Is feminism a dirty word?

gladrags · 05-10-2014 02:29AM

Depends on what you mean by dirty.

It can be controversial,I cannot see how it can be related to prostitution.

For example,what about male prostitution?

And where does this leave same sex prostitution,and child prostitution?

I would have thought that feminism has a broader berth.

Gender also enters into the equation,and of course the genetic role.

And then there is culture, as in the male female role in society.

COYVB · 05-10-2014 02:52AM

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Women are given the illusion of having power and nothing more. That's simply what works.

That's not exclusive to women, but rather the vasts majority of the world's population, regardless of gender

DEFTLEFTHAND · 05-10-2014 02:56AM

Nietzsche said that that big cats work the natural order, Males on top, females raise the young and lead much harder lives.

Big cats are like humans.

Yurt2 · 05-10-2014 03:00AM

Minera wrote: »

Is it not possible that the women interviewing for the position are very capable of the job and are hired on merit rather than diversity, what proof is there to back your claim? At the end of the day 2 people of opposite sex both same qualifications and experience, and one gets the job over the other is it one did a better interview or have they been hired because they are male or female?

In my own professional life I can point to two instances where blatantly superior male candidates were passed over in order to balance out the gender imbalance at the top end of the company (which is not to say the females were poor candidates, just obviously not the best) . Many times of course I have seen females promoted on merit, but this happens all the time, it's not news. HR in companies are always under pressure to hire and push females, and this is particularly true of industries that simply have a dearth of female candidates. Engineering being an obvious one.

As I said, this attitude is orthodoxy, it's all around you. Witness the cabinet reshuffle where the usual suspects wanted answers as to why there was so few female junior ministers/ministers. The question should be, why isn't politics attracting female talent? I don't know, women make different choices. It's not the patriarchy. I remember the political societies in my University, far more males taking part than females. Females weren't drawn to it. Now we're facing down the barrell the spectre of quotas *shudder* in poltics.

I don't know about you, but I'm not comfortable with affirmative action ministers in charge of any portfolio. We should get the best person in charge of the portfolio full stop, be they male/female/transgender/whatever.

When you mess with a merit based process in anything you end up with a poorer outcomes.

Tarzana · 05-10-2014 03:03AM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Nietzsche said that that big cats work the natural order, Males on top, females raise the young and lead much harder lives.

Big cats are like humans.

:pac:

DEFTLEFTHAND · 05-10-2014 03:19AM

Tarzana wrote: »

:pac:

Dominant males control things and set agendas, the natural order. Rational male minds. Logic over Emotion.

cdoherty86 · 05-10-2014 03:31AM

COYVB wrote: »

That's not exclusive to women, but rather the vasts majority of the world's population, regardless of gender

That's true but it's more true for women.

The biggest hoax of all is women believing they have any power at all.

Trotsky IS smiling in his grave at women talking about the virtues of prostitution, pole dancing..etc because it's basically slavery, something he advocated.

He'd say to himself with a big grin "Hmmm..hehe"

COYVB · 05-10-2014 03:33AM

If something is true it can't be "more true" with another set of variables. It's a binary system.

You also give Trotsky too much credit.

cdoherty86 · 05-10-2014 03:41AM

COYVB wrote: »

If something is true it can't be "more true" with another set of variables. It's a binary system.

You also give Trotsky too much credit.

I think you give yourself too much credit. More over, you give the Feminist movement too much credit.

You see, people are stupid and they cling on to little ideologies like Trotsky invented.

If anyone is responsible for the exploitation of women, it's women themselves through adopting these senseless ideologies proposed by people like Trotksy.

You want to feel empowered so you think that's granted through selling your body for money?
Lady, you are evidence of your own stupidity. You want to work? You want to make money?

Well, now you have your rights to work and make money from your body. Poetic justice? Either way, Mr. Trotsky is laughing at you.

Maybe you should read his work to get a grasp of what Feminism is really all about.

The joke is on you.

COYVB · 05-10-2014 04:05AM

cdoherty86 wrote: »

you give the Feminist movement too much credit.

I give the feminist movement no credit

cdoherty86 wrote: »

You see, people are stupid and they cling on to little ideologies like Trotsky invented.

Claiming that Trotsky invented the idea of perceived equality is, quite frankly, idiotic

cdoherty86 wrote: »

If anyone is responsible for the exploitation of women, it's women themselves through adopting these senseless ideologies proposed by people like Trotksy.

And what of exploitation of women prior to Trotsky, where it was much more clear cut?

cdoherty86 wrote: »

You want to feel empowered so you think that's granted through selling your body for money?

Is that what you think all women believe?

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Lady, you are evidence of your own stupidity. You want to work? You want to make money?

Well, now you have your rights to work and make money from your body. Poetic justice? Either way, Mr. Trotsky is laughing at you.

In your world is everything a woman does prostitution? To say that that's a narrow slice of the avenues modern women take would be the understatement of the millennium

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Maybe you should read his work to get a grasp of what Feminism is really all about.

The joke is on you.

There's no joke whatsoever on me; your'e the one throwing around suppositions like me supporting feminism...

B.A._Baracus · 05-10-2014 04:17AM

It isn't a dirty word. It's a totally messed up word/concept.
I wipe my ass with feminism. Stick some of them on a sinking ship. See how many would agrue with "women and children first to the lifeboats"

05-10-2014 08:46AM

Mod

BA_Baracus and cdoherty86 do not post in this thread again please.

Pawwed Rig · 05-10-2014 11:20AM

Tarzana wrote: »

:pac:

Tarzana, we have disagreed on alot here but I share your :pac:

Personally I think our social interactions and structures are way more complicated than big cats. You would like to think intelligence brought some benefits.

Czarcasm · 05-10-2014 12:26PM

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

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

Well, that depends on what way you look at it. I mean, from a feminist perspective she's not wrong -

Men who want to fight and die for their country, who don't see themselves as victims, versus the women they leave behind who would rather that men didn't want to go to war.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

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).

Well, in her own words -

She defined being a "feminist" as favoring equal rights for women, adding, "I don't see anything controversial about that at all." She told those who think of feminism as a relic from the past: "I don't think you've lived long enough."

Source: http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140611/downtown/hillary-clinton-talks-feminism-putin-during-chicago-stop

I also think it's unfair to say she is disrespecting the millions who have died for what you call "the elites", when she has actually recently received a Lifetime Achievement Award for her work on behalf of military service personnel and their families -

Hillary Clinton received a lifetime achievement award from a group that provides support for the families of fallen military service members on Wednesday, thanking the survivors for sharing their often heart-wrenching stories and praising the organization's work.

The award was presented in New York City by the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS), a group that provides "peer-based emotional support" and "grief and trauma resources" for the families of the departed, according to its website. Clinton has previously served as the group's honorary chairwoman.

Clinton said the event was particularly "emotional" for her, according to the Associated Press, especially given the birth of her granddaughter last Friday. It was the former secretary of state's first public appearance since her daughter Chelsea gave birth to a baby girl, Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky.

Hillary Clinton on when she'll decide 2016 run

"This a great privilege, but it is also for me emotional as we celebrate the birth of our granddaughter and as I look out and see all of you who are thinking of your loved ones and the life that he or she lived," she said, according to ABC News. "It's really important to me that we never forget your loved ones and we never forget you."

Clinton nodded at her work on the Armed Services Committee when she was a senator from New York, recalling her work with TAPS and other groups to increase survivor benefits for the families of fallen service members.

"We fought, we cajoled," she said, adding that they eventually secured an increase in immediate survivor benefits from $12,000 to $100,000.

Several attendees shared their stories of loss with Clinton. One man described his nephew's frustrating experience with the Veteran's Affairs medical system, which has been buffeted this year by scandal after reports revealed crushing wait times and employee misconduct at VA facilities.

"If you run, and I hope you do, fix the VA and fix the mental health system," he said, according to Buzzfeed. "My nephew was lost, and let me tell you something...he really got screwed."

Another woman told Clinton it had been two years since her brother's suicide.

"Did he get any help at all?" Clinton asked.

"Not the right help," the woman said.

Bonnie Carroll, the president and founder of TAPS, thanked Clinton for her previous work with the group.

"We count you as family," she told Clinton," and we love you a great deal."

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-emotional-at-event-for-families-of-fallen-military/

I think while of course Hilary Clinton is a feminist, she is also a humanitarian, and I think personally, as President, she would be an inspiration for both women, and indeed men. I also like her stance on Internet neutrality -

STATEMENT OF SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON ON NET NEUTRALITY

Washington, DC – “I support net neutrality. The open architecture of the Internet has been the critical element that has made it the most revolutionary communications medium since the advent of the television.

Each day on the Internet views are discussed and debated in an open forum without fear of censorship or reprisal. The Internet as we know it does not discriminate among its users. It does not decide who can enter its marketplace and it does not pick which views can be heard and which ones silenced. It is the embodiment of the fundamental democratic principles upon which our nation has thrived for hundreds of years.

I have always, and will continue to strongly and unequivocally support these principles. As I have worked throughout my Senate career to make broadband access readily available throughout New York State and our nation, I believe that maintaining an open Internet coupled with more broadband access is necessary if we are to meet the promise and the potential of the Internet to disseminate ideas and information, enhance learning, education and business opportunities for all Americans and improve and uplift our citizenry.

We must embrace an open and non-discriminatory framework for the Internet of the 21st century. Therefore, it is my intention to be an original cosponsor of the Dorgan and Snowe net neutrality legislation to ensure that open, unimpaired and unencumbered Internet access for both its users and content providers is preserved as Congress debates the overhaul of our nation’s telecommunications laws. Any effort to fundamentally alter the inherently democratic structure of the Internet must be rejected.

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20070922161035/http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Senator_Clinton_to_cosponsor_Internet_neutrality_0518.html

Minera · 05-10-2014 12:37PM

Yurt! wrote: »

In my own professional life I can point to two instances where blatantly superior male candidates were passed over in order to balance out the gender imbalance at the top end of the company (which is not to say the females were poor candidates, just obviously not the best) . Many times of course I have seen females promoted on merit, but this happens all the time, it's not news. HR in companies are always under pressure to hire and push females, and this is particularly true of industries that simply have a dearth of female candidates. Engineering being an obvious one.

As I said, this attitude is orthodoxy, it's all around you. Witness the cabinet reshuffle where the usual suspects wanted answers as to why there was so few female junior ministers/ministers. The question should be, why isn't politics attracting female talent? I don't know, women make different choices. It's not the patriarchy. I remember the political societies in my University, far more males taking part than females. Females weren't drawn to it. Now we're facing down the barrell the spectre of quotas *shudder* in poltics.

I don't know about you, but I'm not comfortable with affirmative action ministers in charge of any portfolio. We should get the best person in charge of the portfolio full stop, be they male/female/transgender/whatever.

When you mess with a merit based process in anything you end up with a poorer outcomes.

I hate that this possibly/ probably true, and I'm understanding that maybe this is where the hatred of the word feminism comes from, that and abuse of power from popular or supposed iconic feminists! This needs to change.
It's pretty much the opposite of what I believe feminism is about!

The other posts relating to men losing power or becoming the underdog especially with regards the legal system why are men and mens groups not fighting harder for equality? Is there a fear of being labelled in an unfavourable light like feminists or a lack of interest? As in it doesn't affect me right now therefore I don't care.
I know the media coverage for mens rights is minimal but why not change that?
Feminists especially extreme feminist shout very loudly to be heard and use all avenues to get their message across!

osarusan · 05-10-2014 12:48PM

The problem with 'feminism', like 'liberal' or 'conservative' or many other words, is that lots of people use it to describe themselves or their principles.

Of course, the people describing themselves as feminists often have very different principles, and they will think that these people who don't share their principles shouldn't be called 'feminist' at all.

Certainly, those with the wackiest/most extreme principles get a lot of attention, and people who don't pay too much attention might conclude that they are representative of feminists in general. That's when it becomes a dirty word.

Carlos Orange · 05-10-2014 01:04PM

Minera wrote: »

I'll hold my hand up I don't know anything about the engineering field or work places so I've no idea what the system around it is like. But I really cannot believe that a woman should be chosen for the simple fact that she is a woman! I'm not twisting the debate here but if that is the case why a men not standing up and saying so?
IMO it's a sexist move to hire a woman because she is just that!

If feminists are pushing for 50% of engineers to be women and only 10-20% of engineering graduates are female then it is pretty inevitable that an applicants gender will play a role in whether they are hired or not. To a great or lesser extent.

osarusan · 05-10-2014 01:05PM

Minera wrote: »

I
The other posts relating to men losing power or becoming the underdog especially with regards the legal system why are men and mens groups not fighting harder for equality? Is there a fear of being labelled in an unfavourable light like feminists or a lack of interest? As in it doesn't affect me right now therefore I don't care.
I know the media coverage for mens rights is minimal but why not change that?

Why not change it indeed. There are people trying to change it, including people who would identify as feminists.

But that doesn't mean that it isn't legitimate criticism of some feminists, who claim to work for equality in everything, yet are notably silent on issues such as the above.

Slot Machine · 05-10-2014 02:14PM

Minera wrote: »

I know the media coverage for mens rights is minimal but why not change that?
Feminists especially extreme feminist shout very loudly to be heard and use all avenues to get their message across!

I'd prefer not to pass any judgement on MRAs but I can't really make my point without doing so.

There's a lot of bull**** to it. A lot of misogynists among the MRA ranks. That's basically why media coverage can't be raised: the extremist feminists are taken as the mainstream and create a culture where all men who declare themselves as MRAs are sidelined because they, ironically, hold up MRA extremists as being their face.

Now, MRAs do have something to answer for in not rooting out their own extremists but it can't all be one-sided.

gladrags · 05-10-2014 02:14PM

"The biological differences between men and women result from two processes: sex determination and differentiation.(3) The biological process of sex determination controls whether the male or female sexual differentiation pathway will be followed. The process of biological sex differentiation (development of a given sex) involves many genetically regulated, hierarchical developmental steps. More than 95% of the Y chromosome is male-specific (4) and a single copy of the Y chromosome is able to induce testicular differentiation of the embryonic gonad. The Y chromosome acts as a dominant inducer of male phenotype and individuals having four X chromosomes and one Y chromosome (49XXXXY) are phenotypically male. (5) When a Y chromosome is present, early embryonic testes develop around the 10th week of pregnancy. In the absence of both a Y chromosome and the influence of a testis-determining factor (TDF), ovaries develop.

Gender, typically described in terms of masculinity and femininity, is a social construction that varies across different cultures and over time. (6) There are a number of cultures, for example, in which greater gender diversity exists and sex and gender are not always neatly divided along binary lines such as male and female or homosexual and heterosexual. The Berdache in North America, the fa’afafine (Samoan for “the way of a woman”) in the Pacific, and the kathoey in Thailand are all examples of different gender categories that differ from the traditional Western division of people into males and females. Further, among certain North American native communities, gender is seen more in terms of a continuum than categories, with special acknowledgement of “two-spirited” people who encompass both masculine and feminine qualities and characteristics. It is apparent, then, that different cultures have taken different approaches to creating gender distinctions, with more or less recognition of fluidity and complexity "

As mentioned earlier feminism is gene based.

Males and females have 46 chromosomes each,in every cell of the human body.

The male has one sex chromosome the y.
(46Xy)
Female has an X sex chromosome.
(46XX)

05-10-2014 03:03PM

osarusan wrote: »

The problem with 'feminism', like 'liberal' or 'conservative' or many other words, is that lots of people use it to describe themselves or their principles.

Of course, the people describing themselves as feminists often have very different principles, and they will think that these people who don't share their principles shouldn't be called 'feminist' at all.

Certainly, those with the wackiest/most extreme principles get a lot of attention, and people who don't pay too much attention might conclude that they are representative of feminists in general. That's when it becomes a dirty word.

Well said. I have no problem describing myself as a feminist or a liberal, because I believe in equality .However that doesn't mean I agree with everything that every self-defined feminist or liberal says - nobody possibly could.

Tarzana · 05-10-2014 03:08PM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Dominant males control things and set agendas, the natural order. Rational male minds. Logic over Emotion.

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

S.L.F · 05-10-2014 03:23PM

Tarzana wrote: »

Look at the restrictions women faced in Ireland even just 30 years ago. Across class.

Gee look at the restrictions placed on men too.

How about this one?

Erin Pizzey (who started the UK domestic abuse refuges) recently posted on her wall that from 7am onwards her and her children used to watch the men going off to work while she and the children were free to do whatever they wanted all day.

Men are wage slaves.

Society only values men from what we can produce.

The 'glass basement' is full to over flowing with men who were not able to produce.

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Not to mention gender is a 'social construct'.

Women were always oppressed (never mind the fact that men were oppressed worse than they were and happened to be right beside them when they were being oppressed).

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

They shift goal posts, change the subject, make strawman arguments and talk about specific cases instead of talking about all cases.

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

If a woman decides to hand her kid up for adoption no one bats an eyelid.

Where are men's reproductive rights?

Why should a man not be able to say, sorry I don't want to be a father and just completely opt out of fatherhood rather than have 18 years of financial slavery at a woman's whim?

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

A better question would be to ask the one I ask which is why on Earth do people even bother to employ men at all if it is so much cheaper to employ women?

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

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

One of our first Cabinet Ministers was a woman in 1918.

She was condemned to death along with the 1916 Rising leaders but was spared the death penalty because they wanted her to continue being oppressed.

Wibbs wrote: »

+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.

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

And of course the glass basement.

We men have been increasing our % of one particular field......Suicide.

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

In the Men's Human Rights Movement women are treated like adults.

Edit:- Wibbs I should point out that i am in complete agreement with you

S.L.F · 05-10-2014 03:26PM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Dominant males control things and set agendas, the natural order. Rational male minds. Logic over Emotion.

Not to mention they usually do whatever it is women want them to.

banquo · 05-10-2014 03:45PM

The entire conversation is warped, I think that's most anti-feminist's take on it.

Czarcasm · 05-10-2014 03:47PM

S.L.F wrote: »

In the Men's Human Rights Movement women are treated like adults.

By men who behave like petulant children, coming out with this sort of nonsense -

S.L.F wrote: »

Not to mention they usually do whatever it is women want them to.

The MRM are a backlash against feminism, it's really that simple. I like the "Men's Human Rights Movement" bit you added in there though, as if that's supposed to make MRAs more palatable. It doesn't. My issue with MRAs is that they seem more interested in "It's all them feminists getting everything, it's all their fault men have nothing", and they spend more time and resources spouting that same nonsense, than they ever actually get around to actually doing anything to advocate for men with regard to issues that affect men, as opposed to just pointing out all that they see as wrong in feminism.

S.L.F · 05-10-2014 04:34PM

gladrags wrote: »

Gender, typically described in terms of masculinity and femininity, is a social construction that varies across different cultures and over time.

This is where common sense and feminism collide.

Gender is what we are born with not from social construct but from how femininity and masculinity make us

S.L.F · 05-10-2014 04:41PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

By men who behave like petulant children, coming out with this sort of nonsense -

You see you've assumed that all MRAs are male and you'd be wrong

Czarcasm wrote: »

The MRM are a backlash against feminism, it's really that simple. I like the "Men's Human Rights Movement" bit you added in there though, as if that's supposed to make MRAs more palatable. It doesn't. My issue with MRAs is that they seem more interested in "It's all them feminists getting everything, it's all their fault men have nothing", and they spend more time and resources spouting that same nonsense, than they ever actually get around to actually doing anything to advocate for men with regard to issues that affect men, as opposed to just pointing out all that they see as wrong in feminism.

The MHRM is there because it is very obvious that men are badly treated by society not because of feminism.

If you spent some time looking at the movement with an unbiased eye you'd know that.

We cannot speak about men's rights unless we talk about the biggest opponent to the MHRM which happens to be feminism.

For clarity....You don't need to be a feminist to believe in equal rights for women.

S.L.F · 05-10-2014 04:44PM

Is feminism an equal rights movement which believes in equality between the genders?

Czarcasm · 05-10-2014 05:27PM

S.L.F wrote: »

You see you've assumed that all MRAs are male and you'd be wrong

You see you've assumed that I assumed all MRAs are male. Read what I said again. You said MRAs treat women as adults, and then you come out with your next post, which directly contradicts what you just said. Your comment was indeed petulant and childish.

I never made any assumptions about women in the MRA movement (in fact there are plenty of women here on Boards who support and advocate for men's rights).

The MHRM is there because it is very obvious that men are badly treated by society not because of feminism.

I wouldn't say it's all that obvious at all actually, partially because MRAs (I'll call a spade a spade) only exist like I said as a backlash to women advocating for equal rights for women. MRAs only exist to deny the existence of inequalities, moreso than highlighting issues that affect men.

In case you hadn't noticed, men are part of that society you speak of, but MRAs like to point the finger at feminism and claim what they have is "legitimate criticism" rather than concentrate their efforts on advocating for men. A classic example is pointing out that "feminists don't advocate for equal custodial sentences for women". Well, why would they? That would be stupid. Why do MRAs not advocate for lesser custodial sentences for men instead?

I'll tell you why - because it's easier to point fingers and blame someone else, than it is to actually take responsibility for an issue that affects men and actually DO something about it!

If you spent some time looking at the movement with an unbiased eye you'd know that.

You assume wrong. It's because I actually have spent quite an amount of time examining and studying both movements that I have very little time for either movement in their modern incarnations (I've already said as much earlier on in this thread).

We cannot speak about men's rights unless we talk about the biggest opponent to the MHRM which happens to be feminism men themselves, who want nothing to do with MRAs.

Fixed that for you there.

For clarity....You don't need to be a feminist to believe in equal rights for women.

For even greater clarity - there's a world of a difference between:

- Women's Rights
- Equal rights and opportunities for women
- Gender equality

And I don't even have to be a feminist or an MRA to be able to tell the difference.

Is feminism a dirty word?

Comments