Is feminism a dirty word?

dissed doc wrote: »

Unlike cancer, AIDS and Ebola, mental health rarely gets sexed up.

80%+ suicides are men, couple with complete ignorance of many in government and media, means Gay Byrne can get endless radio time because someone is pulling donuts within 2km of his porch but that considerably more people die from suicide that road deaths is completely ignored.

Cervical cancer deaths per year: around 70-80 in ireland.
Suicides per year: around 500 in ireland

Which one gets media coverage? Which one gets millions in funding?

Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in women, around 650 per year. Why does suicide not get the same special screening clinics around the country? Why no media campaigns?

Do you want a real answer, or just an agreement that it's not fair? If you want agreement, just read the next line, then skip the next.

You're right, it's completely unreasonable that men are being ignored, I bet it's a feminist conspiracy to kill off all the men.

Up until recently, suicide was considered a sin by the majority of people in the country. It was never directly referred to. If it had to be mentioned there was generally a euphemism involved. Death certs used dance around the issue, partially because suicide was an actual crime up until 1993. 100 years before that, the victim's (the person who commited the crime of suicide) property would be seized by the State. It's only in more recent years that people have actually started talking about suicide, and recording figures - and even still those figures are probably under-reported because of a hangover from earlier times. It will probably be another 30 years before the attitudes to suicide are changed completely throughout the population. Even today our death notices use what amounts to a code.

Meanwhile, cervical cancer was never a sin in and of itself (though there's a sidebar there about treatments that might prevent women having children being sinful). Your figures of 70ish deaths due to cervical cancer vs 300 for suicide don't take into account how many other deaths are prevented precisely because screening is in place. But even if we ignore that aspect, cervical cancer is a fairly black and white issue. A 10 minute swab (followed by lab tests) will either say yes, no, or unconfirmed, check again.

There is no 10 minute check that you can perform to find out if someone is feeling suicidal. The best you could do is ask "Feeling suicidal lately?" to which most people (even if they are) will say no. You might as well send everyone in the country a postcard saying "if you feel suicidal, call this number and we'll arrange something". This is pretty much what we do already with suicide hotlines, the problem is getting suicidal people to talk in the first place. If there was some blood test, or brain scan we could do to recognise the symptoms, we'd be doing them.

An issue that is unique to men, and can be easily checked, is testicular and prostate cancer. And guess what? We have advertising campaigns, doctors will carry out the check, it's simple, and things can be caught early and treated successfully. Ovarian cancer, on the other hand, is not as convenient to check for, and you'll notice it's not something you see a lot of campaigns about.

As a general public service announcement, remember guys, breast cancer is not confined to women. A woman is 100 times more likely to get it than a man, but the chance is there. Learn the signs (a lump under the nipple is the commonest), and check yourself from time to time.

Suicide prevention has to take place at a much more immediate level. You're not going to ask a friend to give your cervix a quick glance, but if you're feeling down you may be hoping that your friends will notice and help, without having to say anything.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

In what ways should they be speaking out? I don't really get that criticism - it seems to infer tacit support of the extremists, but without any backing, or suggestion of what to do to speak out (and when I ask, what should be done, tends not to get answered).

It'd be nice to see an occasional article or movement against censorship by those who consider themselves mainstream feminists? Or counter campaigns for free speech? To give you an analogy, if I as an Irish nationalist saw people campaigning in favour of discrimination against unionists, I wouldn't just say "they don't represent nationalists", I'd be annoyed enough to go out of my way to publicly denounce their agenda. You can say the same for almost any movement. Thus if the campaigns, which have had real-world impact, to ban this and censor that in the name of feminism are not being opposed in this manner, tacit support may be a false assumption - but it's certainly not an unreasonable one.

iwantmydinner wrote: »

S.L.F., you fancy addressing these points at all?

Sure

Couple of things stand out to me here.

1. Ordinary, "Joan Soap" (you're excluding the Joe Soaps there by the way) feminists like me just don't count - is that correct? WTF is a useful idiot?

You mean people who call themselves feminists but have zero power to change anything?

2. I have never put a man down solely for being a man, neither has any self-identified feminist I know, so please qualify your statements. Using the word "some" would be useful, for a start.

The ones who control the feminist movement

3. I've never heard of this charity that looks to get women who kill their partners "off the hook"? Can you provide a link? Will I discover that their mission is far more nuanced than the way you have portrayed it? Will it turn out to be yet another small bunch of feminist nutters that somehow managed to get charitable status?

Fixed that for you.

Charity in question

The 'charities' CEO is Julie Bindel

4. There are probably a LOT more feminists (men and women) in power than you realise, who don't conform to the rather simplistic image of feminists that you are gripping onto for dear life.

I am aware of that.

This includes everyone's fav protest party Sinn Fein, link, link, link.

Makes sense really considering that the Suffragettes were terrorists in their day back in the early 1900's.

5. Patriarchy sucks for EVERYONE. MEN under huge obligations, women disallowed from participating in things like education, or denied inheritance rights.

Geez victimhood complex 101.

I never see feminists posting who really gets the benefit of all the work men do, I'll give you a hint 60-80% of all disposable money in Ireland is spent by women which is why advertisers aim their ads at women.

Education....are you for real?

Women in Ireland graduate at the rate of 57% (and increasing) compared to 43% of men.

Inheritance rights?

You mean like in some 3rd world country where women have literally no obligations at all but men are obligated to provide for their families?

6. Men really very often don't listen to what women have to say. So often. There will be men reading this very post who will give it the visual equivalent of "in one ear and out the other" simply because I'm a woman, and a feminist woman at that. I know that because I talk to men who don't listen to me because I am a woman. Men who went on to agree with a man who literally said the exact same thing I did moments earlier. That has literally happened me, more than once.

Then I suggest you change your friends.

It is also possible that they've listened to feminist crap before decided that whatever you say has a victimhood complex attached to it and then when it is explained by someone who does not have an almighty chip on their shoulder accept it.

I was speaking to an Alderman Ruth Patterson DUP some time ago and she spoke to Belfast City Hall about men's issues and she said the entire hall listened to every word she said.

https://www.facebook.com/northernirelandmensrights/posts/594625473989813

7. You asked where the bitterness in your posts was a while back...

Not sure what 7 is supposed to mean.

ETA: 8. Before feminism started, I would have been considered property. A chattel.

You have confused 'women's rights' with the Marxist hate ideology of feminism.

I support women's rights like practically every other MRA I work with, I oppose the hate ideology of feminism.

If it was really to do with equality then it would be geared towards getting things equal instead it ONLY concentrates on women.

That makes it a bigoted ideology especially considering men have more issues in society than women do.

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

Wish people would stop pretending those who agree with some feminist views (and disagree with loads too) are automatically conferred with man-hater, radfem status.
I'm sure it's fun, but it's not fair.

Let me ask you a question, for the sake of argument: Do you understand why many people in Northern Ireland who favour a United Ireland choose to label themselves "nationalist" as opposed to "republican"?

Thoie wrote: »

OK, quiz time.

Have you or your friends ever:

• Commented on a female politician's looks/weight/wardrobe instead of her policies/actions?
  
• Called a woman names because she didn't immediately jump at your advances?
  
• Told your friends how you were cornered by the ugly bitch at the party and couldn't get away to make yourself available to the hotties?
  
• Referred to other human beings as hotties?
  
• Even in your head?
  
• Commented on a strange woman's appearance, either to her or to your friends?

I'm friends with close friends several groups of women, and all of them refer to men in this way on a regular basis, just as much if not more so than groups of men I'm close friends with.

Either this is as much of a problem as when men do it, or you're being sexist by exclusively lambasting only men for a unisex behavior. Which is it?

I don't agree that all of these are automatically wrong either, but we'll get to that. Address the double standard first.

Thoie wrote: »

I don't have a double standard. Your female friends sound like a thoroughly unpleasant bunch of people, and I'd hope that you call them on their behaviour.

They're some of the most incredible people you could have the pleasure of meeting, in fact. Why should it be wrong for people to voice their sexual urges with their friends? Finding someone attractive is neither voluntary nor offensive.

EDIT: Thanks for clarifying that you don't hold a double standard though, that's something!

^ Are you gentlemen familiar with a certain former Countdown presenter by any chance? Generalizing either gender's ability to maintain sexuality with age is a bit ridiculous, that's far more down to hereditary familial and lifestyle factors than gender IMO.

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

That's that person who keeps re-registering and re-registering only to have a go at women. Can't be reasoned with.

I hold a perhaps naive belief that pointing logical fallacies out to even the most determined of trolls using indisputable examples still carries the possibility of achieving something. Many regard my attitude to this as amusing at best and tiresome at worst.

Raspberry Sword wrote: »

Attraction does not equal looks, especially not in the case of men, social status, social influence and general social skills which often accrue through age increases men's attractiveness to women. Women's looks primarily determine their attractiveness.

Are you all taking notes, fellas? Just in case any of you were thinking of being primarily attracted to a woman's character or intelligence. This guy is keeping your priorities in check.

Raspberry Sword wrote: »

Some people are attracted to balloons.

Balloons have very small openings...