Is feminism a dirty word?

anonyanony · 05-12-2014 07:39PM

Venus In Furs wrote: »

I think it's a fallacy. Feminism is about women's rights, MRA is about men's rights, and that's fine.

Of course the ideal would be us all working together - and should be the case where possible, but sometimes it's not possible; sometimes if an issue is gendered, then it can only be about that gender, or predominantly that gender anyway. E.g. abortion does of course affect men also, but it is going to be more of a concern to women. Fathers' rights - can affect women, e.g. the mother or new partner of a man who doesn't get to see his children, but it's still naturally predominantly a men's issue.

That's why we are saying you should opt to say you are egalitarian not a feminist if you actually care both genders.

Venus In Furs · 05-12-2014 08:08PM

anonyanony wrote: »

That's why we are saying you should opt to say you are egalitarian not a feminist if you actually care both genders.

But can still have feminist/women's rights views while being the above.

anonyanony · 05-12-2014 08:12PM

Venus In Furs wrote: »

But can still have feminist/women's rights views while being the above.

Egalitarist still are for women's rights just not a the detriment of men and vice versa, it's about equality for all.

SeanW · 05-12-2014 08:38PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

This is the game of non-feminists or anti-feminists seeking to impose their definitions on people who see themselves as feminists. It is possible to be both egalitarian and feminist.

What happens when the two are mutually exclusive?

Take for example Andrea Dworkin at the extreme end - she was responsible for one of the worst abrogations of the First Amendment in American history - or the Kangaroo courts established in many US (1) (2) and I think some UK colleges? How about the EU "gender directive" requiring men to cross-subsidise womens retirement annuities? The "Swedish model" of law relating to sex work, which is totally misandrist in nature, but which is spreading from that country like a cancer? The attempt by the government of Iceland to implement Internet censorship on feminist grounds? What about "positive discrimination" which says that you have to give jobs/college places/board memberships to women for no reason other than that they are women? What about the ShirtStorm, where a man landed a rocket on a comet but had to give a tearful grovelling apology to a bunch of hatemongers who whined about his "oppressive" shirt?

These are things that 100% feminist and 0% egalitarian. The kind of things that feminists have accomplished are the kind of thing that there is really no room for doubt about - either you believe that all people should be equal before our laws, our governments, our institutions and our society, in which case you are egalitarian or - as with these cases - you are a feminist.

Even where feminists are not the prepetuators of injustice feminism is one of things that - at least in the Western world - reminds me of an Animal Farm-esque prophecy: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

Of course, feminism and egalitarianism are much more likely to interchangeable where women are suffering real injustice, like Saudi Arabia where women cannot drive, leave their home without a male guardian, and have to shroud themselves with a black tent in 40 degree heat. In the Western world in the 21st century ... I'm not so sure.

gozunda · 05-12-2014 10:11PM

SeanW wrote: »

What happens when the two are mutually exclusive?

Take for example Andrea Dworkin at the extreme end - she was responsible for one of the worst abrogations of the First Amendment in American history - or the Kangaroo courts established in many US (1) (2) and I think some UK colleges? How about the EU "gender directive" requiring men to cross-subsidise womens retirement annuities? The "Swedish model" of law relating to sex work, which is totally misandrist in nature, but which is spreading from that country like a cancer? The attempt by the government of Iceland to implement Internet censorship on feminist grounds? What about "positive discrimination" which says that you have to give jobs/college places/board memberships to women for no reason other than that they are women? What about the ShirtStorm, where a man landed a rocket on a comet but had to give a tearful grovelling apology to a bunch of hatemongers who whined about his "oppressive" shirt?

These are things that 100% feminist and 0% egalitarian. The kind of things that feminists have accomplished are the kind of thing that there is really no room for doubt about - either you believe that all people should be equal before our laws, our governments, our institutions and our society, in which case you are egalitarian or - as with these cases - you are a feminist.

Even where feminists are not the prepetuators of injustice feminism is one of things that - at least in the Western world - reminds me of an Animal Farm-esque prophecy: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

Of course, feminism and egalitarianism are much more likely to interchangeable where women are suffering real injustice, like Saudi Arabia where women cannot drive, leave their home without a male guardian, and have to shroud themselves with a black tent in 40 degree heat. In the Western world in the 21st century ... I'm not so sure.

Imo the rise of women's position is largely based on the historic disadvantage inherent women positions relative to work and home and a reaction to same. That some men are bristling at the indignity of the present state of affairs is neither here or there and will imo be short lived (with the exception of a small minority) . It wil take time for what many here refer here to as 'egalitarianism' to become properly entrenched but that is the ways of things.
As far as I'm concerned there is no mass feminist movement to emasculate men. It is simply a rebalancing of eons of bias and inequality. It may take time and rebalance - but given time it will even out as along as we don't allow the extremists - eithet men and women to dominate and for all to deny hyperbole ad doctrine.

Lyaiera · 05-12-2014 10:17PM

anonyanony wrote: »

Egalitarist still are for women's rights just not a the detriment of men and vice versa, it's about equality for all.

Well, we can't keep the same amount of male politicians and CEOs while increasing the amount of female politicians and CEOs. So there has to be less men in those roles. You could say that's at the detriment to men but I don't see it as a problem.

anonyanony · 05-12-2014 10:20PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

Well, we can't keep the same amount of male politicians and CEOs while increasing the amount of female politicians and CEOs. So there has to be less men in those roles. You could say that's at the detriment to men but I don't see it as a problem.

How about not caring if the people in those positions are male or female but if they are the best qualified.

Lyaiera · 05-12-2014 10:26PM

anonyanony wrote: »

How about not caring if the people in those positions are male or female but if they are the best qualified.

That would be better than a system that favours men over women. I think the first step to arriving at a situation where things such as gender are less important than qualifications is to remove bias within systems. Ensuring representation is an important part of that, as if people are silenced bias remains.

anonyanony · 05-12-2014 10:36PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

That would be better than a system that favours men over women. I think the first step to arriving at a situation where things such as gender are less important than qualifications is to remove bias within systems. Ensuring representation is an important part of that, as if people are silenced bias remains.

So you would hire a less qualified woman over a man? If so that's very sexist. Gender should not matter in that situation best qualified should be the only reason for the hire.

Lyaiera · 05-12-2014 10:47PM

anonyanony wrote: »

So you would hire a less qualified woman over a man? If so that's very sexist. Gender should not matter in that situation best qualified should be the only reason for the hire.

You're arguing with something I didn't say. I don't think qualifications are as absolute or as easy to gauge as you're making out.

anonyanony · 05-12-2014 10:50PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

You're arguing with something I didn't say. I don't think qualifications are as absolute or as easy to gauge as you're making out.

When the gender is removed, what other then qualifications can you use to determine the best candidate?

Lyaiera · 05-12-2014 10:51PM

anonyanony wrote: »

When the gender is removed, what other then qualifications can you use to determine the best candidate?

I don't even know what you mean by "qualifications." Is experience a qualification?

anonyanony · 05-12-2014 10:53PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

I don't even know what you mean by "qualifications." Is experience a qualification?

Yes work experience in the field of the job would be a qualification

Lyaiera · 05-12-2014 10:56PM

anonyanony wrote: »

Yes work experience in the field of the job would be a qualification

What about experience in other areas that could be beneficial? Are jobs the only thing that matters?

anonyanony · 05-12-2014 11:10PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

What about experience in other areas that could be beneficial? Are jobs the only thing that matters?

What kinda experience are you thinking and how would it relate to the job they are being offered, but I would put actual work experience and college qualifications above ones that are only semi related to the post.

Lyaiera · 05-12-2014 11:21PM

anonyanony wrote: »

What kinda experience are you thinking and how would it relate to the job they are being offered, but I would put actual work experience and college qualifications above ones that are only semi related to the post.

I was just watching The Late Late Show talk about homelessness. There was a woman speaking who had 590 points in her Leaving Cert. She became addicted to heroin/became homeless. She's five years clean from drugs now and I presume living a "regular" life. I think she would bring a unique perspective and determination to many jobs.

I don't think many businesses hire purely on qualifications. There's a lot more to a person than that. If people were hired based purely on qualifications then all you'd need is a written list, but many businesses hire after lengthy interview and testing processes. I think the right mix of people in a business, politics, as CEOs etc, as parents, as teachers, etc. is important.

anonyanony · 05-12-2014 11:27PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

I was just watching The Late Late Show talk about homelessness. There was a woman speaking who had 590 points in her Leaving Cert. She became addicted to heroin/became homeless. She's five years clean from drugs now and I presume living a "regular" life. I think she would bring a unique perspective and determination to many jobs.

I don't think many businesses hire purely on qualifications. There's a lot more to a person than that. If people were hired based purely on qualifications then all you'd need is a written list, but many businesses hire after lengthy interview and testing processes. I think the right mix of people in a business, politics, as CEOs etc, as parents, as teachers, etc. is important.

I would weed out the best candidates with actual qualifications, with what's left I would use secondary factors how they interviewed and life experience but the gender of the candidate would not factor in the process at all.

I would hope most people would be for a fair and equal chance for all.

jackofalltrades · 05-12-2014 11:28PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

Well, we can't keep the same amount of male politicians and CEOs while increasing the amount of female politicians and CEOs. So there has to be less men in those roles.

CEOs aren't numerically limited, so you can increase their number while leaving the number of male CEOs unchanged.
As always the best person should get the job regardless of gender.

I think the first step to arriving at a situation where things such as gender are less important than qualifications is to remove bias within systems.

And what biases exist against women being CEOs or politicans?

Ensuring representation is an important part of that, as if people are silenced bias remains.

And where are women silenced?

Lyaiera · 05-12-2014 11:33PM

anonyanony wrote: »

I would weed out the best candidates with actual qualifications, with what's left I would use secondary factors how they interviewed and life experience but the gender of the candidate would not factor in the process at all.

I would hope most people would be for a fair and equal chance for all.

Yes. I agree. I just find it strange that all the people who seem to be best qualified, with the best secondary factors and with the best life experience seem to be men. If women are 50% of the world it seems strange that the numbers aren't at least a little closer in representation.

The Corinthian · 06-12-2014 09:25AM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I wouldn't even try. Feminism is primarily concerned with inequalities that disadvantage women.

Then feminism cannot be "both egalitarian and feminist" as you claimed earlier. Clear conflict of interests and purpose.

Lyaiera wrote: »

I just find it strange that all the people who seem to be best qualified, with the best secondary factors and with the best life experience seem to be men.

It's not all that strange if you look at it. The role of woman as child carer has meant that women are the ones under pressure to sacrifice career for family. I result in female employees that cannot work 100% (or 120% as seems to be increasingly demanded), who take a number of years out and thus lose out on career progression and experience and ultimately on long term seniority and salary.

How do we know this; other than basic cop on, childless women in their forties have been shown to out-earn their male counterparts, as do women in their twenties.

It is interesting to note that feminism's approach to this has not been to address women's role as child carers, opening it up so that men will share it and the rights associated with it more, but to demand 'positive' discrimination so that they may have a career and maintain their social and legal control of child rearing.

P. Breathnach · 06-12-2014 09:38AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then feminism cannot be "both egalitarian and feminist" as you claimed earlier. Clear conflict of interests and purpose...

But I didn't say that. I said that it is possible to both egalitarian and feminist. No sensible person fights all battles simultaneously.

06-12-2014 09:45AM

Women want equal representation but only in the jobs that suits them.

Why are there no campaigns looking for more female representation in binman crews (or should that be 'binperson' crews?), plumbers, car mechanics, roof tillers, truck drivers etc?

The reason is because these are horrible, tough jobs, and they just don't really fancy it that much. But still, there should be some measure of consistency there I think

Annasopra · 06-12-2014 10:05AM

anonyanony wrote: »

How about not caring if the people in those positions are male or female but if they are the best qualified.

You mean like a womens rights parliamentary committee entirely consisting of men?

The Corinthian · 06-12-2014 10:07AM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But I didn't say that. I said that it is possible to both egalitarian and feminist. No sensible person fights all battles simultaneously.

Feminism doesn't fight all battles. I couldn't if it wanted to - too much of a conflict of interests to allow it to, I'm afraid. You can't be both egalitarian and feminist because of this.

P. Breathnach · 06-12-2014 10:23AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Feminism doesn't fight all battles. I couldn't if it wanted to - too much of a conflict of interests to allow it to, I'm afraid. You can't be both egalitarian and feminist because of this.

That makes no sense.

Lyaiera · 06-12-2014 12:00PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then feminism cannot be "both egalitarian and feminist" as you claimed earlier. Clear conflict of interests and purpose.

It's not all that strange if you look at it. The role of woman as child carer has meant that women are the ones under pressure to sacrifice career for family. I result in female employees that cannot work 100% (or 120% as seems to be increasingly demanded), who take a number of years out and thus lose out on career progression and experience and ultimately on long term seniority and salary.

How do we know this; other than basic cop on, childless women in their forties have been shown to out-earn their male counterparts, as do women in their twenties.

It is interesting to note that feminism's approach to this has not been to address women's role as child carers, opening it up so that men will share it and the rights associated with it more, but to demand 'positive' discrimination so that they may have a career and maintain their social and legal control of child rearing.

Every single feminist I know is crying out for their to be more parental rights for fathers, more involvement of fathers in family life, etc. Equally every feminist I know is appalled at the role given to men in formal (paid for) childcare, primary education, etc. I think you're just making things up when you're saying that women don't want men to be involved with children or families. It's certainly not representative of any of the women I know. And men becoming more involved in childcare is a bonus for both men and women as well as society. Unfortunately I see plenty of people (men and women) who still refuse to see men's role in minding the home (chores, cleaning, cooking, etc.) and looking after children (nappy changing, taking them to dance classes, going to shows, etc.) If you want to get all macro on it I think the pervasiveness of typical "Men are breadwinners, women are childcarers" attitudes in business, such as managers giving out when a man says he needs time off to look after his children, especially if it's because the mother is unavailable. If you want to get down to the basics of this it's because it's a patriarchal role where men are given agency and financial control over their lives, as money-earners.

Deleted User wrote: »

Women want equal representation but only in the jobs that suits them.

Why are there no campaigns looking for more female representation in binman crews (or should that be 'binperson' crews?), plumbers, car mechanics, roof tillers, truck drivers etc?

The reason is because these are horrible, tough jobs, and they just don't really fancy it that much. But still, there should be some measure of consistency there I think

I wouldn't think of being a car mechanic, plumber or truck driver as a horrible job. Binman may have traditionally been more physical (not so much with the advent of automated bin lorries) and roof tilers are exposed to the elements. I know a woman who likes nothing more than spending a weekend tinkering with her car (partly out of necessity, she has a ****ty car, but also because she enjoys it.) If you go back to The Late Late Toy Show the other week they had a girl on who was talking about the fun she was having playing with farm machinery toys.

If you want to get down to the basics of it the reality is that those jobs aren't very prestigious, so they may not fall into many people's ambitions. CEOs and politicians jobs are the positions with power to change society, so if a group is looking to have an impact on the wider world then of course that group is going to concentrate on those positions. Similarly there's a big emphasis on science and technology because those are seen as the future of Ireland and many Western economies. If you get down to it I'm sure if the campaigns to have women scientists and engineers available in toys for girls, and in things like Lego, then it's going to encourage girls to grow up wanting to be mechanics and plumbers because that's the type of thing they'll get the message as appropriate for them.

And as I already said there's plenty of complaints from women (and men) about the lack of men involved with families, paid for childcare, primary education, etc. The point I've been making all along is I think there's something up when the levels of representation in any industry are so heavily in favour of one gender over the other.

anonyanony · 06-12-2014 12:19PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You mean like a womens rights parliamentary committee entirely consisting of men?

Yes if they are the best qualified, why would you want someone under qualified fighting for your rights they might do a bad job. But you are still not thinking the genders are equal it should be a human rights parliamentary committee

You need to stop thinking women are worse then men that they need special help, a egalitarian would be for trying to find the best for both women and men, I guess once you get people that are mra's and feminists out of power and get people that care about finding the best way for to get equal rights the world will be slightly better.

Venus In Furs · 06-12-2014 12:33PM

anonyanony wrote: »

Egalitarist still are for women's rights just not a the detriment of men and vice versa, it's about equality for all.

I agree - and women's rights = feminist views, so that's why not all feminism deserves to be slated.

Lyaiera · 06-12-2014 12:45PM

anonyanony wrote: »

Yes if they are the best qualified, why would you want someone under qualified fighting for your rights they might do a bad job. But you are still not thinking the genders are equal it should be a human rights parliamentary committee

You need to stop thinking women are worse then men that they need special help, a egalitarian would be for trying to find the best for both women and men, I guess once you get people that are mra's and feminists out of power and get people that care about finding the best way for to get equal rights the world will be slightly better.

I don't understand why people keep going on about "the best qualified" for a role. Of course people want the best qualified people for a position. Who wouldn't want that?

Also, what's wrong with a committee on women's issues? Do you think that men and women face the same challenges so it should be a human's issues committee?

anonyanony · 06-12-2014 12:54PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

I don't understand why people keep going on about "the best qualified" for a role. Of course people want the best qualified people for a position. Who wouldn't want that?

Also, what's wrong with a committee on women's issues? Do you think that men and women face the same challenges so it should be a human's issues committee?

I don't think women are worse then men that need a committee focusing on just their gender, a committee for job rights, parenting rights and the likes would better suited for gender inequality, focus on the places the inequality are not on the gender itself.

What aspect of modern Ireland to you think only effects women and has zero effect on men. So that a pure women's committee would be fair as equality wouldn't matter.

Is feminism a dirty word?

Comments