Is feminism a dirty word?

Czarcasm wrote: »

You can, that's the whole point of feminism - equal rights and opportunities for women where they do not have the same rights and opportunities as men.

But that definition has nothing to do with equality, and is different to most definitions of feminism that I've come across.
The style of feminism you describe is a women's supremacist group.
Where the group wants the advantages of both genders without any of the drawbacks.

Feminists do not use the term equality, or even gender equality.

Oh yes they do.
They even go to the point of telling us that there's no need for men's rights groups because they have equality covered.
Here's a snippet from the first feminist website that came into my head.

The Irish Feminist Network is an organisation committed to promoting gender equality in Ireland.

Equality: We wish to advance equality in all spheres of Irish society.

Solidarity: We wish to work toward increased gender equality....

Progressiveness: We wish to form a focal point for feminists of all gender identities who seek the introduction of positive and progressive measures for the achievement of gender equality both in Ireland and abroad.

If the feminists movement is just about women's rights, then it needs to stop using words such as equal, equality and gender equality as they are misleading people.

Czarcasm wrote: »

You understand that people who identify as feminist are not a hive mind though? That's why I said earlier in the thread that this sort of individualistic self-identification can lead to confusion for many people, because a person can number any amount of social injustices that mean something to them, and cosy it all in under the umbrella of 'feminism'. That's why I say all these terms have lost all their meaning and any common understanding, with the net result that the movement is a diluted mess. For what it's worth though, I'll stick with Hillary Clinton's definition of feminism -








No, 'supremacist' implies that feminists want more rights than men. They don't. They want equal rights to men, and the same opportunities for women, as those afforded to men. No movement wants drawbacks, they all want more rights for their gender they advocate for. In practical terms of course, that means that feminists in this country are fighting for their right to abortion. Do men need a right to abortion too? Of course they don't.

What men need, are a different set of reproductive rights. See now where the whole 'equal rights' and 'gender equality' falls flat on it's arse? Because both genders are different, they have different needs, ergo, both genders have to fight for different rights.

Giving up rights, gets nobody anywhere.





Yeah, I understand you personally aren't saying that, as it was pretty much the message put out by Emma Watson. It's obviously something I find completely absurd, and completely disagree with. In the same way as you will have feminists who decry 'mansplaining', to hear a feminist 'invite' men to join them was a bit... ehh, well, in the same way as some women will outright tell men they don't know how women think - that goes both ways.

The problem though, is that not everyone sees it that way, as there is no gender neutral hive mind. People think whatever way they want, regardless of where they keep their cohones (metaphorically speaking, obviously! I like strong willed women!)





Precisely. Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, that requires a hive mind among feminists which in reality just doesn't exist. This is what's causing the lack of any real movement among these movements, because there's no solidified cohesion among them, and most people only sees their own individual needs and wants, rather than forming any sort of an alliance among themselves, because they're afraid of leaving anyone out and being criticised for it.

question 1 = are you male

question 2 = if you are , are you a masochist or just racked with guilt because only one two conditions can explain why a man would support a toxic idealogy like feminism

the rise of feminism makes me reluctant to ever have a son

Czarcasm wrote: »

as your son is unlikely ever to be affected by women advocating for women's rights.

Let's hope he never has a custody battle.

too_little wrote: »

the rise of feminism makes me reluctant to ever have a son

Hope you don't go in for sex-selective abortion. You'd be unusual in aborting solely because the sex was male, it usually works the other way. Female feticide is killing upwards of one million females in India annually, and surprisingly, to me anyway, it is more common among the rich/educated. Maybe you don't want a son, but I have daughters that have to live in a world that values women so little that they are sometimes not even give a chance to be born.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Question: What are you doing to change that?

That is precisely the problem, movements like feminism are needed because these are issues that primarily affect women/girls, and they need to organise on a global scale.

Czarcasm wrote: »

You can, that's the whole point of feminism - equal rights and opportunities for women where they do not have the same rights and opportunities as men.

Feminism does not concern itself with advocating for equal rights and opportunities for men.

Since feminists all have different ideas on what feminism is then what you've just said is all nonsense.

In Ireland what rights and privileges do men have that women do not have

Czarcasm wrote: »

You can't 'downgrade' a persons rights, that's exactly what people who claim to be egalitarian want. The whole purpose of these movements is to increase rights and opportunities for the people they advocate for.

You can't downgrade a person's rights however you can give someone extra 'privileges' at the expense of others.

This is what feminists fight for.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I think people are mixing up feminists and feminazis

Yes ordinary feminists are just women with the illusion that feminism has something to do with equality.

Femnazis are the ones who direct the feminist hate ideology.

Czarcasm wrote: »

You understand that people who identify as feminist are not a hive mind though? That's why I said earlier in the thread that this sort of individualistic self-identification can lead to confusion for many people, because a person can number any amount of social injustices that mean something to them, and cosy it all in under the umbrella of 'feminism'. That's why I say all these terms have lost all their meaning and any common understanding, with the net result that the movement is a diluted mess. For what it's worth though, I'll stick with Hillary Clinton's definition of feminism -

As long as the feminist movement is lead by the likes of Hillary Clinton we just know we are going to hell in a handbag.

Czarcasm wrote: »

No, 'supremacist' implies that feminists want more rights than men. They don't. They want equal rights to men, and the same opportunities for women, as those afforded to men. No movement wants drawbacks, they all want more rights for their gender they advocate for. In practical terms of course, that means that feminists in this country are fighting for their right to abortion. Do men need a right to abortion too? Of course they don't.

They already have all the rights.

Feminists want more privileges at the expense of men.

If a woman and a man get together and she gets pregnant.

If she decides to have the child, he will have no say in the matter.

If she decides she do take the morning after pill, he will have no say in the matter.

If she decides to have an abortion , he will have no say in the matter.

If she decides she wants to put the child up for adoption, he will have no say in the matter.

Czarcasm wrote: »

What men need, are a different set of reproductive rights. See now where the whole 'equal rights' and 'gender equality' falls flat on it's arse? Because both genders are different, they have different needs, ergo, both genders have to fight for different rights.

Giving up rights, gets nobody anywhere.

What men need is the right to 'opt out' of fatherhood if they so desire.

What more rights do feminists need before they are satisfied?

Czarcasm wrote: »

The problem though, is that not everyone sees it that way, as there is no gender neutral hive mind. People think whatever way they want, regardless of where they keep their cohones (metaphorically speaking, obviously! I like strong willed women!)

I like strong willed women as well which is why I detest most whiney feminists,

If you like strong willed women then you'd love the women in the Men's Human Rights Movement.

The amount of sheer hatred they receive from feminists is staggering and still they beaver on.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Precisely. Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, that requires a hive mind among feminists which in reality just doesn't exist. This is what's causing the lack of any real movement among these movements, because there's no solidified cohesion among them, and most people only sees their own individual needs and wants, rather than forming any sort of an alliance among themselves, because they're afraid of leaving anyone out and being criticised for it.

You'd be incorrect, feminism is being lead by a small few women.

Czarcasm wrote: »

You'd obviously win that bet. Of course your sisters aren't alone, but they can only represent what feminism means to them. I'm sure that because they're not alone, they could actually achieve something if they were part of a collective, that had their same idealism in mind... and that's where the problem sets in - as soon as they go outside their own little circle of two, they start meeting other people who have their own ideas about what feminism means to them, ergo - they really can't agree among themselves what they stand for, and who they represent, because they're trying to include everyone, both women and men, and realistically, the whole thing becomes a mess of some very mixed up ideologies that lack any proper focus and direction.

The problem with this post is it fuddles the fact that feminism is for an individual a personal thing but the ideology of feminism is being lead by a small group of women.

Czarcasm wrote: »

That's some binary thinking you've got there, because you haven't accounted for the condition that I am neither a masochist, nor a feminist, nor an apologist for my gender, nor do I see feminism as a toxic ideology. I think there are certain elements within the feminist movement that create the perception of a toxic ideology (I'm sure your sisters aren't part of that toxic element), but feminism itself is actually a good thing for women. Unfortunately, it's been tainted by that rather unsavoury minority that claims to represent feminism, which is a bad thing for women.

Feminism is an appalling thing for any mother who has a son

The unsavory minority are the ones who lead the ideology.

Czarcasm wrote: »

I have one myself, they're great craic, wouldn't have one had it not been for a woman, as it happens! I wouldn't let feminism put you off, as your son is unlikely ever to be affected by women advocating for women's rights. Perhaps your son might concentrate on advocating for men's rights as a separate ideology apart from women's rights, and then whether you had a son or a daughter, it wouldn't really matter - your daughter would have more rights and opportunities as a woman, and your son would have more rights and opportunities as a man!

Clarification.

Feminism has nothing to do with women's rights.

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

What's the general opinion from feminists with regards to violence and self defence with men? I'm not talking about domestic violence but in cases where a man and woman have an argument and the woman escalates it to physical violence and hits the man. Are feminists in full support of the man exercising his rights to defend himself and hit her back? Or do they want it to be possible for women to have no repercussions for physically hitting another person?

And to any men in here willing to give their opinions on this topic. If you witnessed a woman punching the man, would you automatically side with the woman and attempt to defend her?

According to feminists it is only a tiny minority of cases, in spite of there being a wealth of evidence which says other wise.

I believe the standard response is men should not defend themselves and that they should just walk away.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Well in my experience at least, tbh, there are no winners in custody battles. They are a long, drawn out mess, that can have detrimental effects on both the emotional and mental well being of all the parties involved, and are never as simple as they appear to be, regardless of whom the Courts grant primary care. The focus of custody battles as you know is to decide what is in the best interests of the children, not the adults.

I believe across the Western world something like 86% of custody battles are won by mothers.

Here is Ireland it is even worse for men and children.

SoupMonster wrote: »

Hope you don't go in for sex-selective abortion. You'd be unusual in aborting solely because the sex was male, it usually works the other way. Female feticide is killing upwards of one million females in India annually, and surprisingly, to me anyway, it is more common among the rich/educated. Maybe you don't want a son, but I have daughters that have to live in a world that values women so little that they are sometimes not even give a chance to be born.

The reason that girls are aborted in India is simple.

They cost far more money than boys do.

When they get married there has to be a dowry given with them.

They are not obligated to provide for their family either whereas males are which is why boys are educated and girls are not.

The only way to change the carnage is for the dowry laws to be scrapped and for women to be made responsible for providing for families as much as men are.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Circumcision potentially denies someone the potential to experience as good an orgasm as someone who hasn't been circumcised.

The bottom line is that boys and girls should be treated absolutely equally and all laws should be gender neutral. So there's no such thing as female anything by law - either genital mutilation should be illegal or it shouldn't. Otherwise the law is by definition discriminatory, in the same way as I find the term "violence against women" discriminatory. An action is either wrong or it isn't. The gender of the action's subject does not have any bearing on how wrong an action is.

Have you read the Istanbul Convention?

If you need an idea of how nasty feminism is this set of principles which the Irish government plans to ratify should give you nightmares.

S.L.F wrote: »

Have you read the Istanbul Convention?

If you need an idea of how nasty feminism is this set of principles which the Irish government plans to ratify should give you nightmares.

Just read it, wish I hadn't.
It amazes me that feminists persistently refuse to acknowledge the (in my view) obvious sexism inherent in a term such as "violence against women". It's so fundamental and in my view so obvious, and yet the term persists in usage by a movement which claims to seek equality.

In an equal society, violence would be violence and the demographic of the victim would not be considered a factor in any capacity whatsoever.

S.L.F wrote: »

The reason that girls are aborted in India is simple.

They cost far more money than boys do.

When they get married there has to be a dowry given with them.

They are not obligated to provide for their family either whereas males are which is why boys are educated and girls are not.

The only way to change the carnage is for the dowry laws to be scrapped and for women to be made responsible for providing for families as much as men are.

And for Indian men to be made as responsible for the non-revenue generating caring roles the Indian women are doing whilst the men are providing for them?
Should MRAs then be advocating for Indian men to do more caring so their wives and daughters can get educated, enter the workforce and not face discrimination for being able to have children?* For unpaid caring to be as valued as paid employment? Perhaps MRAs could go all-out Marxist and lobby for these caring tasks to be recognised as units of production and compensated accordingly. I'm not as well versed in MRA literature but it seems unfair to expect feminists to lobby for Indian men in the name of gender equality if MRAs are fairly quiet on the subject.

*This might illuminate your earlier points about women getting the final decision over abortion vs. childbirth. I could potentially agree with your argument about mens' choices re paper abortions if all the consequences of child rearing were socialised (which in itself might gain criticism for favouring one gender or the state intervening too much) but I agree with you re adoption point.

Tarzana wrote: »

FGM COMPLETELY takes away the experience for many women. Not neutering the orgasm slightly, completely removing the chance to have one.

Also, FGM is more invasive. I'm against both, but male circumcision is more superficial.

There is more than 1 type of FGM. Some are less invasive than others. All are barbaric as is MGM (circumcision).

Tarzana wrote: »

FGM COMPLETELY takes away the experience for many women. Not neutering the orgasm slightly, completely removing the chance to have one.

http://www.womenonwaves.org/en/page/4715/sexual-pleasure-after-female-genital-mutilation

The phrasing is a little confusing but it sounds like female genital mutilation generally doesn't impact on the ability to orgasm. The other complications listed seem like pretty sufficient reasons not to be doing it.

Potatoeman wrote: »

I was talking to a Chinese friend that pointed out that people do want girls but given that a son is financially responsible for his parents and a daughter is a financial responsibility to her parents many people simply cant afford to have a daughter as an only child. Parents can sue their sons if they are not providing suitable care for their parents.

Daughters have also been sued for failing to provide appropriate care.

I won't presume to know more about this than your Chinese friend. I'm assuming they're talking about filial piety which does confer (usually financial) responsibilities to eldest sons and also advantages such as Pre and post mortem inheritance rights.

Frito wrote: »

And for Indian men to be made as responsible for the non-revenue generating caring roles the Indian women are doing whilst the men are providing for them?
Should MRAs then be advocating for Indian men to do more caring so their wives and daughters can get educated, enter the workforce and not face discrimination for being able to have children?* For unpaid caring to be as valued as paid employment? Perhaps MRAs could go all-out Marxist and lobby for these caring tasks to be recognised as units of production and compensated accordingly. I'm not as well versed in MRA literature but it seems unfair to expect feminists to lobby for Indian men in the name of gender equality if MRAs are fairly quiet on the subject.

Most MRAs in various countries are very small operations, we have to pick and choose our battles with care.

Simply we MRAs want more fairness from govt, media and society for men for a whole range of issues from parenthood, employment, safety, justice + family courts plus lots of other stuff.

Frito wrote: »

*This might illuminate your earlier points about women getting the final decision over abortion vs. childbirth. I could potentially agree with your argument about mens' choices re paper abortions if all the consequences of child rearing were socialised (which in itself might gain criticism for favouring one gender or the state intervening too much) but I agree with you re adoption point.

Essentially men have no choices compared to what women get.

I saw a news report of a dentist who was given a blow job by a woman who then kept his sperm and used it to make herself pregnant with his child.

The Judge said it was a gift so she could use it which ever way she wanted.

I wonder if he'd given her a gun and she killed someone would he have been jailed for that.