Is feminism a dirty word?

P. Breathnach · 04-10-2014 05:01PM

GarIT wrote: »

Why is it ok to call an equality movement a name that at least makes it appear to be focused on one gender ...?

Because it is primarily focused on the treatment of one gender by society.

RDM_83 again · 04-10-2014 05:03PM

get_me_beer wrote: »

germaine greer was asked to participate in an anti FGM campaign a few years ago , she refused stating " it might stigmatise islam "

Germaine Greer is a fcuking nut in fairness she wrote a book featuring "beautiful" underage boys, its sort of my point though if like her aren't spoken out against as they should be by mainstream Feminism if it wants people like herself not used as ammunition against them.

I do agree that Feminism appears to come from a certain view point thats rather narrowly defined, but at a guess I would say its more to do with many of those involved being part of the whole SJW package and not being able to untangle the two. Look at Thatcher, personally I detest what she stood for, but from a dispassionate view she should be a feminist Icon, she was educated in the traditionally male dominated Hard Sciences and she achieved the most powerful position in one of the worlds most powerful economies for over a decade through her own abilities. She's not though!

If your actually looking for a good example of what your talking about you should reference Nebula Award winner Elizabeth Moon having her invitation revoked to a feminist fiction conference because of a frankly rather nutty blog post about Muslims

RayM · 04-10-2014 05:03PM

get_me_beer wrote: »

no lower form of life than a " male feminist "

I'm male and consider myself a feminist. Why am I a lower form of life than you?

Hopefully you'll get the chance to answer before you get banned for being a re-reg.

lazybones32 · 04-10-2014 05:03PM

smurgen wrote: »

Those women have psychological problems and are not representative of most women I'd imagine.

Well, what woman is a good representation of women then?
Psychological issues or not, these women are pillars of feminism and their 'literature' is on most feminist essential reading lists.

GarIT · 04-10-2014 05:05PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Because it is primarily focused on the treatment of one gender by society.

You can't make a claim of equality and then be focused on one gender.

Police officers are mostly male, why cant we call them all policemen?

Shakespeare's Sister · 04-10-2014 05:06PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Look at Thatcher, personally I detest what she stood for, but from a dispassionate view she should be a feminist Icon, she was educated in the traditionally male dominated Hard Sciences and she achieved the most powerful position in one of the worlds most powerful economies for over a decade through her own abilities. She's not though!

That's because she was hostile to feminists and women in general. I get what you mean about her fighting through all the boys' club stuff, but it wasn't taking a stance for women, it was taking a stance for Maggie. She seems like she actually wanted to be a man.
Without feminism she couldn't have got where she did though.

GarIT · 04-10-2014 05:07PM

Feminism is a dirty word. A group of the most advantaged group in society claiming to be disadvantaged will never sit well with a lot of people.

Shakespeare's Sister · 04-10-2014 05:10PM

GarIT wrote: »

Feminism is a dirty word. A group of the most advantaged group in society claiming to be disadvantaged will never sit well with a lot of people.

Feminists are only white, heterosexual and middle-class?

Galwayguy35 · 04-10-2014 05:10PM

It was needed in the 1970s when women definately got a raw deal.

These days when I hear the muck that Labour one comes out with I feel like throwing the tele out the window, no prison sentences for women how are ya!

COYVB · 04-10-2014 05:11PM

Minera wrote: »

what was done to me by the opposite sex

It was done to you by a person, or people. Even the phrasing of that, whether intended or not, makes it sound like you're saying the entire gender did whatever to you.

Everyone and everything on their own merits IMO

eg: A woman who is sexually assaulted by a man is not sexually assaulted by the opposite sex, she's sexually assaulted by a man, a single member of a group that has not a lot universally in common and shouldn't be treated like it does.

Similarly, a man who is scammed by a woman is not scammed by the opposite sex, but by THAT woman, only her

Czarcasm · 04-10-2014 05:12PM

Minera wrote: »

Why?

One simple reason is because it's teaching children, of both genders, that it's ok to be weak, that they shouldn't be ambitious, that they shouldn't feel empowered.

If you listen to Emma Watson's speech, she invites men to be vulnerable, instead of inviting women to realise their power, to stand up for themselves. I just think that telling men it's ok to be vulnerable is no way to encourage gender equality. It assumes women are vulnerable, and men in order to be equal, must also be allowed to be vulnerable.

That's why I personally prefer Hilary Clinton's take on feminism where she talks about women empowering themselves, challenging themselves. I think she shows great leadership to women and shows them the real meaning of equality - that women can be just as powerful as men, and don't need to see themselves as vulnerable and weak and in need of help from men.

Pawwed Rig · 04-10-2014 05:15PM

RayM wrote: »

She doesn't think all men are to blame for rape... but the way she writes makes it very easy for people who believe that feminism = 'hatred of men' to wilfully misinterpret her views.

Oh she does and she clarified her views repeatedly in subsequent interviews.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Feminism is not a doctrine: it is a movement driven by a sentiment. So of course it can include people with whose views one disagrees as well as people with whom one agrees.

It is wrong to pick on particular feminists or on particlar things said or done in the name of feminism and use them to denigrate feminism generally. That's akin to condemning all Muslims because of the acts of fundamentalist extremists, or all supporters of a football team because of a hooligan element among them.

I am a (male) feminist. I ackowledge that there are some extremists in the movement, and some nutters. But they are a small minority, and unrepresentative of the great majority.

And as for opposing feminism because it's called feminism and not something else: words fail you.

Then why allow the lunatic fringe to be the public face of feminism? Most feminists are normal rational people but unfortunately the representatives of the movement seem at odds with a grass root membership which seem reluctant to put themselves in opposition to the extremists.

lazybones32 · 04-10-2014 05:15PM

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Mullally thinks all men are to blame for rape
Bacik wants custodial sentences for women to be removed. Men can still goto jail though.

Don't forget the lady in charge of the Immigrant Council of Ireland, Denise Charlton: she wants prostitution decriminalised...well, the offering of sex for money to be decriminalised but the one who buys is still breaking the law.

Pawwed Rig · 04-10-2014 05:18PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

That's why I personally prefer Hilary Clinton's take on feminism where she talks about women empowering themselves, challenging themselves. I think she shows great leadership to women and shows them the real meaning of equality - that women can be just as powerful as men, and don't need to see themselves as vulnerable and weak and in need of help from men.

This is the same lady who says

'Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.'

So women are the victims then? Not the millions of men that have been slaughtered on the altar of arguments between the elites.

Shakespeare's Sister · 04-10-2014 05:19PM

Minera wrote: »

Why do you say that?

Feminism is concerned with women's rights, not equality between the sexes - I don't know why the latter is presented as what feminism is.

GarIT · 04-10-2014 05:20PM

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

Feminists are only white, heterosexual and middle-class?

First of all they are female, sexuality doesn't have much to do with privilege anymore, neither does class. The majority of feminist are white, the feminist movement doesn't really exist outside of the first world.

Galwayguy35 · 04-10-2014 05:21PM

Supporting campaigns like "Don't be that Guy" does them no favours either, it implies that as men we can barely control ourselves when the reality is scumbag rapists pay no heed to anything like that anyway and it pisses off the majority of men who would never do such a thing.

RayM · 04-10-2014 05:23PM

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Oh she does and she clarified her views repeatedly in subsequent interviews.

Any links, maybe...?

I read an article where she said that women shouldn't be taught not to be raped, but that men should be taught not to rape. I didn't interpret that as being anything close to a suggestion that all men are to blame for rape. I remember other people (mainly "men's rights" types) getting terribly offended by it though.

RDM_83 again · 04-10-2014 05:25PM

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

That's because she was hostile to feminists and women in general. I get what you mean about her fighting through all the boys' club stuff, but it wasn't taking a stance for women, it was taking a stance for Maggie. She seems like she actually wanted to be a man.

Whats wrong with challenging the traditional binary viewpoint of male and female characteristics, thats not very progressive is it

But even though she was hostile to feminism in general and motivated by self interest the simple act of a woman achieving that level of success should be considered a victory for the ideals of 1st and possibly 2nd wave feminism no matter what her views of the movement, it could be considered sexist that one should expect that a woman leader should be more compassionate and socially tolerant because of their gender, she proved that being a woman is no bar to wielding power in pursuit of a ruthless conservative policy isn't that a blow for a more equal society (in terms of gender she fcuked social and economic equality).

Czarcasm · 04-10-2014 05:26PM

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

This is the same lady who says

'Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.'

So women are the victims then? Not the millions of men that have been slaughtered on the altar of arguments between the elites.

Hilary Clinton is a feminist who advocates for women, regarding issues that affect women.

Your issue seems to be that she doesn't also advocate for men? My question then is -

"Why would a feminist speak for men?"'

Shakespeare's Sister · 04-10-2014 05:30PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Hilary Clinton is a feminist who advocates for women, regarding issues that affect women.

Your issue seems to be that she doesn't also advocate for men? My question then is -

"Why would a feminist speak for men?"'

But he's referring to her saying "Women are the primary victims of war", which is a blatant lie.

KomradeBishop · 04-10-2014 05:37PM

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Then why allow the lunatic fringe to be the public face of feminism? Most feminists are normal rational people but unfortunately the representatives of the movement seem at odds with a grass root membership which seem reluctant to put themselves in opposition to the extremists.

What can be done to stop the lunatic fringe being the more prominent face of it? News outlets seem more than happy to give a voice to the nutters, as it sells.

KomradeBishop · 04-10-2014 05:40PM

GarIT wrote: »

First of all they are female, sexuality doesn't have much to do with privilege anymore, neither does class. The majority of feminist are white, the feminist movement doesn't really exist outside of the first world.

Ah 'the feminists' have done a census recently, showing their demographics? Be interesting to see that, any link?

Rabo Karabekian · 04-10-2014 05:44PM

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Then why allow the lunatic fringe to be the public face of feminism? Most feminists are normal rational people but unfortunately the representatives of the movement seem at odds with a grass root membership which seem reluctant to put themselves in opposition to the extremists.

The louder you shout, the more you'll be heard. It's the same with most movements and it's not about the 'movement' (movements are rarely a homogenous force that think and operate with one voice) allowing the so-called lunatic fringe to be representative. There's a middle man, so it will usually depend on what news source you're tuning in to.

MakeEmLaugh · 04-10-2014 05:53PM

As a white, Anglophone male in his late twenties, I feel I am entitled to an opinion on this matter.

Feminism is not another word for 'aggressive sexism'.

Feminism is the promotion of rights for women so that they are equal to men.

If you have a system where 51% of the population are excluded from many professions in society - including holding political office - for hundreds of years, that results in a system which weighs disproportionately in favour of the other 49%.

So if you suddenly allow the 51% to be included in those professions, it still takes many, many, MANY years for them to reach the number they would have been at, were it not for the previous discrimination.

That's why feminism is a good thing; it's about righting historical injustices, allowing us to get as close to where we would have been were it not for the mistakes of the past.

Let's look at a different example of attempts to redress a balance on the island of Ireland - policing in the North.

In 1998, 8.3% of the RUC in Northern Ireland were Catholic, while 88.3% were Protestant. This led to a law that meant that, for every Protestant hired in the police force, a Catholic must also be hired.

By 2011, 29.7% of the PSNI were from a Catholic background, much closer to the 45% of people in Northern Ireland who identified as Catholic in that year's census.

Without the attempt to redress this inequality, the PSNI might still have less than 10% of its officers be Catholic today.

Few people would question this attempt to tackle inequality.

Why, then, when we talk about tackling inequality between men and women, do people fold their arms and say 'no'?

The Highwayman · 04-10-2014 06:12PM

JC4W1Ei.jpg

Its this sort of crap that gets me. We want this, we want that, women are as good as men and we should be treated the same.......... unless its a bad thing then we will cry that women are different and should be treated differently.

You want to be a feminist? Go to Saudi in a knee length skirt and drive a car to the voting station and cast your vote. See how that works out for you, after all solidarity among sisters.

Or maybe campaign for women to be drafted into the army to fight and die on the front line

Bitch about FGM but have no problem with chopping of a boys foreskin.

Feminism has become an angry joke.

Pawwed Rig · 04-10-2014 06:33PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Hilary Clinton is a feminist who advocates for women, regarding issues that affect women.

Your issue seems to be that she doesn't also advocate for men? My question then is -

"Why would a feminist speak for men?"'

She is a politician who is supposed to represent her electorate and hopes to be President someday representing 330 million people (not just the women).
Feminism claims to be for equality so as a feminist then she should be for equality rather than spouting nonsense and disrespecting the millions who have died for the elites (of which she is one).

RayM wrote: »

Any links, maybe...?

There was a newstalk interview a week after her infamous article which you can find with a bit of browsing. I don't have tiime to do it now as I have to do women's work and feed my child and put him to bed;).

Here is some text of her article though for anyone that can be bothered to read such drivel. It has since been 'archived' by the Times so is not available to view online anymore.

'Societies are in crisis over how men treat women.'

'The problem is not where women interact; the problem is who they interact with – men.'

'How about men, don’t rape? Men, don’t murder your exes or partners. Men, don’t beat up your wives or girlfriends. Men, don’t assault someone you’ve just met that night. Men, don’t shout at women across the road just because you can. Men, stop hanging your threat of rape over dark streets. '

'Yet every group of guys has a buddy who is a little wayward, and whose behaviour towards women is dubious.'

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

'Men have the choice to either create this freedom, or uphold the threat.'

COYVB · 04-10-2014 06:34PM

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

In 1998, 8.3% of the RUC in Northern Ireland were Catholic, while 88.3% were Protestant. This led to a law that meant that, for every Protestant hired in the police force, a Catholic must also be hired.

By 2011, 29.7% of the PSNI were from a Catholic background, much closer to the 45% of people in Northern Ireland who identified as Catholic in that year's census.

Without the attempt to redress this inequality, the PSNI might still have less than 10% of its officers be Catholic today.

Few people would question this attempt to tackle inequality.

I believe any right minded individual would question it

Forcing someone to hire someone because they tick certain boxes is NOT equality. It's not even close to it

In a truly equal society you'll almost never find 50-50 splits on anything, because that's not what equality actually means

hatrickpatrick · 04-10-2014 06:38PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

I don't think most people would label you anti-equality Patrick for wanting to dissociate yourself from what again most people would see as advocating censorship rather than gender equality.

I'd like to believe that, but at the same time any time a young woman being interviewed in the media says "I wouldn't call myself a feminist", you'll see Twitter, Facebook etc erupting with outrage from people using the common fallacy "If you believe in equality, you are a feminist".

I like to illustrate the issue mathemetically (odd I know): Feminism = x + y, but the fallacy implies that if you're not a feminist, it means you oppose x. x being gender equality, y being all the other crap that has been tacked on to the label in recent years.

That's what I meant earlier about all these 'isms' having lost all their meaning really, because there's no cohesion any more, and anyone can advocate for what they like and call themselves feminist. I mean, just in the example above -

Absolutely 100% agreed. What annoys me is when you try to have a debate about it and inevitably no matter what issue you bring up, you'll get an angry response of "Well, not ALL feminists believe in that aspect of it..." which in my view is a rather cynical attempt to make the movement immune to any kind of critical analysis whatsoever.

There are women that love glamour modelling and have made good careers for themselves from it, and then there are women that would want to take those choices away from women. Both advocates can call themselves feminists!

Indeed. Did you see Germaine Greer's ridiculous attack on Kate Middleton in the Independent a few days ago? She's regarded as a mainstream feminist icon and in one rant she attacked Middleton for her weight ("she's too thin") for wanting to have more children ("She's being forced to be a mother") for her lifestyle ("She's not allowed to have any modern interests") and a whole pile of other highly offensive garbage. She illustrated with that one rant that her brand of feminism does not seek to give women more freedom, but merely to swap one form of societal pressure for another. Or to put it another way, it's ok to oppress women as long as you're oppressing them with the correct set of values.

She's regarded as a feminist icon. Feminists will say "not all of us think like that", but where does the buck stop with people the movement holds up as role models and representatives?

It's all very confusing to me personally as I think feminism is about advocating for support for women and women's freedom to choose their own path in life and offer them opportunities to reach those goals, but more and more it seems to have become - if you're not with us, you're against us, and so we end up with a situation like Patrick above, who identifies as feminist, because he's too afraid to say he doesn't support some women who have some funky ideas he doesn't agree with, and then you have the likes of a guy who self identifies as feminist because he advocates for an end to the practice of male circumcision, and I'm just left feeling a bit....

"Huh??"

I don't actually identify as a feminist

I'm just saying that I hesitate to publicly disassociate myself lest I be set upon by the "You want to return to the 1950s" brigade. As you know, I have no problem holding unpopular and outspoken views, but as an activist in many areas of politics I find it pretty appalling when an activist group uses such remarkably aggressive shaming tactics to attempt to shut down critical analysis and debate.

Essentially, I am 100% in favour of a gender blind society and legal system, but I am definitely not a feminist. In fact if you want to use a rather crude way of describing my position with regard to offensive songs, for example, I'm completely ok with sexist music, but I'm an equal opportunities free speechist in that I would argue that it's ok for both men and women to be ridiculed in music.

Pawwed Rig · 04-10-2014 06:38PM

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

If you have a system where 51% of the population are excluded from many professions in society - including holding political office - for hundreds of years, that results in a system which weighs disproportionately in favour of the other 49%.

You are confusing the class system with genderism. For 100's of years men had no access to most jobs either. They also couldn't vote and were virtual slaves of their landlords. The male priviledge argument is a lie as only a select few elites could ever hold political office. Still the same to a large degree when you see Dail seats passed down through families.

Is feminism a dirty word?

Comments