nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Unhelpful 'gendering' of social issues

Amirani

Apparently all us men are at fault that rape still exists: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/telling-women-to-be-careful-gets-men-off-the-hook-1.1536337

"men must accept that most violent crimes perpetrated against women are by men, and that they have the power to stop this."

I'm sorry Una, but I'm in no better a position to stop rape than you are. I'm also no more responsible for its existence.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

kunst nugget

py2006 wrote: »

From experience, when certain women hear a man talk about being abused/harassed/discriminated they see it as men dismissing similar issues for women or indeed misogyny.

The inverse is just as applicable - when something does get raised about women's issues and there can be a load of men to jump up and shout out about the problems men have and the obvious misandric intent of the original statement. That's just as pointless as somebody shouting out that everything that happens in the world is an example of misogyny and the patriarchy.

The article in question is woeful rubbish and I objected to the broad generalisations and tarring of all men along with the completely dunderheaded view that women shouldn't be told to look after themselves by thinking about their own safety. What was more disheartening was that any sane or rational arguments to the article in the comments got lost in a soup of self pitying 'men are victims too!' essays that got more and more obnoxious.

The Corinthian

pwurple wrote: »

It's not "my definition" of feminism, it's the oxford english dictionary's definition of feminism. If you dispute it, maybe take it up with them?Feminism: noun:the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

That definition has been out of sync with reality for quite a while. Now why don't you address my challenge which demonstrates this?

You've mentioned silence on issues several times. That women's advocacy groups are not vocal enough on furthering men's rights, or are silent at the loss of men's rights... but seriously, why would you even expect that in the first place?

Because they seek to promote equal rights, according to your definition, not simply equal rights only when it benefits women and this means equal rights for all. You cannot have it both ways, I'm afraid.

Women's groups do not come out and comment on every single issue that crosses the universe. Neither do men's rights groups. They are focused on target issues, one's which directly affect their own rights.

Sure, and I'm not criticizing this. What I am criticizing is that looking after their own rights is equated with 'equality of the sexes' - it's not, you can't represent the rights of only one party and also equality; it's about as basic a conflict of interests you can get.

Do you want to address this contradiction or are we going to hide behind the Oxford English Dictionary some more?

awec

This post has been deleted.

Standman

mollymosfet wrote: »

The example in the article isn't misandry either. There is nothing there that is hateful towards men, and it doesn't generalise them as rapists - it simply states that they're likely to have rapists in their social circle. If women, as a gender, are told to keep safe, then it's a fair mirror to tell men, as a gender, not to rape. It's trying to make a point, one that is utterly lost on the Fedora brigade.

Fedora brigade :eek:. That's a new one. Do people who disagree with you generally wear fedoras while doing it?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Standman wrote: »

Fedora brigade :eek:. That's a new one. Do people who disagree with you generally wear fedoras while doing it?

http://jezebel.com/how-to-avoid-going-home-with-a-douchebag-1081812910

awec

This post has been deleted.

fl4pj4ck

http://imgur.com/a/8zb2B

py2006

kunst nugget wrote: »

The inverse is just as applicable - when something does get raised about women's issues and there can be a load of men to jump up and shout out about the problems men have and the obvious misandric intent of the original statement. That's just as pointless as somebody shouting out that everything that happens in the world is an example of misogyny and the patriarchy.

The article in question is woeful rubbish and I objected to the broad generalisations and tarring of all men along with the completely dunderheaded view that women shouldn't be told to look after themselves by thinking about their own safety. What was more disheartening was that any sane or rational arguments to the article in the comments got lost in a soup of self pitying 'men are victims too!' essays that got more and more obnoxious.

Hold on a second. We have been bombarded for decades (longer?) with female related issues. There are countless resources/support/avenues for women to take should they require it.

Men have for far too long been led to believe by media, society and (certain) feminists that we are bad and we make victims out of women. Yet the reverse is rarely even given a thought (beyond ridicule anyway).

Yes there is an increase in men going, 'hold on a sec, men suffer (whatever) too'. And yes this is a good thing because for so long we were lead to believe that men could not possibly be victims and even if they were the percentage is so minuscule that it is irrelevant.

The vast majority of men are not dismissive of female issues, certainly not by raising male related issues. There is an enormous double standard out there with men being expected to put up and shut up. (although I believe that is changing slightly)

EDIT: Oh that was my 5000th post. Congratulate me...

newport2

pwurple wrote: »

Yes, this iteration was 2006, but there were previous laws which were similar, plus overlaps with canon law etc. The age of consent is basically what has changed across time. At one stage it was age 12 afaik?

Prior to 2006, girls and boys were treated equally.

In 2006, there was some amendments including Section 5 of the Act, which stated girls under 17 cannot be guilty of such offences, whereas boys can serve up to 5 years I think.

maguic24

NiallSparky wrote: »

Apparently all us men are at fault that rape still exists: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/telling-women-to-be-careful-gets-men-off-the-hook-1.1536337

I'm sorry Una, but I'm in no better a position to stop rape than you are. I'm also no more responsible for its existence.

Disgusting article. I'm sick to the teeth of hearing this feminist nonsense when unmarried men in this country have barely any rights when it comes to their children or paternity leave. Who decided that women are better care givers than men? And before someone pipes up about pregnancy and breastfeeding, I'll have you know it takes more to raise a child than to just give birth to a child! I was raised by my uncle, so don't even go there!

The laws in this country are truly sickening!!! It's as if feminists believe they should be more equal than men!! How can you want equality, when you only advocate for women's rights and not for men's? :mad:

In case some of you were unaware of this, women are capable of abuse and rape as well!

Before someone tells me I wouldn't understand because I'm a male, I'm not, I'm female!!

Sorry about the rant, it just makes my blood boil.

py2006

maguic24 wrote: »

Before someone tells me I wouldn't understand because I'm a male, I'm not, I'm female!!

Sorry about the rant, it just makes my blood boil.

Interestingly enough, I once heard a woman speak on the subject and one comment she made struck a cord with me, "the mistake a lot of feminist make is the assumption they speak for all women".

Having said that, while a lot of feminists do not realise the irony of a lot of their statements, not all are the same. Some are more egalitarian.

maguic24

py2006 wrote: »

Interestingly enough, I once heard a woman speak on the subject and one comment she made struck a cord with me, "the mistake a lot of feminist make is the assumption they speak for all women".

Having said that, while a lot of feminists do not realise the irony of a lot of their statements, not all are the same. Some are more egalitarian.

It would be great if men and women could work through the issue of inequality together instead of blaming one another. >.<

py2006

maguic24 wrote: »

It would be great if men and women could work through the issue of inequality together instead of blaming one another. >.<

One of the issues here (that I have only learned in the last year or so) is that women (a lot of) see themselves as a collective group that is separate from men. Hence, if you criticise one, you criticise all. Whereas men see themselves as individuals. E.g. Women talking insult at a man refering to a particualar woman as a bitch or seeing a poster of a suggestive model offends them all (in the eyes of those that it offends). Whereas, men tend not to react the same to similar.

Generally, men don't care if David Beckham posters in his undies with an exaggerated bulge are all over womens mags or giant billboards. Generally, men don't take offense when a woman refers to a man as a bastard. Some do of course, but I think these days its more on principle.

Perhaps, I stand to be corrected on that one.

The Corinthian

maguic24 wrote: »

It would be great if men and women could work through the issue of inequality together instead of blaming one another. >.<

The initial article quoted in this thread was certainly blaming men, or at least placing all responsibility upon men as a gender for crimes such as rape - even if we're not guilty personally, we're apparently guilty for not stopping it.

However, who exactly is blaming women here? Sure, you get the odd misogynistic nutjob who will come out with some gynocentric conspiracy theory, but if you read even through this thread, almost every time this has been brought up has been by supporters of feminism, whenever feminism is criticized - if you attack feminism, ergo you're attacking women.

I'm open to correction, but who has been claiming that it's women's fault or claiming that it's been claimed that it's women's fault?

It's a rather disturbing and dishonest stratagem, TBH, and reminds me of the simelar accusation whereby all criticism of Israel is branded anti-Semitic.

mollymosfet

py2006 wrote: »

What a load of nonsense and some of the language this poster has been allowed to use in this thread is way out of line.

With regards to misandry, if there is misogyny in this world there too exists misandry.

Personally, I think both terms are misused. However, to dismiss issues of injustice, discrimination, generalising etc etc against men is pathetic.

From experience, when certain women hear a man talk about being abused/harassed/discriminated they see it as men dismissing similar issues for women or indeed misogyny.

This is a false equivalence. There may be a small group of women who genuinely hate men, but it's not near the same level. I've already tried to explain how these generalisations against men are not being made in the way you think and people are being highly reactionary. Women have to put up with being blamed, as a gender, for abuse against them, constantly.

When feminists complain about misogyny they often complain about institutionalised misogyny. There is no institutionalised misandry.

These attitudes are much more destructive than any rude words I might be using. There is also an extreme double standard here for what I am allowed to say about people and what others are allowed say about feminists. It puts me at a disadvantage in this thread, and the Thanks system makes it all too easy to gang up on outsiders.

mollymosfet

The Corinthian wrote: »

The initial article quoted in this thread was certainly blaming men, or at least placing all responsibility upon men as a gender for crimes such as rape - even if we're not guilty personally, we're apparently guilty for not stopping it.

However, who exactly is blaming women here? Sure, you get the odd misogynistic nutjob who will come out with some gynocentric conspiracy theory, but if you read even through this thread, almost every time this has been brought up has been by supporters of feminism, whenever feminism is criticized - if you attack feminism, ergo you're attacking women.

I'm open to correction, but who has been claiming that it's women's fault or claiming that it's been claimed that it's women's fault?

It's a rather disturbing and dishonest stratagem, TBH, and reminds me of the simelar accusation whereby all criticism of Israel is branded anti-Semitic.

It wasn't blaming men for rape. It was blaming men for unconsciously holding up attitudes which can lead to rape, intentionally trying to mirror how women are blamed for rape, despite being victims. Nobody here takes near as much offense to victim blaming because it's not directed at them. The idea that they may have unconscious biases which makes, on some levels, sexual assault against women more acceptable or more likely to happen, is not something men want to deal with, and that is a problem.

The level of understanding here of rape culture and related subjects is extremely worrying here and this sort of ignorance is exactly what she was speaking out against in the first place. The way you're ganging up on the one feminist in the thread, too, is quite unsightly as you're trying to silence my voice while ironically calling me "fascist" for pointing out that misandry is deeply abused.

The Corinthian

mollymosfet wrote: »

It wasn't blaming men for rape. It was blaming men for unconsciously holding up attitudes which can lead to rape

Ahh, men are not being blamed for rape, just for perpetuating it; well that's totally different :rolleyes:

The way you're ganging up on the one feminist in the thread, too, is quite unsightly as you're trying to silence my voice while ironically calling me "fascist" for pointing out that misandry is deeply abused.

You went a lot further than do that - you went so far as to imply that it was effectively an invented term.

mollymosfet wrote: »

There is no institutionalised misandry.

The man's role as the provider is institutionalised misandry.

The denial of a man's role in the lives of his children, beyond financially providing, is institutionalised misandry.

The man's role to fight wars, take on dangerous jobs or sacrifice himself before women and children, is institutionalised misandry.

py2006

mollymosfet wrote: »

There may be a small group of women who genuinely hate men, but it's not near the same level. I've already tried to explain how these generalisations against men are not being made in the way you think and people are being highly reactionary. Women have to put up with being blamed, as a gender, for abuse against them, constantly.

Where do you get this stuff from? Did you even read that article? If there are levels of hatred of either gender I am sure it is quite balanced. And if these generalisations being made against men 'are not being made in the way I think', what are they being said for? and who are you to speak for those who make them?

These attitudes are much more destructive than any rude words I might be using. There is also an extreme double standard here for what I am allowed to say about people and what others are allowed say about feminists. It puts me at a disadvantage in this thread, and the Thanks system makes it all too easy to gang up on outsiders.

You need to re-read what you said. You outright accused all those who advocate men's rights/issues as ***holes.

NOBODY here has said anything like that about feminists.

pwurple

The Corinthian wrote: »

Do you want to address this contradiction or are we going to hide behind the Oxford English Dictionary some more?

Hiding behind facts and reality is it? Shame on me.

I don't think there is any contradiction. Advocacy for a certain group, to bring their specific rights up to equality is reasonable and correlates with the definition. Addressing the rights of another group is another role entirely. It's not being hypocritical to avoid addressing those issues specifically. It's not within their remit to do so.

Where things go too far, and the balance is swayed to a gender bias, then that's incorrect and should not happen, or even be aimed for. What that falls under I've no idea? It may be post-feminism, or feminazism, or people with another agenda, or something else entirely, but it's certainly not within the boundaries of standard feminism.

when unmarried men in this country have barely any rights when it comes to their children or paternity leave. Who decided that women are better care givers than men? And before someone pipes up about pregnancy and breastfeeding, I'll have you know it takes more to raise a child than to just give birth to a child! I was raised by my uncle, so don't even go there!

+1, I harp on about those exact issues a fair bit, publicly, privately etc. Equality benefits us all.

mollymosfet

awec wrote: »

I would suggest you drop the incredibly abrasive posting style very quickly if you want to continue contributing to this forum.

There is a standard required - you are currently beneath it. If you are incapable of having a constructive discussion without resorting to sly digs or nonsense like "all men have rapists in their social circles" then your exit from this forum will be swift.

There is nothing problematic about pointing out that most men have rapists in their social circles. Rape is very common. This makes rapists very common. Men may not be *aware*, and generally are not, if someone in their social circle is a rapist, but they should nonetheless be aware of the fact that it is very likely. This is where propagating rape culture becomes an issue as certain things like rape jokes can help to normalise the act of rape.

Also very common are the double standards of what one can say as a feminist vs. what one can say as a "Men's rights activists" in these spaces(despite many claiming the reverse is true). There have been any number of ridiculous remarks aimed at both the author of the piece and feminists in general, who have been similarly called out for having women like her in their social circles.

I would honestly just suggest that people here be honest that this is a no feminists allowed space. Even if it's not explicitly against the rules, I received an infraction for using a very common and reasonable feminist argument. This forum is anti-feminist, there is not much ambiguity about that. I just wish it would be obvious about it.

awec

This post has been deleted.

py2006

wow

Henry9

pwurple wrote: »

Advocacy for a certain group, to bring their specific rights up to equality is reasonable and correlates with the definition.

Saying it 'correlates' with the definition is meaningless. It does not fit the definition.

pwurple wrote: »

Addressing the rights of another group is another role entirely.

Not true. If you take from one group to give to another the two are entwined. It is often a zero sum game.

pwurple wrote: »

It's not being hypocritical to avoid addressing those issues specifically. It's not within their remit to do so.

So 'equality' only involves looking upwards? It never involves giving up any advantages? That's not seeking equality at all is it?

And I'm afraid it is hypocritical when the rhetoric used is in direct contradiction to what you've admitted the stated goals to be.

pwurple wrote: »

Where things go too far, and the balance is swayed to a gender bias, then that's incorrect and should not happen, or even be aimed for. What that falls under I've no idea? It may be post-feminism, or feminazism, or people with another agenda, or something else entirely, but it's certainly not within the boundaries of standard feminism.

Says who? Would the people who occupy those positions agree with you?
Anyway, that's all semantics. The feminists with the platform, the Ivana Baciks, the Kathleen Lynchs, the Susan McKays, they occupy that ground.
They are the ones with the platform to set the agenda, to influence Government policy, and to brainwash students.

It doesn't really matter how many people say 'but that's not real feminism', because that's the kind of feminism that wields the influence.

The Corinthian

pwurple wrote: »

Hiding behind facts and reality is it? Shame on me.

Actually, you're not was my point. Definitions have bever been static in it, as it reflects the best available or popular definition of words available at the time of publication. Even today it's changing, so unless you also want to accept that marriage is "the formal union of a man and a woman", you'll also have to accept that perhaps you should not blindly follow the definitions of something as complex as feminism from the OED.

I don't think there is any contradiction. Advocacy for a certain group, to bring their specific rights up to equality is reasonable and correlates with the definition.

Correlation does not imply causation. Any correlation would take place when the rights of the group being represented are so disadvantaged that almost any activism will result in a move towards equality, but what happens when that gap in rights is no longer so marked, or in some cases reversed?

Ultimately suggesting that anyone who have a vested interest in one side of an argument can also be unbiased in terms of justice, fairness or equality is a nonsense. Otherwise we would not need separate lawyers, or a judge for that matter, in court cases - only one party would need hire and advocate and they could rule 'fairly'. Or trade unions would be unnecessary - management committees that represent the industrial owners could be trusted to apply equitable policies for all concerned.

Ironically, one of the arguments against women's suffrage was that men could be trusted to keep the system fair for both genders, despite having a clear conflict of interests.

Addressing the rights of another group is another role entirely. It's not being hypocritical to avoid addressing those issues specifically. It's not within their remit to do so.

But only if their remit is to peruse equality only when it advantages their constituents; otherwise to represent equality, you actually have to represent everyone. There's no way around that, I'm afraid. Surely you must see how what you suggest makes no logical sense?

Where things go too far, and the balance is swayed to a gender bias, then that's incorrect and should not happen, or even be aimed for. What that falls under I've no idea? It may be post-feminism, or feminazism, or people with another agenda, or something else entirely, but it's certainly not within the boundaries of standard feminism.

When this is a separate argument, to the above, suffice it to say that I don't disagree with you here, only that I believe it's already happened.

Be it post-feminism, or feminazism, or people with another agenda, or something else entirely, they are the ones who are representing feminism in the mainstream and there's a lot of moderate people identifying as feminists who I suspect know something's not quite right, increasingly see opinions and policies that they're uncomfortable with or even oppose, being pushed in their name, but have yet to accept that there's a serious problem.

banquo

This is like appealing to working class Ireland to stop committing petty thefts - completely insane and out of touch.

maguic24

The Corinthian wrote: »

The initial article quoted in this thread was certainly blaming men, or at least placing all responsibility upon men as a gender for crimes such as rape - even if we're not guilty personally, we're apparently guilty for not stopping it.

However, who exactly is blaming women here? Sure, you get the odd misogynistic nutjob who will come out with some gynocentric conspiracy theory, but if you read even through this thread, almost every time this has been brought up has been by supporters of feminism, whenever feminism is criticized - if you attack feminism, ergo you're attacking women.

I'm open to correction, but who has been claiming that it's women's fault or claiming that it's been claimed that it's women's fault?

It's a rather disturbing and dishonest stratagem, TBH, and reminds me of the simelar accusation whereby all criticism of Israel is branded anti-Semitic.

I think you took me up wrong or rather I phrased what I was trying to say incorrectly. The initial article is, as I have already put it, a disgusting piece of literature. I totally agree with your comments on it.

No one here is blaming women in this thread. If you attack feminism, you are not attacking women. I am a female and I do not support feminism. I support equality (to a realistic extent).

What I'm trying say is it would make a lot more sense if the feminist movement worked together with men's rights groups (is there any???).

As I said in an earlier post, I think a lot of feminists think they are entitled to be more equal than men and don't see the need for men to have more rights in certain areas, family law for instance!!! Family law in this country is an absolute disgrace!!!!!

smoking_kills

After spending an hour going thru Una's tweets, videos and pics, its not hard to see where the article came from...

The Corinthian

maguic24 wrote: »

I think you took me up wrong or rather I phrased what I was trying to say incorrectly.

No worries.

What I'm trying say is it would make a lot more sense if the feminist movement worked together with men's rights groups (is there any???).

It's a nice idea in theory but...

To begin with, it's pretty clear that mainstream feminism - more correctly that brand of feminism that is active in the media, NGO's and politics - follows a more militant brand of philosophy than the 'most feminists' we keep hearing about. And as we saw even in this thread here, this philosophy is one that doesn't even believe that men have any real reason to complain - after all "there is no institutionalised misandry" out there, amongst other gems.

Meanwhile, we'll get plenty of 'moral support' from the silent majority, but they're not exactly going to be of much use where it comes to activism.

Secondly, what common ground of agreement might there be? Any suggestion to reform custody law so that custody does not go to the mother 92% of the time isn't going to go down well, as it involves the sacrifice of rights, more correctly privileges, in the name of equality.

You might get some cosmetic commonality, such as paternity leave, but you hardly need to collaborate for that; after all, men gain no rights to their children from such a reform, while women gain greater flexibility in early child care with a free babysitter (often with fewer rights as a babysitter) - a no brainer even for the likes of Bacik and so it'll happen with or without mascilinist involvement.

So genuinely, I really wish it could be possible, but - unless feminism woke up and cleaned house - realistically I just don't see it. I'd be more than happy to have the above bleak analysis logically refuted, btw.

maguic24

The Corinthian wrote: »

No worries.

It's a nice idea in theory but...

To begin with, it's pretty clear that mainstream feminism - more correctly that brand of feminism that is active in the media, NGO's and politics - follows a more militant brand of philosophy than the 'most feminists' we keep hearing about. And as we saw even in this thread here, this philosophy is one that doesn't even believe that men have any real reason to complain - after all "there is no institutionalised misandry" out there, amongst other gems.

Meanwhile, we'll get plenty of 'moral support' from the silent majority, but they're not exactly going to be of much use where it comes to activism.

Secondly, what common ground of agreement might there be? Any suggestion to reform custody law so that custody does not go to the mother 92% of the time isn't going to go down well, as it involves the sacrifice of rights, more correctly privileges, in the name of equality.

You might get some cosmetic commonality, such as paternity leave, but you hardly need to collaborate for that; after all, men gain no rights to their children from such a reform, while women gain greater flexibility in early child care with a free babysitter (often with fewer rights as a babysitter) - a no brainer even for the likes of Bacik and so it'll happen with or without mascilinist involvement.

So genuinely, I really wish it could be possible, but - unless feminism woke up and cleaned house - realistically I just don't see it. I'd be more than happy to have the above bleak analysis logically refuted, btw.

Well it won't be me refuting you, as I agree with you, especially in relation to the bolded bit!!!

Pawwed Rig

The Corinthian wrote: »

Secondly, what common ground of agreement might there be? Any suggestion to reform custody law so that custody does not go to the mother 92% of the time isn't going to go down well, as it involves the sacrifice of rights, more correctly privileges, in the name of equality.

I think a few people would huff and puff about it but most would think it fair enough if they actually took the time to think about it.

Sleepy wrote: »

TBH, I'm not sure the editor of the IT is the right person for this. Would the Gardaí be a better place to report a case of incitement to hatred? Would be nice to see the author and her editor face criminal charges for such misandrist propaganda.

I actually got a response today from the editor. He fairly just brushed off any comments I made and said the article was aimed more at the Garda commissioner and that the author hopes her 'provocative' article will make more men take steps to reduce violence on women.
So he essentially endorsed the article.
I sent a follow up e-mail to highlight the fact that he ignored most of my points so we will see if I get a response from that. After that I will fire one off to the ombudsman.