Is feminism a dirty word?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

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.

Do you believe in the paygap, the 1 in 4 rape figure, the education gap, the medical access gap, rape culture in the western world? Cos that's the "majority" feminist position and they're all either highly dubious positions or outright nonsense.

And that's the problem with this third wave feminism, the extreme position is front and centre. Put it another way, next time you're around "feminists", as a self identifying male feminist try bringing any of those subjects up in debate and see how far you get.

More locally what feminist ideas have currency and actually have weight? Abortion and access to it is about it and that should be sorted and pronto, but much of the rest is nonsense. The average Irish(and western) woman of the current generation will live longer, have less chance of incarceration for the same crime, will be rewarded for leaving the family(because husbands/BF's aren't really family), will garner more sympathy in general because of their gender, will have better access to medical help and research, will be more educated and will likely be better paid. Patriarchy my ever loving arse.

Actually I have found it useful as a general rule that if I read/hear Patriarchy/paygap/rape culture coming from someone I can safely disregard what follows as it is sure to be primo level bullshít. If the words "trigger warning" is in attendance you can take that to the bank. The type want all the perks, without any of the responsibility.

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%.

As has been pointed out to you this is much more a case of dubious comparison. Your feminists look to elite men of the past and indeed today and ask why the average woman can't have access, but the average man didn't. Take the vote in the UK. The time difference between the average man getting the vote and the average woman? Ten years. Indeed before the average man got the vote, there were elite women who had it.

Few people would question this attempt to tackle inequality.

I would. By their very nature, quotas are not equality.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

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.

+1 Throughout history and prehistory men have been the disposable gender and that is even written in our DNA. Today far more female lines have survived than male.

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).

Indeed, women and children first. I find it amusing that you don't see third wave feminists complaining about the glass ceiling in coal mines, building sites, refuse collection and the like. Even with the military access protests, frontline stuff was well down the list.

What I dislike most about this latter "feminism"? It isn't the "whatabout the poor men" angle, if men have an issue they/we should say fcuk that shíte and own the issue and bloody well sort it. No, what pisses me off about this current feminism is that it makes women out to be weak, irresponsible, lacking agency and victims in need of legal(ie male) protection. Basically the most chauvinist Victorian bloke would find much in common with them. Irony, thy name is feminism.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Citation needed - well to be more accurate, several citations needed.

Well if you've not questioned these to the point where you can see my point it says everything about the solidity of your position and any arguments that may come from that position.

But since you asked and this may prove difficult for your "male feminist" to digestm but here you go:

Paygap

And here are a few others for your delectation.

In short I rest my case.

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

And misogyny - on the net especially

Indeed, but ranged against that is all the right on Jezebel type sites spouting BS. One takes the rough with the smooth.

I don't mean non misogynistic stuff like calling a woman a bitch btw - but women do have to put up with hostility in unisex corners of the internet, like gaming;

I'm quite sure there are elements of that but when you have types like Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn making hay and a few quid with perpetuating and actually fabricating the BS, one does start to ask questions.

also hardcore porn is overwhelmingly about depicting the woman as fair game for having anything done to her.

Dunno what "hardcore porn" you've been watching, but for the most part it's actually far more inclusive of women and especially different body types and "race" of women than mainstream fashion and the like ever is. When was the last time a fat lass was on the cover of women edited Vogue or Cosmo? Far more of that going in in porn. Basically whatever kind of woman you are there will be a porn genre that includes you. Whatever about the "morals" and real issues surrounding porn, especially produced for cash porn, the irony is delish that the inclusion of all shapes, colours and ages of women is more feminist than the mass produced(usually by other women) mainstream media.