Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Is feminism a dirty word?

12467…37

Comments

  • #92
    Rabo Karabekian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 275 ✭✭Rabo Karabekian


    The Highwayman wrote: »
    Attachment not found.

    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.

    There's so much wrong with this. Firstly, that's one photo and you jump to the conclusion that all women think along those lines. There's also no draft anymore, so not sure why women would argue for it. 'Bitching' about FGM (lovely, btw) doesn't equate to having no problem with male circumcision.

    But I have a feeling you know this (or would know it, if you took a second to really look at your arguments).


  • #93
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Rabo Karabekian wrote: »
    There's so much wrong with this. Firstly, that's one photo and you jump to the conclusion that all women think along those lines.

    Nobody has claimed that all women think that way - this is exactly the kind of fallacy I'm talking about. Many feminists do - not all, but many, and many who are in high profile positions (Ivana Bacick comes to mind with regard to prison sentencing). If these people are publicly high profile feminists and they're not being condemned by the rest of the feminist movement for their sexist views, are they not valid targets for critical analysis as representatives of a movement?
    There's also no draft anymore, so not sure why women would argue for it.

    There's one in the States, and as much gender discussion takes place online you'll find a degree of internationalism to the debate. Agreed with regard to Ireland though.
    'Bitching' about FGM (lovely, btw) doesn't equate to having no problem with male circumcision.

    No, but can you understand why many young male activists feel that female genitalia are being elevated to a pedestal above male genitalia when there are legal prohibitions on unnecessary surgical alteration for girls but not for boys? All infant genitalia should be treated identically by the law, and that law should be, no surgical alteration unless there's an urgent medical necessity for doing so.


  • #94
    MakeEmLaugh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,356 ✭✭✭MakeEmLaugh


    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.
    COYVB wrote: »
    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

    What I said was that it was an attempt to tackle inequality, or a step towards equality. The affirmative action law on hiring Catholics to the police in Northern Ireland has since been stopped, but they're much closer to evenly representing the people who live in Northern Ireland than they were 15 years ago.
    COYVB wrote: »
    In a truly equal society you'll almost never find 50-50 splits on anything, because that's not what equality actually means

    Give me an example of what you consider a 'truly equal society'.


  • #95
    Tigersliding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 50 ✭✭Tigersliding


    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?"'

    Feminists supposedly seek gender equality, if this were actually true they would be campaigning outside of courtrooms at the outrageously sexist prison sentencing. But because women aren't at disadvantage they do nothing. So it's not surprising that feminism is now a dirty word with nonsense at it's very core.


  • #96
    Yurt2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Rabo Karabekian wrote: »
    There's so much wrong with this. Firstly, that's one photo and you jump to the conclusion that all women think along those lines. T.

    Ivana Bacik thinks precisely that and she's very much in the mainstream of Irish feminism.

    "Women are a particularly vulnerable prison population and there is a strong case for abolishing prisons for them and replacing them with small custodial units for just a small number of people who have committed crimes of violence,”

    (can't post the url because I'm a new user)

    The fact that prison is a far more brutal and brutalizing experience for men (conditions are far worse and sentencing is harsher for all categories of offenses) is evidence of the cognitive dissonance at play in much of modern feminism. Do female offenses (be they violent or non violent) cause less damage to society by virtue of the offenders gender? It would appear that many in the mainstream of feminism think so. Either that or they are startlingly silent when someone like Bacik vomits out such nonsense. It's issues like this that mark out modern third wave feminism as a dogma. The intellectual mirage of the 'patriarchy' must be protected at all costs.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Tarzana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭Tarzana


    MakeEmLaugh wrote: »
    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.

    Wish I could thank this multiple times.

    Feminism *needs* to still exist because we don't have enough distance from a time when women were second class citizens. Only two generations really, or only one generation in some areas. We need feminism to be around for a while yet to ensure it "beds in".


  • #98
    Tarzana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭Tarzana


    The Highwayman wrote: »

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

    I'm strongly against both circumcision and FGM but... FGM has more serious consequences. For many woman, it takes away their chance of ever experiencing an orgasm, as many women can only achieve this through clitoral stimulation. Does circumcision have a similar affect on men?


  • #99
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Tarzana wrote: »
    Wish I could thank this multiple times.

    Feminism *needs* to still exist because we don't have enough distance from a time when women were second class citizens. Only two generations really, or only one generation in some areas. We need feminism to be around for a while yet to ensure it "beds in".

    Do you appreciate any of the problems that I or others have pointed out with it?
    In particular, and I feel this is a fundamental point, do you see the issue when feminism claims to be the be all and end all of gender equality activism (for instance, attacking MRAs because "if you want equality, you're a feminist") while at the same time staying silent on many issues such as Ireland's sexist statutory rape laws? Either feminism will advocate for this, or that issue alone justifies the existence of a separate mens' movement.


  • #100
    COYVB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,660 ✭✭✭COYVB


    MakeEmLaugh wrote: »
    Give me an example of what you consider a 'truly equal society'.

    Easy: A society where gender, race, creed, sexuality or any such irrelevant information about a person has no bearing on how they are perceived within society. The best person for the job should always be hired, man or woman, black or white, muslim or christian.

    In a truly equal world, there could be 100 job openings, which are filled by 100 women, because the 100 women were the 100 best people for the job.

    In a world where quotas force you to have 50 males and 50 females taking up those 100 jobs, equality is not in play


  • #101
    mrkiscool2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,159 ✭✭✭mrkiscool2


    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?"'
    Well, it's one way or the other. If feminism and feminists want to re-define itself to mean "The campaign for better rights and privileges for women" then by all means feminists don't have to speak for men. Not in the slightest

    However, if they want to continue to be viewed as a movement for equality (which I don't agree they are and even if I did agree they were their name suggest they only focus on one gender) then yes, feminists should be speaking for men also.
    MakeEmLaugh wrote: »
    As a white, Anglophone male in his late twenties, I feel I am entitled to an opinion on this matter.
    Nice little jab there at all the men commenting on here. If you're going to make a point just make it.
    MakeEmLaugh wrote: »
    Feminism is not another word for 'aggressive sexism'.
    By definition no. By it's actions? Yes, it is. Any group that doesn't condemn it's more vile, sexist and horrible members is a group that advocates them by their silence.
    MakeEmLaugh wrote: »
    Feminism is the promotion of rights for women so that they are equal to men.
    Sorry, in 1st world countries women already have equal rights to men. In fact, in most they also have reproductive rights and rights to full custody of their children ingrained in the law. So your point is invalid.
    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%.

    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.
    We are already getting there. Women do better in school then men, more women attend university, a woman and a man coming out of college with the same degree and doing the exact same thing the woman is likely to earn around 9% more than the man starting off. Every year that passes we get more women in senior positions, more women elected to the Dail each session, gender quotas for parties to put forward a certain amount of females for the election.

    Actually, let's look at that. Women are elected proportionally to the percentage of women put forward for an election. So, if this is correct, then we shall have at least 30% of our Dail seats allocated to women. There is no ingrained sexism in society anymore, there is no patriarchy. Women are getting there and it's nor because of feminism or the MRA leaving it alone. It's because it's the natural evolution of society.
    MakeEmLaugh wrote: »
    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.
    We're already there mate.
    MakeEmLaugh wrote: »
    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.
    Eh, I would. This caused more problems than it actually solved. It's the same with any "positive discrimination" it actually does a lot more harm than it does good!
    MakeEmLaugh wrote: »
    Why, then, when we talk about tackling inequality between men and women, do people fold their arms and say 'no'?
    Most people on this thread don't say no, nor on the countless others. We simply say that we don't like how feminists act towards men (and we have seen it here also with some people saying misandry doesn't exist. It does or how feminism implies (and acts) that it is focused on one gender to get gender equality or that it doesn't focus on men's issues at all which is counter-indicative to what it claims to be.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    MakeEmLaugh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,356 ✭✭✭MakeEmLaugh


    COYVB wrote: »
    In a truly equal society you'll almost never find 50-50 splits on anything, because that's not what equality actually means
    MakeEmLaugh wrote: »
    Give me an example of what you consider a 'truly equal society'.
    COYVB wrote: »
    Easy: A society where gender, race, creed, sexuality or any such irrelevant information about a person has no bearing on how they are perceived within society. The best person for the job should always be hired, man or woman, black or white, muslim or christian.

    Are there any examples of countries which you feel fulfil this criteria, and are therefore truly equal?
    COYVB wrote: »
    In a truly equal world, there could be 100 job openings, which are filled by 100 women, because the 100 women were the 100 best people for the job.

    In a world where quotas force you to have 50 males and 50 females taking up those 100 jobs, equality is not in play



    Let's take the example of politics. There are 114 MORE men in government in this country than women, although women make up half the population.

    Do you honestly believe that those 114 were the best people for the job, and that there weren't women who could have fulfilled many of those roles just as well, if not better?

    You don't think it has ANYTHING to do with the institutionalised discrimination women faced in Ireland until as recently as the 1970s, which included:

    *having to retire immediately from the public service or the bank if they got married, which was law until 1973?

    *not being able to own their own home, which they couldn't do until 1976?

    *not being able to accept children's allowance, which had to go directly to a child's father?

    *not having any legal grievance if raped by her husband (marital rape was not a criminal offence until 1990)?

    *earning 4 shillings less per hour than men (in March 1970, the average hourly pay for women was five shillings, while that for men was over nine)?

    Again, this is a white, heterosexual English-speaking male talking here...


  • #103
    Tarzana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭Tarzana


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Do you appreciate any of the problems that I or others have pointed out with it?
    In particular, and I feel this is a fundamental point, do you see the issue when feminism claims to be the be all and end all of gender equality activism (for instance, attacking MRAs because "if you want equality, you're a feminist") while at the same time staying silent on many issues such as Ireland's sexist statutory rape laws? Either feminism will advocate for this, or that issue alone justifies the existence of a separate mens' movement.

    They're more matters for equalism. Feminism in its own right also needs to exist for probably another generation or so to hopefully prevent slipback to where women were no so long ago.


  • #104
    Pawwed Rig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,468 ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    Tarzana wrote: »
    Wish I could thank this multiple times.

    Feminism *needs* to still exist because we don't have enough distance from a time when women were second class citizens. Only two generations really, or only one generation in some areas. We need feminism to be around for a while yet to ensure it "beds in".

    Again the class system is being confused with genderism. It is only a few generations since men were forced into battle on the slaughterfields of Europe to serve their masters. Everybody were second class citizens other than the privileged minority. To pretend that the world existed with men as the masters and women as the poor underclass is just a fallacy that has been trotted out over and over again over the years.
    Suffrage for men was not even too long before suffrage for women.
    Essentially women did not have the freedom to be conscripted. Otherwise their lives were very similar to their husbands in that they worked on farms doing all the associated work and looked after the family (which was a far easier job than the manula labour that the men had the 'freedom' to do).


  • #105
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    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.
    Feminism is a movement, not an organisation. I identify myself as a feminist, but I have no mechanism to influence, let alone control, the actions of the lunatic fringe.

    And, let's face it, the lunatic fringe gets more attention because lunatic pronouncements are more interesting than everyday feminism. I think of the time I challenged an employer about a male-only shortlist that had been created for a job vacancy, even though about half the applicants were female. [Before anybody makes a suggestion that the males were probably more suitable, none of them was appointed, and the job eventually went to a female on the second shortlist created.]


  • #106
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Tarzana wrote: »
    They're more matters for equalism. Feminism in its own right also needs to exist for probably another generation or so to hopefully prevent slipback to where women were no so long ago.

    The problem is that many feminists will deny or outright attack the concept of "equalism", claiming that one who believes in gender equality is a feminist, end of story.

    Feminism cannot have its cake and eat it. Either (a) feminism must be inclusive of all gender issues including those in which women currently have an unfair advantage, (b) feminism must accept the necessity for a men's movement to exist, or (c) feminism must accept the label of hypocrisy.


  • #107
    RayM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 ✭✭✭RayM


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    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.

    I can't find the Newstalk interview, but I'm able to access the Times archive. I'm not sure if posting a paywalled article in its entirety is acceptable, but it should be borne in mind that her article - strewn as it is with stupid generalisations - was written in the context of comments made by the former Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan, about how women should be vigilant of potential rapists.

    I agree with her overall point - i.e. that there should, in an ideal world, be more focus on telling people not to carry out sexual assaults, rather than telling them not to get sexually assaulted - thus unintentionally stigmatising women who get raped by men. And yes, it's an inescapable fact that the vast, vast majority of women who get raped are raped by men. And it's also true that the majority of cases don't result in convictions. Stigma undoubtedly plays a large part in that.

    I disagree with her use of generalisations to make her point. Again and again, Una Mullally allows her perfectly valid points to be diminished when she spouts lazy nonsense like...
    Men, of course, argue that this generalisation is unfair, that it demonises blokes who are non-violent and deplore such behaviour. Yet every group of guys has a buddy who is a little wayward, and whose behaviour towards women is dubious. Many men remain silent when the lads suggest a strip club on a stag night, even if they are uncomfortable with it. Most guys probably have a suspicion that a male close to them has bought sex.

    Every group of guys does not have a 'wayward buddy'. If any of my friends exhibited dubious behaviour towards women, they'd no longer be my friend. I've never hung around with the type of people who'd go anywhere near a strip club. I'd be shocked if I discovered that 'a male close to me' has bought sex.

    I know some people rushed to take everything she said completely literally, and got terribly offended at her article, but as a "victim" of her generalisations, I find her comments more annoying than offensive. I honestly don't think she really believes that all men are to blame for rape - any more than Martin Callinan believes that women are to blame for getting raped. She's just employing an extreme, highly generalising response ("Men, don't rape") to what should be considered an extreme, highly generalising statement ("Women, don't get yourselves raped").

    She's a shit journalist though. Self-indulgent and a lazy thinker, with a very narrow and limited worldview and array of interests (as shown in almost everything she has ever written about 'pop-culture' in The Ticket).


  • #108
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Tarzana wrote: »
    I'm strongly against both circumcision and FGM but... FGM has more serious consequences. For many woman, it takes away their chance of ever experiencing an orgasm, as many women can only achieve this through clitoral stimulation. Does circumcision have a similar affect on men?

    The debate should never get as far as that level of specifics, it should end at "bodily integrity with the exception of medical emergency is a universal human right". In the West, male circumcision is an arguably bigger problem because it's legal and widely practiced in certain religions and social circles.

    Either boys and girls should have the right to the same level of bodily integrity, or we are accepting that one gender of infants should have more rights than the other. Simple as.


  • #109
    COYVB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,660 ✭✭✭COYVB


    MakeEmLaugh wrote: »
    Are there any examples of countries which you feel fulfil this criteria, and are therefore truly equal?

    Do you honestly need to ask if an equal utopia exists on earth?
    MakeEmLaugh wrote: »
    Let's take the example of politics. There are 114 MORE men in government in this country than women, although women make up half the population.

    Do you honestly believe that those 114 were the best people for the job, and that there weren't women who could have fulfilled many of those roles just as well, if not better?

    Funny thing about politics - anyone can do it, and the people will either vote them in or not do it. If more women decide to get involved in politics, run, and their policies are in line with what the people want, you'll find more female politicians will emerge, strangely enough.

    Could do with a big change like that right now.
    MakeEmLaugh wrote: »
    You don't think it has ANYTHING to do with the institutionalised discrimination women faced in Ireland until as recently as the 1970s, which included:

    *having to retire immediately from the public service or the bank if they got married, which was law until 1973?

    *not being able to own their own home, which they couldn't do until 1976?

    *not being able to accept children's allowance, which had to go directly to a child's father?

    *not having any legal grievance if raped by her husband (marital rape was not a criminal offence until 1990)?

    *earning 4 shillings less per hour than men (in March 1970, the average hourly pay for women was five shillings, while that for men was over nine)?

    Again, this is a white, heterosexual English-speaking male talking here...

    No, I don't actually. I think you're looking at unacceptably poor treatment of women in the past, and drawing comparisons to modern life that aren't there.

    I also think you're failing to grasp where I'm coming from here and making an argument to agree with me.

    You seem to think I'm arguing against, or making points against, having equality here. I'm not. I'm just fighting the side for belief that it can only ever happen through pure equality, not enforced equality/quotas.

    If you push it, forcing x amount of job to go to women, what'll happen when that pushes women into the majority? Are they going to give up the new rights they've been given without a fight? Are men going to start demanding x percentage of new hires have to be male? It's a mess. An unintelligent short term solution that only makes the issue bigger in the long term.

    Education is how you fix it, and we're on the way towards that now. All going well in a couple more generations gender will be a complete and utter non-issue, as it should be. But that absolutely WON'T happen through enforced equality, by its very definition


  • #110
    Yurt2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Tarzana wrote: »
    Wish I could thank this multiple times.

    Feminism *needs* to still exist because we don't have enough distance from a time when women were second class citizens. Only two generations really, or only one generation in some areas. We need feminism to be around for a while yet to ensure it "beds in".

    If you're a young white female living and working/studying in Western Europe (correct me if I'm wrong)

    You are part of the most economically privileged demographic of all time. In global terms you're probably in the top 1-2%.

    You have unfettered access to one of the best education systems in the world. If you choose to do something like engineering, you're value in the job market is automatically much higher than that of an equivalent male. Females constitute and overwhelming majority of the 'caring professions' (highly protected professions that guarantee a solid middle class lifestyle), and increasingly constitute a majority in high prestige careers like the legal or medical fields. Shi*ty jobs that curtail lifespan are overwhelmingly done by men, just as it always has been. Young females typically earn more than their male peers (until they make the CHOICE - and it is mostly a choice- to drop out of the labour market for family reasons)

    We live in a feminist orthodoxy and climate and have done so for the best part of 30 years. To use the language of a tumblr feminist: Check YOUR privilege.


  • #111
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    The Highwayman wrote: »
    Attachment not found.



    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.

    Incorrect, I'm afraid...feminists campaigned for women to have the Right to fight and die on the front-line...not for women to do the actual fighting and dying. Learn the difference!

    Baby boy's foreskins serve an important medical function once removed from the (potential rapist's?) penis: they are used as an ingredient in anti-aging creams http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-cut-above-the-rest-wrin/


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Tigersliding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 50 ✭✭Tigersliding


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I agree with what you're saying here, as there are some feminists out there who certainly give off that vibe.

    However, you're treating feminism like a hive mind, rather than a group of individuals, and that's both incorrect and unfair.

    How is he supposed to comment on feminism then, he can't comment on every single feminist. He can only comment on the overarching themes of feminism right now.


  • #113
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    In particular, and I feel this is a fundamental point, do you see the issue when feminism claims to be the be all and end all of gender equality activism (for instance, attacking MRAs because "if you want equality, you're a feminist")
    Does that actually happen though? I'd imagine the "if you want equality, you're a feminist" thing, is just down to the definition of the word, and that it doesn't exclude other rights movements (equality encompassing them all together).


  • #114
    Tigersliding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 50 ✭✭Tigersliding


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Except those 'overarching themes' are more the words of a vocal minority. It isn't a fair representation.

    Well I don't recall ever hearing any feminists campaigning for equal rights where women have the advantage and I don't recall ever hearing a feminist criticising those who don't.


  • #115
    Yurt2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Except those 'overarching themes' are more the words of a vocal minority. It isn't a fair representation.

    Why don't people in the feminist movement repudiate the words of this minority? They're using your voice.

    The example was given earlier of Ivana Bacik (a front an center feminist voice in Ireland) advocating that women generally shouldn't be imprisoned for crimes committed, with men having committed the same offenses to languish in medieval conditions. An extremist point of view by any standard and difficult to argue that it's not thoroughly sexist. Why don't feminists speak up against things such as this? This is your movement that you identify with, speak up. If you don't, you'll have to excuse the people that hold their nose when feminist tropes are brought up.


  • #116
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,909 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Fringe feminists can't be used to criticise widespread feminism. A few men doing some rapes however somehow requires all men to do something about it and is symptomatic of "rape culture". It's an odd dichotomy.


  • #117
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Yurt! wrote: »
    Why don't people in the feminist movement repudiate the words of this minority? They're using your voice.

    The example was given earlier of Ivana Bacik (a front an center feminist voice in Ireland) advocating that women generally shouldn't be imprisoned for crimes committed, with men having committed the same offenses to languish in medieval conditions. An extremist point of view by any standard and difficult to argue that it's not thoroughly sexist. Why don't feminists speak up against things such as this? This is your movement that you identify with, speak up. If you don't, you'll have to excuse the people that hold their nose when feminist tropes are brought up.
    How will they repudiate the words of the louder minority?


  • #118
    Shakespeare's Sister
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,412 ✭✭✭Shakespeare's Sister


    Why don't men apply for roles in the caring professions? They're full of women because of being seen as jobs that women are suited to - this goes way way back.
    Who thinks along the lines of baby boys'/boys' foreskins as belonging to potential rapists? :confused:

    Why do young women typically earn more and why is their value higher in engineering?


  • #119
    Adamantium
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭Adamantium


    Tigersliding wrote: »
    Well I don't recall ever hearing any feminists campaigning for equal rights where women have the advantage and I don't recall ever hearing a feminist criticising those who don't.

    Fuarkin NAILED it. Everytime something like this happens and there is radio silence in the media, I think this video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l59cg62wqpY


  • #120
    Yurt2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »
    Why don't men apply for roles in the caring professions? They're full of women because of being seen as jobs that women are suited to - this goes way way back.
    Who thinks along the lines of baby boys'/boys' foreskins as belonging to potential rapists? :confused:

    Why do young women typically earn more and why is their value higher in engineering?

    I'm not moaning about women being a majority in the caring professions, it's just how it is. I was using it as an example of the choices different genders make in careers and how the myth of the wage gap perpetuates itself.

    Female engineers have a higher value to companies simply because there's less of them (different genders making different choices). Large engineering companies are compelled to fall all over themselves to hire any female engineers in the name of 'diversity', and often don't hire on merit. Not exactly the patriarchy at work is my point.


    You've lost me with the circumcision comment.

    EDIT: I'm not suggesting females are inferior engineers. What I'm saying is, a skilled female engineer finds it easier to get and maintain work by virtue of their scarcity in the labour market. They often find themselves in visible management positions much quicker than similarly experienced men, all in the name of 'equality'.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Pawwed Rig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,468 ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    RayM wrote: »
    I can't find the Newstalk interview, but I'm able to access the Times archive. I'm not sure if posting a paywalled article in its entirety is acceptable, but it should be borne in mind that her article - strewn as it is with stupid generalisations - was written in the context of comments made by the former Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan, about how women should be vigilant of potential rapists.
    It should be noted that the garda never mentioned women. he said people. Miss Mulally made up the 'women' part and used it as a context for her rant.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement