Unfortunately this is common among both men and women

However, the state only recognises men being able to rape women. Sadly, the state doesn't believe women can rape men - or at least, won't prosecute the same.

Of course, I'll link this back to my previous point about feminism - definition vs reality. The definition for a feminist describes someone who: "advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men." However the practice sees no feminist group seeking to introduce legislation to see women being prosecuted for the crime of rape.
Another example would be with underage sex. In practice we don't see any feminist group seeking equality.

py2006 · 15-12-2012 02:00PM

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Unfortunately this is common among both men and women

Perhaps rape but most definitely not abuse.

py2006 · 15-12-2012 02:19PM

Zulu wrote: »

However, the state only recognises men being able to rape women. Sadly, the state doesn't believe women can rape men - or at least, won't prosecute the same.

Of course, I'll link this back to my previous point about feminism - definition vs reality. The definition for a feminist describes someone who: "advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men." However the practice sees no feminist group seeking to introduce legislation to see women being prosecuted for the crime of rape.
Another example would be with underage sex. In practice we don't see any feminist group seeking equality.

Forgive my ignorance here but what is the law at the moment in relation to statutory rape? I presume, in the eyes of the law, a child is anybody under the age of 17. Therefore if a 17 year old guy has consensual sex with a 16 year old girl he is guilty of statutory rape.

I've also read on here before, but I am not sure how accurate it is, if a 16 year boy and a 16 year girl have consensual sex the boy can only be found guilty of rape and placed on the sex offenders list?

iptba · 15-12-2012 02:43PM

py2006 wrote: »

Forgive my ignorance here but what is the law at the moment in relation to statutory rape? I presume, in the eyes of the law, a child is anybody under the age of 17. Therefore if a 17 year old guy has consensual sex with a 16 year old girl he is guilty of statutory rape.

I've also read on here before, but I am not sure how accurate it is, if a 16 year boy and a 16 year girl have consensual sex the boy can only be found guilty of rape and placed on the sex offenders list?

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_offences/law_on_sex_offences_in_ireland.html

Defilement of a child aged under 17 years

Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Sex Offences) Act 2006 (pdf) as amended by Section 5 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) (Amendment) Act 2007 (pdf) makes it a criminal offence to engage or attempt to engage in a sexual act with a child under 17 years. The maximum sentence is five years, ten years if the accused is a person in authority. A person in authority means:

A parent, step-parent, guardian, grandparent, uncle or aunt of the victim, or
any person acting in loco parentis (in place of parent or parents) to the victim, or
any person responsible for the education, supervision or welfare of the victim.
The maximum sentence is greater for a second or subsequent offence.

The accused may argue that he or she honestly believed that the child was aged 17 years or over. The court must then consider whether or not that belief was reasonable. It is not a defence to show that the child consented to the sexual act.

The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required for any prosecution of a child under the age of 17 years for this offence. A person who is convicted of this offence and is not more than two years older than the victim is not subject to the requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 2001. This means they will not have their name placed on the Sex Offenders Register.

A girl aged under 17 years who has sexual intercourse may not be convicted of an offence on that ground alone.

Here's a case where there was a prosecution of a 15 year old boy/young male for having sex with a 14 year old girl/young female: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/romeo-and-juliet-sex-law-is-unfair-court-told-1978656.html

Supreme court agreed with law: http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-should-laws-on-underage-sex-be-the-same-for-boys-and-girls-364706-Feb2012/

LeeHoffmann · 15-12-2012 03:11PM

Well legally speaking, in this country, they're right. In reality, of course a woman can commit rape.

that´s true. We need to change people´s views on this (both men and women) so that the law will be changed.

Of course, I'll link this back to my previous point about feminism

Please stop trying to have the same argument with me. It already derailed the thread once

Perhaps rape but most definitely not abuse.

No, I see the very same attitude with regards to abuse - and I say that both from personal experience and from talking about this issue with other people (on boards and irl)

LeeHoffmann · 15-12-2012 03:13PM

I've also read on here before, but I am not sure how accurate it is, if a 16 year boy and a 16 year girl have consensual sex the boy can only be found guilty of rape and placed on the sex offenders list?

AFAIK an underage male can be arrested if he sleeps with an underage female but not vice-versa. The statutory rape laws are terribly outdated. Actually, I think the way our legal system deals with rape in general is atrocious

Edit: sorry just saw that iptba got there before me

py2006 · 15-12-2012 03:48PM

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

No, I see the very same attitude with regards to abuse - and I say that both from personal experience and from talking about this issue with other people (on boards and irl)

Are you sure? The statement was that they can't believe a woman could possibly abuse a man. While a lot of men can't/won't admit it happens to them they can't deny it happens at all.

Also, some people attribute the term abuse to severe sexual and physical side of things and may not be fully aware that they are victims of psychological abuse in terms of a controlling partner.

LeeHoffmann · 15-12-2012 04:05PM

Psychological abuse is always a lot more difficult to pin down than physical for obvious reasons and I think a lot of people only realise that psychological abuse occurred in hindsight. Yep, I understood what we were discussing. I think some people can only imagine a sort of girly slap - sort of like pathetically waving arms in the air in an ineffective manner - and don´t realise that women can properly hurt men too. A lot of people don´t see women hitting/attacking men as abuse. I´m suprised that you haven´t come across this before. The gentlemen of tgc would be a lot more aware of this kind of thing than I would come across irl.

Zulu · 15-12-2012 06:27PM

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

that´s true. We need to change people´s views on this (both men and women) so that the law will be changed.

...or change the law so peoples views are changed.

Please stop trying to have the same argument with me. It already derailed the thread once

:rolleyes: Aww for fu*ks sake LeeHoffmann - you don't need to respond if you have no response; I'm posting for everyone on this thread, not just you. I made a point & I'm happy to back it up without your permission, thanks. You don't like my post? Well there's an ignore button. Perhaps use it?

Pawwed Rig · 15-12-2012 08:06PM

py2006 wrote: »

if a 16 year boy and a 16 year girl have consensual sex the boy can only be found guilty of rape and placed on the sex offenders list?

Just a point but to go on the sexual offenders register the boy must be > 2 years older than the girl. He can however still be charged.

As the Independent article posted by iptba states, a girl under 17 cannot be charged under the act.

py2006 · 15-12-2012 11:03PM

iptba wrote: »

Here's a case where there was a prosecution of a 15 year old boy/young male for having sex with a 14 year old girl/young female: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/romeo-and-juliet-sex-law-is-unfair-court-told-1978656.html
]

Thanks for that.

Was there any further developments on the above case?

py2006 · 16-12-2012 01:46PM

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

A lot of people don´t see women hitting/attacking men as abuse. I´m suprised that you haven´t come across this before.

Ah here. :rolleyes:

iptba · 16-12-2012 10:42PM

py2006 wrote: »

Thanks for that.

Was there any further developments on the above case?

I just looked it up now: suspended sentence of 6 months:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/six-month-suspended-sentence-for-romeo-201169.html

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/man-spared-jail-in-romeo-case-3172547.html

I find the "15 and going on 16" a bit odd:

He admitted the charge against a girl, who was 14 at the time, while he was 15 and going on 16.

_Kaiser_ · 16-12-2012 11:47PM

To be honest I'm pretty much centre of the road/pro choice on most things, although probably with a classic 70s/80s upbringing attitude to right and wrong, personal responsibility, raising kids and so on, but for the main I believe in letting people live their lives with a minimum of (what I refer to as PC nanny-state dogoodery) interference.

But it's amazing how even on our very own Boards.ie something can be twisted completely out of context in the cause of "equality". Only tonight did I feel the need to challenge what struck me as a particularly vile comment from someone (not sure if posting the link to the thread/post is appropriate? Mods: any thoughts?) which says something for me as normally I just let internet trolling roll right past me.

I'm not posting this to say "hey look at me, aren't I great!", merely to point out that we really don't have to look very far to see some of the attitudes expressed in the OP's video unfortunately.

The Corinthian · 17-12-2012 10:47AM

py2006 wrote: »

I've also read on here before, but I am not sure how accurate it is, if a 16 year boy and a 16 year girl have consensual sex the boy can only be found guilty of rape and placed on the sex offenders list?

The following is from memory, so it may not be completely accurate, although I do believe it to be so. If not please do correct any errata.

In Ireland rape requires that the perpetrator has a penis. Women cannot commit rape under Irish law.

There are two 'ages of consent', as it were, in Ireland. The first is 15, under which any sexual activity is a criminal offence, with rape (as long as the perpetrator has a penis) carrying maximum penalty of imprisonment for life. Otherwise, it is indecent assault, which is a lesser crime.

Between 15 and 17, sexual intercourse is deemed rape (as long as the perpetrator has a penis), punishable by five years imprisonment, however other forms of sexual relations (e.g. oral sex) are perfectly legal.

17 is the age of consent for full sexual relations, regardless of sexual orientation.

This means that in Ireland a few curious scenarios can occur:

A 25 year old woman, having sex with a 12 year old boy may only be charged with indecent assault as she did not rape him (as she has no penis).
A 12 year old boy who has sex with his 14 year old girlfriend may be charged with rape. His girlfriend oddly cannot be charged with anything, even indecent assault.
A 25 year old woman, having sex with a 15 year old boy, or girl, may not be charged.
A 25 year old man, having oral sex with a 15 year old girl, or boy, may not be charged.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Just a point but to go on the sexual offenders register the boy must be > 2 years older than the girl. He can however still be charged.

I don't think that age difference is considered at all where it comes to the legal definitions, although it may be a consideration in sentencing.

Pawwed Rig · 17-12-2012 11:30AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't think that age difference is considered at all where it comes to the legal definitions, although it may be a consideration in sentencing.

It is just for the sex offenders register. The trial or sentencing do not take account of <2years age gap

um7y1h83ge06nx · 17-12-2012 01:18PM

Interesting articles here by woman who considers herself a feminist.

5 Stupid, Unfair and Sexist Things Expected of Men

5 Things Society Unfairly Expects of Men

A brilliant thing I think she says is this -

I care about this stuff for a lot of reasons . I care because I have men and boys in my life, men and boys who matter to me: I see how they get twisted into knots by gender roles that are not only insanely rigid but impossibly contradictory, and it makes me sick and sad and seriously pissed off. I care because I care about justice: fair is fair, and I don't want to solve the problem of gender inequality by making things suck worse for men.

Nail on the head. I care about gender equality. I care about men's rights because I am a man, I have a brother, a father, male friends and maybe a son(s) some day. I also care about women's rights as I have a mother, a girlfriend, female friends and maybe a daughter(s) some day.

It p*sses me off that some idiots see a "them and us" scenario, like those idiots in the video. Surely those women have men in the lives to one extent or another?

Zulu · 17-12-2012 01:33PM

Didn't really like the style of the articles, but i have to agree with you on the "them and us" shit.

Feminist mob attempt to shut down talk on equality for males - MOD NOTE POST 10

Comments