"men must accept that most violent crimes perpetrated against women are by men, and that they have the power to stop this."
pwurple wrote: » They do, or at least I do, both as an individual, and as a member of various groups.
Bah Feckin Humbug! wrote: » With respect, you will have to do better than that, the gender neutral version of businessman is businessperson. Career woman is a male conceiver term to describe women who break from the male designated stereotype of wife/mother.
Bah Feckin Humbug! wrote: » You brought up the question of why "WOMENS GROUPS" don't oppose certain unjust practices, consequently the onus is on you to name these groups and indicate the percentage of women in this country who support/are members of said groups.
kunst nugget wrote: » iptba wrote: A common reason I have seen some women argue for this is because they felt it would help women with their careers in the long-term. So I don't see this as a good example of women's groups/feminists fighting for an equality issue (i.e. that wasn't about helping women). There trying to argue what the benefits will be for both parties involved and the long term benefits to the economy. Where's the problem there? It seems to me that no matter what is attempted there, once it's viewed through the prism of feminism and men's rights, nothing will placate some people.
iptba wrote: A common reason I have seen some women argue for this is because they felt it would help women with their careers in the long-term. So I don't see this as a good example of women's groups/feminists fighting for an equality issue (i.e. that wasn't about helping women).
iptba wrote: » There is no harm in it. But if the argument is that feminism/feminists is/are sufficient to deal with gender equality, I don't believe this is a good example of this. In many other situations, changes are designed to help one gender. This doesn't give me any major confidence that women's groups/feminists would bat for something that would solely help men.
Pawwed Rig wrote: » So why do womens groups not campaign for equality on that point? It would actually benefit the career woman as would shared maternity/paternity leave, yet they are absolutely silent on the issue.
kunst nugget wrote: » iptba wrote: Yes. A lot of it is based on the view that any men who have some sort of power* will use it to help men (over women). I'm not convinced this is the case. Individual men may do things that they feel may help themselves personally; it doesn't mean men act in a majorly partisan way to help other men over women. *I would argue there are lots of types of power. Politicians are constrained by what will get bad reactions in the media, for example. This is generally how I feel things are as well but it is interesting to see how we can break down men into individuals but women and feminism seemed to be treated as a hive mind on this forum.
iptba wrote: Yes. A lot of it is based on the view that any men who have some sort of power* will use it to help men (over women). I'm not convinced this is the case. Individual men may do things that they feel may help themselves personally; it doesn't mean men act in a majorly partisan way to help other men over women. *I would argue there are lots of types of power. Politicians are constrained by what will get bad reactions in the media, for example.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004 Oct;87(4):494-509. Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: why do women like women more than men like men? Rudman LA, Goodwin SA. Abstract Four experiments confirmed that women's automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men's and investigated explanations for this sex difference, derived from potential sources of implicit attitudes (L. A. Rudman, 2004). In Experiment 1, only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem (A. G. Greenwald et al., 2002), revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference. Experiments 2 and 3 found pro-female bias to the extent that participants automatically favored their mothers over their fathers or associated male gender with violence, suggesting that maternal bonding and male intimidation influence gender attitudes. Experiment 4 showed that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women. In concert, the findings help to explain sex differences in automatic in-group bias and underscore the uniqueness of gender for intergroup relations theorists.
Goodwin, also a member of Purdue's Women Studies Program, teamed with Laurie Rudman, professor of psychology at Rutgers University, to conduct four studies measuring implicit attitudes of 379 adults. Their results show that women prefer women, and men, on average, don't have a preference toward either gender. Although men, on average, did not show in-group favoritism, individual men's responses varied widely, with some men showing a preference for women and others showing a preference for men.
Defending Holles Street head Tue, Nov 26, 2013, 01:07 Sir, – We young female trainee doctors were appalled at the manner in which Dr Rhona Mahony was vilified in the press over the past week. Complex contract issues of employment were used as an excuse to pursue an anti-female doctor agenda. There is gender bias and discrimination in Ireland. Is Ireland still deeply uncomfortable with women filling senior management positions? Although the debate involved hundreds of individuals in senior management across the Ireland, only Dr Mahony was personally targeted. Both she and her young family were singled out for “special attention” although she has done nothing wrong. The reason is simply that she is a successful young woman. Dr Mahony is a role model for all female doctors. She leads by example. She cares passionately for the welfare of mothers and their babies, making ambitions for delivering a first-class service real. She is in the hospital before we arrive in the morning and long after we have gone home. She knows us all by name and is mindful and appreciative of what we do. Our doctors’ staff room has no hierarchy. This positive and supportive ethos is fostered from the top down. At a time of a national shortage in non-consultant doctors, positions in our hospital remain highly sought after. She is a major reason why we still work in the Irish health service when our medical school classmates are now working abroad. The inclusion of her family in the debate should not have happened. The media should not have camped out outside her home. (We acknowledge this did not involve The Irish Times). We feel the exposure of young children to the glare of adverse publicity is always wrong and has the potential to cause them harm. If we aspire to be successful, we wonder how we would protect our families from what Dr Mahony has had to contend with. This past week has brought home to us that in Ireland successful females continue to be treated in a more harsh and personal manner than their male counterparts. Perhaps we should admit that Ireland is not yet happy to see women succeed? The media should exercise more caution before they drive a priceless resource in medical management and clinical expertise off these shores. – Yours, etc, Dr EMER RYAN Registrar; Dr NUALA QUINN, Specialist Registrar; Dr MADELEINE MURPHY, Registrar, Dr AISLING STAFFORD, Senior House Officer Dr SARAH MULLIGAN, Senior House Officer; Dr SILVIA SIMON, Senior House Officer; Dr TRISHA PALMAR, Registrar; Dr AEDIN RYAN, Senior House Officer & Dr VICKY O DWYER, Registar, National Maternity Hospital, Holles Street, Dublin 2.http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/defending-holles-street-head-1.1606979
Pawwed Rig wrote: » I would agree with everything in those articles but this govt has promised alot which I doubt it will deliver on. I will believe this when I see it. With equal respect, I think you are being overly sensitive here. Whether it is a male or female conceived term is irrelevant as it was an accurate term for the point I was trying to make. Womens Aid, The National Women's Council and Ruhama are a few. Lobby groups do not necessarily represent a majority of the people and I believe most women and most men are reasonable people who actually believe in equality. The issue is that the lobby groups are the ones that are heard and represented in the media/government.
This is generally how I feel things are as well but it is interesting to see how we can break down men into individuals but women and feminism seemed to be treated as a hive mind on this forum.
Bah Feckin Humbug! wrote: » Again I ask you to provide details of those women's organizations you speak of and to detail their membership as a percentage of Irish women.
Bah Feckin Humbug! wrote: » In this case the law is an ass, and a law passed by a male minister for justice , in a male dominated cabinet, and upheld by a male dominated Supreme Court. I can't for the life of me find the invisible hand of feminism anywhere in the making or upholding of that particularly offensive piece of legislation. if anything it looks more like a true act of patronization, that is the determination that "Silly vulnerable girls" need protecting.
pwurple wrote: » I don't believe feminism is sufficient to deal with gender equality. Men's rights groups need to be more vocal, especially on father's rights / relationship breakups. Also with regard to furthering education on what father's are losing by ignoring things like guardianship.
Ben Shekelberg wrote: » It's all a bunch of man-hating bs. Blah blah blah lets blames men for all our problems. Lets castrate all men so we won't be oppressed anymore. Like the blacks in America blaming whitey for everything.
Ben Shekelberg wrote: » By 'racist, misogynist bs' you mean 'unpleasant truths'. Feminism is good, now good back to sleep.
cantdecide wrote: » But therein lies the point I make to all proud feminists- we need a debate and a common point from which to move forward, not an adversarial squabble between masculinists and feminists vying for the attention of an apathetic government. I say this again: feminism is outmoded and no longer relevant and what we need is an egalitarian movement.
pwurple wrote: » The squabbling is ridiculously petty I agree. Who cares who the originator of the message is, if it gets through and benefits us all. Equality benefits society at large. I don't agree on the second point. Feminism will be outmoded and irrelevant when some Irish companies don't have an informal "Don't Hire Women" policy in place. Or when forced prostitution doesn't exist. Or when child brides are not sold to the highest bidder. But it will still have a place until society progresses to that point.
pwurple wrote: » I don't agree on the second point. Feminism will be outmoded and irrelevant when some Irish companies don't have an informal "Don't Hire Women" policy in place. Or when forced prostitution doesn't exist. Or when child brides are not sold to the highest bidder. But it will still have a place until society progresses to that point.
Pawwed Rig wrote: » I agree with you to the extent in that there is a reluctance to hire women in some sections. I think this can be changed by recognising the father where children are concerned. This would mean the father having the same rights as the mother whether they are married or not with equal mat/paternity leave and benefits (barring recovery time). This would have the effect (in time) of equalising the risk currently associated with hiring a woman with that of a man. This is an equality issue rather than a feminist issue. The other 2 points as Claire pointed out are human rights issues and are not that prevalent in Ireland despite what religious orgs like Ruhama would have people believe. None of these issues would require feminism where an egalitarian organisation existed
Pawwed Rig wrote: » I would have guessed that any organisations I named would be dismissed for one reason or the other. If I named three more then I am sure there would be reasons to discount these too. If your point is whether these are representative of Irish women as a whole I have already answered that previously. If that is not your point please let me know what is and I can address that.
clairefontaine wrote: » Until men and women move away from the feminist/mens rights model and move towards family centered policy, I don't think anyone will be happy.
ConFurioso wrote: » Yeah it was painful to listen to. Basically quotas = good. Ugh. I mean....the irony. A panel of three and all were women.
iptba wrote: » You sound like you're from the "Shame" school of debate (as a way of shutting people up). All I said was I have heard it argued that women lose out in their careers because they take more time out for parental leave than men and if this was dealt with, there might be similar outcomes for each gender. And so the move wasn't motivated by a desire simply to help men. I don't know what is shameful or disgusting about mentioning this.
JRant wrote: » No balance in the discussion at all. One of them agreed quotas were a terrible idea but as long as it helps women get what they wanted then all was good. I've also noticed how when it's only women effected by a lack of rights it becomes a women's right issue. When discussing the inequality men suffer the focus is shifted to a "family" centred approach, whatever that means.
K-9 wrote: » For me there isn't much point in anybody asking the question, never mind going to the bother of actually searching for an answer, if it's going to be dismissed so lightly.
K-9 wrote: » Somebody asked why don't women campaign for paternity leave and when it is pointed out that yes, a few groups do indeed campaign for that, the retort is basically "sure its in their own interest to do it." For me there isn't much point in anybody asking the question, never mind going to the bother of actually searching for an answer, if it's going to be dismissed so lightly.
iptba wrote: » Yes, I thought it wasn't the best example to ask about (and I didn't bring it up). I thought it was quite well known that the reason or one of the reasons that women's groups were supporting the idea is that it felt it could help women in their careers.
I don't know what is wrong with dismissing it as an example of showing feminism is a force that strives equally for equality for men and women. As has been pointed out, it doesn't do the job of proving feminism strives equally for equality for men and women.
It would certainly be a simpler world if feminism had shown itself to be sufficient for gender equality but there have been lots of examples given in discussions on the tGC forum (probably in this thread) that feminism/feminists and women's groups have not worked particularly hard on disadvantages men get and in fact can sometimes get in the way. The world isn't always as simple as fairy tales and the like one learns about as children.
"Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings - Cheris Kramare
Not just by itself, no, but I don't think it can be dismissed lightly in a "sure they'd want that anyway as it benefits them" type way. Men wanting equal parenting rights is an issue of equality for me, though I'm sure some out there could dismiss it as a selfish or biased want from me.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/282101dc2976956f9dfc87f7a2ef2413.svg)
