Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

I need feminism because...

Options
12467…46

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    TINA1984
    Closed Accounts Posts: 372 ✭✭TINA1984


    Lyaiera wrote: »


    Because it's a stupid question.

    It most certainly isn't. You want quota's introduced because women are under-represented in politics, but you think it's stupid to expand that reasoning to include other minorities who are under represented in houses of the Oireachtas?


  • Options
    #93
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    I think quotas for anyone is silly.

    It's also a little tiring to see constant sniping on the internet about how women won't do xyz for men. Have you set up campaign groups and asked feminist groups to help out the advancement of parental right equality - which I fully support - or you just not care enough about it to do anything but use it as a stick with which to beat women every time they mention feminism?
    Yes, we know you exist, yes, we know you have problems too.
    Do something instead of trying to drag everyone else's efforts down


  • Options
    #94
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    ciara1052 wrote: »
    I can understand that - but it's not necessarily fair to kind of tar 'feminists' as a group of women with serious entitlement issues (All the benefits - none of the sacrifice) - as not all of us are like that.
    Well maybe you're not a feminist. You can't all be feminists and have such, frankly, incompatible views.
    The issue is that these people themselves aren't really feminists - it's not me that isn't the feminist.
    These people are those running 'gender' equality courses. Writing books on feminism. In politics and the highest levels of the NGO's.

    I suspect they've more right to call themselves what they want that you do.

    Unless people like you act and take that right back, you're just on their bandwagon giving tacit support to the policies they push.
    B0jangles wrote: »
    Why is it the reponsibility of the chimps to do the gorillas campaigning for them? Surely if the gorillas feel that they have been unfairly treated it is up to them to campaign on thier own behalf?
    Because the chimps have set themselves up to be representing equality. If they do that, they have to represent both the themselves and the Gorillas - otherwise they're just representing themselves.

    So is feminism about representing the interests of equality or women?
    B0jangles wrote: »
    Equality is not a zero-sum game, men don't lose rights just because women gain them.
    To begin with, that's not actually true. Positive discrimination inevitably means that another group loses out. Now this may be fair, in that this other group had an unfair advantage, but it still loses out.

    Yet feminism only appears to support positive discrimination selectively; it's desirable where it comes to, say, quotas in the board room or electoral lists, but what about child custody cases?

    And equality is a zero-sum game, I thought my example demonstrated this; by the end of it, you didn't have equality, you just ended up with a different form of inequality.
    clairefontaine wrote: »
    Chimps and gorillas don't raise families together, dont exist within families together. This is why both sides are so divisive. The narratives are all either or, not both/and.
    What on Earth are you talking about?
    bluewolf wrote: »
    It's also a little tiring to see constant sniping on the internet about how women won't do xyz for men.
    I think you misunderstood me. Women, more correctly feminists, do not have to do anything for men. Feminism can happily represent the interests of women and no one else. No problem.

    However, if you claim to represent equality, then you have to represent both sides, regardless of whether men are doing anything about it ourselves - otherwise you're not actually representing equality.

    Which one will it be? Represent men in the interests of equality, even if it means women losing unfair advantages or just stop pretending that feminism represents equality?

    But don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.


  • Options
    #95
    fits
    Registered Users Posts: 13,300 ✭✭✭✭fits


    bluewolf wrote: »
    I think quotas for anyone is silly.

    I actually don't. I think better gender balance will follow higher participation from both sexes. I think its really important in politics in particular. The lack of female political voices in the abortion debate is evidence of that.

    And I don't just believe in gender quotas for women either. Society in general would benefit from more men in traditionally female roles also. Particularly teaching and nursing.

    (edit: not to say that teaching is traditionally female role, but it is female dominated recently)


  • Options
    #96
    Feathers
    Registered Users Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭Feathers


    Strawberry Swan wrote: »
    In order to talk about feminist issues you need to give it a name. Imagine talking about people you know but not using their name. It makes communicating a lot easier.

    But these issues do have names - childcare, equal pay & opportunities in the workforce, political representation, etc.

    A collective term only makes it easier if someone wants to try to discuss these as a group of issues, but some people are happy to address them individually.

    It doesn't make them any less passionate or committed about individual issues by doing so, nor does it mean they disregard rights won in these areas in the past under the banner of feminism.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    fits wrote: »
    I actually don't. I think better gender balance will follow higher participation from both sexes. I think its really important in politics in particular. The lack of female political voices in the abortion debate is evidence of that.

    And I don't just believe in gender quotas for women either. Society in general would benefit from more men in traditionally female roles also. Particularly teaching and nursing.

    (edit: not to say that teaching is traditionally female role, but it is female dominated recently)

    Maybe they don't want to go into politics.

    Gender quotas in politics just looks like you love government and hate men.

    Why oh why is there this push and assumption that there needs to be more women? You want gay quotas? Traveller quotas? He'll lets just wipe out the democratic process altogether.


  • Options
    #98
    fits
    Registered Users Posts: 13,300 ✭✭✭✭fits


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    Maybe they don't want to go into politics.

    .

    Maybe they don't want to go into politics because its not perceived as female-friendly. Maybe if there were more women in politics that perception (or reality) would fade and more women would be inclined to try it.


  • Options
    #99
    fits
    Registered Users Posts: 13,300 ✭✭✭✭fits


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    and hate men.

    where does this 'man hating' thing come from btw? How is it man hating to want some (not even 50%) of your political representatives to be female.

    I don't hate men. I LOVE men! :p


  • Options
    #100
    Feathers
    Registered Users Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭Feathers


    fits wrote: »
    where does this 'man hating' thing come from btw? How is it man hating to want some (not even 50%) of your political representatives to be female.

    I don't hate men. I LOVE men! :p

    I agree that it's not men-hating, but I think it's strange that ordinary people are championing it as a genuine fix to get more issues affecting women addressed in parliament. I can understand the political parties introducing it as easy lip-service to getting more women involved. In reality though I think quotas will get more of the women already involved on the ballot paper, but do little to get women who weren't involved into politics to begin with.

    Getting more people from non-traditional backgrounds into parliament, both women & men, could do more for the issues that affect women rather than having a few more incumbents' daughter, niece or sister take over his seat.

    Quotas have merely addressed the symptom & not the cause of the lack of women in politics.


  • Options
    #101
    fits
    Registered Users Posts: 13,300 ✭✭✭✭fits


    Feathers wrote: »
    Quotas have merely addressed the symptom & not the cause of the lack of women in politics.

    And I agree with you. Its an imperfect solution. But perhaps in the longer term, it will address the cause also and attract more women into politics who wouldn't have been there in the first instance.
    Also the presence of more women in politics might have the effect of reforming it to be more women (and people) friendly in general. Politics is not conducive to rearing a family right now for example and while there's such a majority of men in it, it is not likely to be addressed by men even if it should be an issue for them too.

    So, I'm not saying its perfect, but can you come up with a better solution or are you happy with things as they are?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    GalwayGuy2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,269 ✭✭✭GalwayGuy2


    Also the presence of more women in politics might have the effect of reforming it to be more women (and people) friendly in general. Politics is not conducive to rearing a family right now for example and while there's such a majority of men in it, it is not likely to be addressed by men even if it should be an issue for them too.

    Why?


  • Options
    #103
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    upandcumming wrote: »
    So you're saying the current representatives are not doing their job?

    I think that would be an overly charitable thing to say about the current representatives.


  • Options
    #104
    fits
    Registered Users Posts: 13,300 ✭✭✭✭fits


    GalwayGuy2 wrote: »
    Why?

    Because they should have an equal (as possible) role in raising the children instead of working for 20 hours a day and expecting their partners to do it all!

    And female partners are more likely to put up with this because of historic gender roles, male partners... less likely. Plus female parents who are away for 20 hours a day are likely to be labelled as negligent!


  • Options
    #105
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    For those who reject the idea that women are unfairly judged against men for some jobs just because they are women - do a little research on how the numbers of women who were hired by orchestras, for example jumped once blind auditions were introduced.

    http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/A94/90/73G00/

    There was a 50% increase in the number of women hired in U.S. and European orchestras once the candidates did their auditions behind a screen, with no names given to the judging panel.

    If you were one of the men who would previously have profited from the status quo, you could claim that this change made it harder for you to get a job, but could you really, seriously claim that the change was unfair?

    I think sometimes men who claim things have gone too far in womens favour are simply unhappy that the status quo is changing and that they have to compete in a level playing field instead of having a slope in their favour.

    Also have a look at the articles written by Ben Barres - a neuroscientist who was born Barbara Barres. He has written several articles about how he is perceived by his colleagues on the quality of his work compared to that of his "sister" Barbara (they are the same person).

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060714174545.htm


  • Options
    #106
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    To begin with, that's not actually true. Positive discrimination inevitably means that another group loses out. Now this may be fair, in that this other group had an unfair advantage, but it still loses out./QUOTE]
    Dp, not edit, d'oh.


  • Options
    #107
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    To begin with, that's not actually true. Positive discrimination inevitably means that another group loses out. Now this may be fair, in that this other group had an unfair advantage, but it still loses out./QUOTE]

    Are you arguing that this is a bad thing -that a group that previously had an unfair advantage is now deprived of it and is forced to compete on a level playing field? If not, I am having difficulty seeing your point.

    Also feminism can absolutely represent the interests of men. Feminism was born when a sufficient number of women did not want to adhere to the roles their society said were allowed for them. As a result, in western society, it is deemed socially acceptable for women to have full-time careers or aternatively, to stay at home and raise their children. It is still not easy to do so, but its not extremely actively resisted by mainstream society.

    The same cannot be said for men. A man who chooses to become a fulltime stay-at-home parent is still derided by society because he is seem as taking on shameful, weak, female characteristics.

    Men should be able to freely and proudly reject the standard expectations of their gender -they should be able to cry without fear of seeming weak , care for children without anxiety and care for for quality of life over income without being shamed for being lazy and weak, and god forbid, seeming female.

    Feminism is your friend - all it will do is free you from corset-tight expectations of what you ought to be doing just because you are a guy.


  • Options
    #108
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    B0jangles wrote: »
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    To begin with, that's not actually true. Positive discrimination inevitably means that another group loses out. Now this may be fair, in that this other group had an unfair advantage, but it still loses out./QUOTE]

    Are you arguing that this is a bad thing -that a group that previously had an unfair advantage is now deprived of it and is forced to compete on a level playing field? If not, I am having difficulty seeing your point.

    Also feminism can absolutely represent the interests of men. Feminism was born when a sufficient number of women did not want to adhere to the roles their society said were allowed for them. As a result, in western society, it is deemed socially acceptable for women to have full-time careers or aternatively, to stay at home and raise their children. It is still not easy to do so, but its not extremely actively resisted by mainstream society.

    The same cannot be said for men. A man who chooses to become a fulltime stay-at-home parent is still derided by society because he is seem as taking on shameful, weak, female characteristics.

    Men should be able to freely and proudly reject the standard expectations of their gender -they should be able to cry without fear of seeming weak , care for children without anxiety and care for for quality of life over income without being shamed for being lazy and weak, and god forbid, seeming female.

    Feminism is your friend - all it will do is free you from corset-tight expectations of what you ought to be doing just because you are a guy.

    If it were so socially acceptable to either stay at home with the kids or have a career you wouldn't have these argumentative, disrespectful bloodbaths of arguments on Internet forums like this one between sahms and working mothers.

    Secondly, if you really want a career you better choose a very supportive husband. This dependency can only change with affordable childcare.

    Sure, men should be able to be sensitive souls who can cry and whine like we do, but the reality is women dont like that, even progressive feminists, so men and boys are caught in a ferocious double bind. Does feminism care? No. Should it? Of course it should. Why should it? Because the outputs of these double binds lead to all sorts of trouble for everyone.

    The problem with aligning yourself with any ideology or group is that inevitably others are excluded and by nature turn into abstractions. They stop being real and then it's too easy not to empathise. That goes for any group, not just feminism.


  • Options
    #109
    fits
    Registered Users Posts: 13,300 ✭✭✭✭fits


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    Secondly, if you really want a career you better choose a very supportive husband. This dependency can only change with affordable childcare.

    Don't you think this is something feminists can campaign for?


  • Options
    #110
    fits
    Registered Users Posts: 13,300 ✭✭✭✭fits


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    [
    Sure, men should be able to be sensitive souls who can cry and whine like we do, but the reality is women dont like that, even progressive feminists, so men and boys are caught in a ferocious double bind. Does feminism care? No. Should it? Of course it should. Why should it? Because the outputs of these double binds lead to all sorts of trouble for everyone.

    .

    I actually have no idea what you are talking about here.


  • Options
    #111
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    B0jangles wrote: »
    For those who reject the idea that women are unfairly judged against men for some jobs just because they are women - do a little research on how the numbers of women who were hired by orchestras, for example jumped once blind auditions were introduced.
    You've just cited discrimination that occurred forty years ago, and how it changed twenty years ago, as example of current discrimination against women. Any chance you might use actual current examples in the West? Genuine question.
    B0jangles wrote: »
    Are you arguing that this is a bad thing -that a group that previously had an unfair advantage is now deprived of it and is forced to compete on a level playing field? If not, I am having difficulty seeing your point.
    No, don't be daft; I'm simply pointing out that your claim that "equality is not a zero-sum game" is fundamentally incorrect. Realign rights, so that you eliminate an unfair advantage against one group in favour of equality and you that group will naturally be losing a right - it's all about balance, and that is a zero-sum game, I'm afraid.

    Applied to an area such as parental rights, giving men equal rights to their children would inevitably mean that women would no longer enjoy automatic unilateral rights over the child and they would not be all but guaranteed custody, but would have to demonstrate they are the better parent to have custody.

    Women would lose 'unfair' rights, just as men have elsewhere - which is why feminism has been very silent on this area of gender inequality. I can't actually think of a single example, at least in the last 40 years, of anything actively campaigned for by feminism that put the interests of equality over the interests of women.
    Also feminism can absolutely represent the interests of men. Feminism was born when a sufficient number of women did not want to adhere to the roles their society said were allowed for them. As a result, in western society, it is deemed socially acceptable for women to have full-time careers or aternatively, to stay at home and raise their children. It is still not easy to do so, but its not extremely actively resisted by mainstream society.

    The same cannot be said for men. A man who chooses to become a fulltime stay-at-home parent is still derided by society because he is seem as taking on shameful, weak, female characteristics.

    Men should be able to freely and proudly reject the standard expectations of their gender -they should be able to cry without fear of seeming weak , care for children without anxiety and care for for quality of life over income without being shamed for being lazy and weak, and god forbid, seeming female.

    Feminism is your friend - all it will do is free you from corset-tight expectations of what you ought to be doing just because you are a guy.
    With respects, that's just waffle. You essentially cite an issue and that men should just 'trust' feminism.

    So how is feminism men's friend? How has feminism sought to change attitudes twoards stay-at-home-fathers, or for that matter 'househusbands'? What effort has feminism, in it's apparent pursuit of equality, made towards reforming those laws that recognise men as little more than financial resources to their children and that give full control and custody to women by default? Absolutely nothing.

    To date feminism has done absolutely nothing for such men. Some lip-service, maybe suggestions that men should be freed up to assist women in the care of the child (as long as the status quo is maintained), but that's about it.

    So please do explain, without waffle this time, how "feminism can absolutely represent the interests of men" - when it does not and never has, and how in light of this - that feminism only represent one gender - it can honestly see itself as a force for equality?

    As I've repeatedly said; if feminism is ultimately only looking after the interests of women, then fair enough; but if so don't claim that feminism is looking out for equality then, because that would be a lie.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Actually, you know what?

    No.

    This is the "I need feminism because..." thread in TLL,

    not the

    "Waste boundless time and effort defending/explaining the very concept of Feminism to The Corinthian for the umpteenth time while being fully aware that he'll accept nothing that contradicts his own preconceptions on the subject" thread


  • Options
    #113
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,412 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    I am a feminist in the sense of human rights ( not just womans rights ).

    There are a lot of contradictions in feminism that are often ignored, but that true of all" isms"


  • Options
    #114
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    B0jangles wrote: »
    "Waste boundless time and effort defending/explaining the very concept of Feminism to The Corinthian for the umpteenth time while being fully aware that he'll accept nothing that contradicts his own preconceptions on the subject" thread
    I'll happily accept a coherent and logical answer to the question, but so far all I've seen is various deflections, with no one actually addressing it.

    If you just want to refuse to do so, then fine, but then it does put in question the credibility of the claim that feminism seeks equality if not only no one has managed to defend it, but are now even attempting to censor any attempt to question it.

    And ironically that would not point to me accepting nothing that contradicts my own preconceptions on the subject, but you.


  • Options
    #115
    pharmaton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭pharmaton


    B0jangles wrote: »
    Actually, you know what?

    No.

    This is the "I need feminism because..." thread in TLL,

    not the

    "Waste boundless time and effort defending/explaining the very concept of Feminism to The Corinthian for the umpteenth time while being fully aware that he'll accept nothing that contradicts his own preconceptions on the subject" thread

    Very much so. I haven't participated in this thread or followed very closely but for me at least, feminism is a movement, a rallying cry by women for women which seeks for nothing more than for them to knowledge, value and respect themselves as equals in human worth.

    It appears to be difficult for some people to accept still.


  • Options
    #116
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    mariaalice wrote: »
    I am a feminist in the sense of human rights ( not just woman rights ).

    There are a lot of contradictions in feminism that are often ignored, but that true of all" isms"
    Should such contradictions not cause one to question the apparent fundamentals of feminism though? As per B0jangles's response here, there appears to be little appetite to do so; it's almost as it it's taboo.

    I just get the impression that some self-identifying feminists want feminism to be about human rights, but when faced with these 'contradictions' circle the wagons and go into denial over it.


  • Options
    #117
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    pharmaton wrote: »
    Very much so. I haven't participated in this thread or followed very closely but for me at least, feminism is a movement, a rallying cry by women for women which seeks for nothing more than for them to knowledge, value and respect themselves as equals in human worth.
    Then address the question I've posed. If you truly believe what you're saying, you should be able to explain this apparent contradiction, rather than make some dismissive comment about how some people are 'unenlightened'.


  • Options
    #118
    pharmaton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭pharmaton


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Then address the question I've posed. If you truly believe what you're saying, you should be able to explain this apparent contradiction, rather than make some dismissive comment about how some people are 'unenlightened'.

    you can spend the day projecting all these imagined slights against you if wish. The fact is recognising my own sense of worth has never impinged on anyone elses. There is no contradiction.


  • Options
    #119
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    pharmaton wrote: »
    you can spend the day projecting all these imagined slights against you if wish. The fact is recognising my own sense of worth has never impinged on anyone elses. There is no contradiction.
    What imagined sights? Are you suggesting that men suffer no discrimination? Or that a movement that claims to represent equality, but doesn't in reality do so, somehow magically does?

    Your sense of worth has nothing to do with the question I posed, I never asked about it. Why is it so difficult to address that question?

    If you and another party go into mediation, the mediator will seek compromise and give-and-take on both sides, to arrive at an equitable solution. If they only seek one side to compromise, ignoring where the other side should also do so, they're not going to arrive at an equitable solution - it contradicts that aim. It's literally impossible.

    To reiterate; I am not saying that feminism should also represent men's rights, beyond lip-service and even if it means impinging negatively on women's rights if they are unjust, but if not it cannot claim to seek equality.

    So can anyone explain this contradiction rationally, or admit that feminism isn't really about equality, rather than continue with these increasingly desperate attempts to avoid the question?


  • Options
    #120
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,412 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    We do not live in an ideal world, any "ism" such as socialism, or libertarianism or humanism or Catholicism, all have contradictions, that does not mean they are "wrong" as such nor does it mean that they do not have something to contribute to human society.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    pharmaton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭pharmaton


    To reiterate; I am not saying that feminism should also represent men's rights
    your right, it shouldn't.
    beyond lip-service and even if it means impinging negatively on women's rights if they are unjust, but if not it cannot claim to seek equality.
    for men.
    So can anyone explain this contradictory rationally, or admit that feminism isn't really about equality, rather than continue with these increasingly desperate attempts to avoid the question?
    This thread is not about mens rights, if you want to discuss that I suggest you start a new thread.

    you may not agree with it but it really is that simple.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement