Is feminism a dirty word?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

This is AH, so I claim the right to make a point without doing a great deal of research, and having authoritative citations.

It seems to me that the areas where it is claimed that men are disadvantaged vis-a-vis women include:
- women getting sole or primary custody of children where a relationship breaks down;
- violence by women on men being regarded less seriously by violence by men on women;
- women found guilty of offences often being treated more leniently than men.

I am quite willing to believe all these things happen, and where they happen, men are relatively disadvantaged by society.

These things are rooted in society (and, in particular, the justice system) being shaped by a patriarchal mindset, the same type of patriarchal mindset that in many other manifestations leads to women being disadvantaged.

A good feminist (and I would like to think that in my own small way I am a good feminist) would be willing to recognise the hardships imposed on some men by such attitudes.

But people generally fight one battle at a time. A woman who believes that she is disadvantaged in her desire for career advancement by her employer's policies or practices might address the problem that affects her directly, before she pays any attention to an alleged injustice in a child custody case involving people that she does not know. Should she not have career concerns, and should the aggrieved male parent be her brother, she might take on a different battle.

If we really lived in a patriarchal society then men would receive more lenient sentences than women, they would be given custody of the children if they so desired, they would get more funding in health care etc The idea that a patriarchal system disadvantages men at all is ludicrous and a tool of feminism to argue. "But that's not true because patriarchy!" It doesn't exist in Ireland or any 1st world country!

Yurt! wrote: »

That's doublespeak, the movement to close women's prisons is at the mainstream of feminism and prominent feminists (not least in Ireland as pointed out) advocate for alternatives to incarceration for women alone. Silence on incarceration rates for men and male conditions in prisons. According to them females are uniquely effected by incarceration. A complete nonsense when one considers the far more brutalizing conditions that males face and the disparity in sentencing for the same crimes.

Again still can't post links but there's a multitude of eye opening literature on what feminists say about criminology and incarceration.

If you're a feminist, you have a duty to speak out on this. Because prominent feminists are taking your voice. If self identify as a feminist and disagree then SAY SO.

If this is what feminism has become, you'll have to forgive people who refuse to think in such a linear fashion who want little to do with the movement.

I literally did SAY SO in this very thread. Furthermore, I don't know a single person who would argue that a woman who committed, say, armed burglary, should get less of a sentence than her male accomplice, simply because she's a woman. And I know a lot of feminists, male and female.

Maybe ye need to stop getting mad at the academic feminists that are varying degrees of kinda nutty but quite few in number, and get to know a few of us regular feminists who share the bus to work with you and stuff.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Non-feminists who think that saying you're for equality while only focusing on female issues and actual feminists who genuinely believe feminism is about equality between genders. Just giving you the answer

There is more to it than that.

An anti-feminist like myself detests feminism because the finger of blame has been pointed towards men solely for all the problems of the world.

Google "Toxic masculinity" or "White male privilege" or any of the other catch phrases feminists use to put men down for just being men.

iwantmydinner wrote: »

From what I see, that's actually the vast majority of ordinary, every day feminists.

None of who have the slightest bit of power to change a damn thing however the man hating leaders of the feminist movement do have power.

Minera wrote: »

This is what I was trying to say earlier not all us feminists are extreme man haters. The majority of feminists (that I've met) only want change, maybe not just for equality but for men (not all are the same I know) who think nothing of being misogynistic!

There are 2 kinds of feminist.

Feminists who know what feminism is all about....they are called radfems (radical feminists)

Then there are feminists who say all the right words believe all the nonsense have literally no power beyond labeling themselves as feminists....they are called useful idiots.

iwantmydinner wrote: »

You can literally name on one hand (two, at a stretch) the number of people who you've heard say they want women convicted of crimes to get away without jail time.

Personally, I think the focus should be on reform of the sentencing/prison system as a whole. Most sensible people I know share that view.

There is a charity in the UK who strive to get women who kill their partners off the hook.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

What's with the dismissive tone? It's an expression of a patriarchal set of values - that women are the child-carers, that wrongs perpetrated by women are less heinous because they are regarded as aberrations, that women need to be cared for by men.

There's more to this than meets the eye.

Before feminism started...when a couple split up the man got the children and all the bills.

After feminism started...when a couple split up the woman got the children and the man still has to pay all the bills.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I haven't got numbers (nor, I suspect, has anybody else) but I am confident that some feminists are as opposed to such discriminisation as they are to other forms of discrimination.

I can tell you the numbers now.

The ordinary Joan Soap feminists will care and tell people about it

The ones in charge.......not a single one

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And feminists are opposed to patriarchal models: it's one of the constant themes of feminist debate.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So when the patriarchal model determines that women are unsuited to politics, to business leadership, or to taking on some skilled (and well-rewarded) jobs, women are winning there too?

Patriarchy is a two-sided coin: whichever way it falls, there are losers as well as winners.

Patriarchy is a system of society where women are looked after.

Men are obligated to look after women.

Exactly what things are stopping women from raising to the CEO positions on boards across the world?

In Ireland one of out very first cabinet ministers was a woman.

In Ireland men and women got to vote on our first elections in 1918.

Patriarchy is worse for men than it is for women.

So I agree lets make everything equal.

Men will look after themselves, women can look after themselves too no more gender quotas.

Let's make this a dog eat dog world.

osarusan wrote: »

You are looking at it too simply. Patriarchy doesn't mean everything is just better for men, it means that things are decided according to how men think things should be.

Patriarchy came from a thing called division of labour.

However the illusion from feminists is that men never listen to what it is women say.

osarusan wrote: »

I mean, the issues of custody and lenient sentencing haven't come about as a result of feminists making the decisions, they predate feminism by a long way. The laws were made by men, who thought that women were better carers for children, and that they were gentle souls who shouldn't be sent away for as long as the tough, hardy men.

Erm no the reason women get off more easily than men do is because women have always been privileged.

Women don't have to work to provide for their children that responsibility always fell on men.

osarusan wrote: »

Whatever about the argument that feminism plays a role in these inequalities continuing to exist, I don't think you can make that argument about the origins of the inequalities.

What feminism is about is getting extra privileges for women on top of the ones they already have.

If you want to consider child custody cases from the time of Jane Austen, then you should also consider what divorce was like in the time of Jane Austen: it required a "Private Act of Parliament", something that was available only to the wealthy and well-connected - the so-called upper echelons of society where neither parent was heavily-involved in childcare, employing nannies and governesses, and sending children away to school at a very young age. It's difficult to make that relevant to today's debates about childcare.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/relationships/overview/divorce/

[It is interesting to note that the conditions for granting a divorce were different for men and women (in addition to the disadvantage many women suffered through not having the funds to advance their cases): "Divorce was granted by Parliament only for adultery. Wives could only initiate a divorce Bill if the adultery was compounded by life-threatening cruelty."]

Wibbs wrote: »

It's funny how in this and other western "patriarchal" societies women on average live longer...

Has that anything to do with our society having patriarchal values? Or might it be genetic? Or might it be that men buy into the "men are stronger and tougher" notion that is often a concomitant of patriarchal thinking, and are neglectful of their health?

I don't know the answers, so I would not use longevity data to support any argument I make in this area.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Has that anything to do with our society having patriarchal values? Or might it be genetic? Or might it be that men buy into the "men are stronger and tougher" notion that is often a concomitant of patriarchal thinking, and are neglectful of their health?

I don't know the answers, so I would not use longevity data to support any argument I make in this area.

According to the WHO women live 4 years longer than men.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs334/en/

There are some interesting stats on why.

And very shocking stats...

"Almost all (99%) of the approximate 287 000 maternal deaths every year occur in developing countries"

Hereditary could be associated with longevity in women.

Wibbs wrote: »

That wasn't my point, but anyway it doesn't, because Ireland isn't particularly patriarchal at all. I would argue it hasn't been for quite some time. Even in the days of Catholic Ireland there were more women than men involved as both commanders and foot soldiers of places like the Magdalene homes.

Oh and you seem to have missed the "[they] have more medical research aimed at them, are better educated, even earn more(before they have kids) and have far higher levels of social and cultural protection".

My point was that if Ireland is so "patriarchal" and women are at such a disadvantage how come by pretty much every metric they're better off on average than Irish men are in terms of health, education, wealth and social backup?

Why are you restricting this to Ireland though?

(I'm asking a genuine question, and earlier discussion you're continuing here may be related to Ireland alone, in which case, fair enough)

In a reply to another poster a few days ago, I asked what the point of using geographical or socio-political borders in a discussion on the need or otherwise for feminism was/is, it went unanswered, maybe you want to pick up the baton?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't see any reason for your saying it, then.

You reckon that the ignorant and often-cruel women who ran the Magdalene laundries were the commanders? The were subject to the instructions of the bishops.

I didn't miss it. I don't know about your medical research claim, so I have nothing much to say about it.

On the matter of education, I'll turn it around and raise the question of why, with equal access, males tend to leave full-time education earlier and fare less well in exams. It's a choice they make, determined by social attitudes, and patriarchal thinking is an element of that: adolescent males tend to be more strong-headed and less compliant than adolescent females.

If it is the case that men have less cultural and social protection than women in similar circumstances, that is also explainable by patriarchal thinking: men are supposed to be strong and self-reliant; women need to be protected.

Please note that I do not regard patriarchal thinking as good for all men in all circumstances.

Again, I call bullsh1t. Patriarchy, as I mentioned earlier, is not to blame for any of this. Once again, with perhaps the exception of family law (which has remained constant since the country became free and is pretty much a staple of most 1st world countries which can lead you to a conclusion that it can't be patriarchy but let's not go there) women AREN'T under any patriarchal influences in modern western society.

They out perform men in school (not because of patriarchy but because the school system is unfairly balanced towards rote learning-something females are generally better at. Boys do better in maths as it's less rote learning and more problem solving) earn more upon leaving college with a similar degree in a similar field, get more funding for health (and not reproductive health either so it clearly can't be under any of the 4 things you mentioned in a previous post). If you're going to argue this is all patriarchy best of luck to you because it's not.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Again, I call bullsh1t. ... women AREN'T under any patriarchal influences in modern western society....

You say this in response to a post where I wrote about males being the victims of patriarchal thinking.

Wibbs wrote: »

So you don't see any reason for including a point that illustrates how women are better off in our so called patriarchy? Alrighty then.

I suspect that you would take exception if I suggested that women were unfairly disadvantaged because, on average, men are bigger and stronger than them.

You do realise that the Magdalene laundries in Ireland were started by a woman and run by women throughout their history. Oh and were actually started by Protestants, not Catholics.

That does not change the fact that nuns are subject to the authority of the "ordinary" of the diocese.

Maybe read up on it? Just a thought. Google will give an overview of the disparity. Here's but one link concerning medical research overall.

I'm not interested in going down that road, because I have no idea if it is interesting or not, and I'm lazy. It seems that you think it is a big deal; I'm not sure it is.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I dont know if the possession implication here would sit well with some feminists. We are all expected to look after our close ones - children, parents, partner (be they male or female) - I dont understany why a man has any more responsibility towards his female partner than a woman has towards her male counterpart.

I think you might have misunderstood the point I was making: I was describing the stereotype of patriarchal thinking.

Also, to just expand on the earlier point about education. Even though males are known to do worse than females in Secondary School (especially the Leaving Cert) the only subject radically reformed in the past while was Maths, changed to make it easier for females to get better results in it. If that doesn't smack of "fcuk males, they don't need good points in the Leaving Cert". There is also no initiatives to encourage men to go into courses and jobs like Care, Teaching and Nursing whereas there is multiple ones for women to enter Engineering and Medicine.