Is feminism a dirty word?

Lyaiera · 06-12-2014 01:01PM

anonyanony wrote: »

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.

I think you're unnecessarily dealing in absolutes. There's very few things that only affect a very specific group. But for a high level investigation like a parliamentary committee it aids expediency to look at it at a broad, generalised level. That then filters down to more targeted approaches on a more direct level.

Suicide affects everyone, but suicide is far more common among young men and men in their 40s/50s. So why would I have a problem with an investigation into that particular cohort and its issues. It's a matter of practicality.

anonyanony · 06-12-2014 01:31PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

I think you're unnecessarily dealing in absolutes. There's very few things that only affect a very specific group. But for a high level investigation like a parliamentary committee it aids expediency to look at it at a broad, generalised level. That then filters down to more targeted approaches on a more direct level.

Suicide affects everyone, but suicide is far more common among young men and men in their 40s/50s. So why would I have a problem with an investigation into that particular cohort and its issues. It's a matter of practicality.

I have aspergers so tend to focus a where the issue is then try to fix it, I do it in my everyday life, but I do think if you aim broad to try hit something vague there is a good chance you will miss the target altogether and achieve nothing maybe even hurt something you did not mean to. Like kicking a field goal from the 25 yard line will likely score but from the 50 you won't get any points.

To me you go from the issue then work out, not go wide then hope you find an issue.

I do think any committee should think as men and women as equal, not that women are worse so need a leg up. A lot of feminism works in a way of women are weak oppressed we must give them an advantage to to make up their "weakness", why not work from we are equal and why are women not going into college courses that will get them these jobs.

But this kinda takes away from the topic issue cause feminism was more about equality when it started, but now got co-opted by a vocal set of misandrists for years nothing was done to distance from them or say these are not what feminism is about so now a huge amount of people see this as what it's about and are disgusted by it.

In the last year feminism probably did more damage to women's rights then good.

Lyaiera · 06-12-2014 01:35PM

anonyanony wrote: »

I have aspergers so tend to focus a where the issue is then try to fix it, I do it in my everyday life, but I do think if you aim broad to try hit something vague there is a good chance you will miss the target altogether and achieve nothing maybe even hurt something you did not mean to. Like kicking a field goal from the 25 yard line will likely score but from the 50 you won't get any points.

That's not the role of government though. They implement broad policies and legislation and it's put into place by organisations on a lower level. That's how government works. They simply don't have the resources or capability to look at things at a very low level.

But this kinda takes away from the topic issue cause feminism was more about equality when it started, but now got co-opted by a vocal set of misandrists for years nothing was done to distance from them or say these are not what feminism is about so now a huge amount of people see this as what it's about and are disgusted by it.

In the last year feminism probably did more damage to women's rights then good.

I disagree. I think there were always looneys but they were largely ignored as looneys. Now people are paying attention to them and giving them a lot more credit than they deserve (or ever had previously) because they have an axe to grind with feminism on a large scale.

anonyanony · 06-12-2014 01:48PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

That's not the role of government though. They implement broad policies and legislation and it's put into place by organisations on a lower level. That's how government works. They simply don't have the resources or capability to look at things at a very low level.

I disagree. I think there were always looneys but they were largely ignored as looneys. Now people are paying attention to them and giving them a lot more credit than they deserve (or ever had previously) because they have an axe to grind with feminism on a large scale.

Yeah the government are general but committees like you mentioned are what I said should be focused they are what should be looking for equality in the topic they got assigned. I don't think a broad every job needs 50% male/female work force would be good, there are to many jobs women don't want to do and the same for men. If you force a 50/50 workforce by law in a job that has little male applications you would be forced to have a tiny staff cause you could not hire a woman if a man did not get hired also it would be awful for the economy.

There might have always been looneys but they became the vocal majority and nothing was done to counter them. It might be able to get fixed in peoples mind but I think the last year has poisoned that well to much. That shirt worn by the scientist that landed on the comet and reaction Feminists had. Shows how many people see feminists they where disgusted by the the reaction feminists had.

Lyaiera · 06-12-2014 01:56PM

anonyanony wrote: »

Yeah the government are general but committees like you mentioned are what I said should be focused they are what should be looking for equality in the topic they got assigned. I don't think a broad every job needs 50% male/female work force would be good, there are to many jobs women don't want to do and the same for men. If you force a 50/50 workforce by law in a job that has little male applications you would be forced to have a tiny staff cause you could not hire a woman if a man did not get hired also it would be awful for the economy.

People often get confused between individual choice and societal attitudes. I think both need to be addressed. Less men choose to go into childcare and primary teaching, but that's reflective of wider societal issues. I think those issues need to be addressed but I don't think people should be forced to teach if they don't want to. It's important to respect individual choice but I don't see a problem in looking at why people make those choices. Especially if it results in addressing inequality, and allowing people to be more free to make the choices they want to.

There might have always been looneys but they became the vocal majority and nothing was done to counter them. It might be able to get fixed in peoples mind but I think the last year has poisoned that well to much. That shirt worn by the scientist that landed on the comet and reaction Feminists had. Shows how many people see feminists they where disgusted by the the reaction feminists had.

I don't think they're the vocal majority at all. I think people are choosing to pay attention to them and amplify them in an effort to be outraged. I paid a lot of attention to people campaigning for trans equality for a bit, I was very active on twitter. Then I realised I was paying attention to the idiots and I gave up. They're easy to pay attention to because they're so outrageous but ultimately they're not representative at all. They're just good at being dramatic.

As for yer man's shirt. I was watching the ESA stream as it was happening (I watched the rocket that blew up in America as well) and my reaction was just to roll my eyes. It was a bit sad to wear a shirt like that but on the grand scheme of things it's relatively minor. Like the time the bar I frequent was selling lighters of booby women. Not a huge deal but more indicative of immaturity. The other barman got rid of them when he came in as it was obviously a bit weird to have pictures of titty women on sale.

SeanW · 06-12-2014 02:28PM

gozunda wrote: »

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.

So you agree that censorhip, on-campus kangaroo courts, "positive" sexism, forced redistribution of pension pots of one gender to the other, and general man hatred are central aspects of what you call the "womens position" and that it necessary, at least in the short term, with objections being irrelevant, but with no determined end other than "it will take some time" ...

Venus in Furs wrote:

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

I belive that a movement should be judged by its objectives and accomplishments - and when both of those are so overwhelmingly negative, it's entirely reasonable to judge the movement as a whole, unless the rest of the movement clearly and unambiguously objects to this and offers an alternative.

Cincodemayo · 06-12-2014 03:38PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

People often get confused between individual choice and societal attitudes. I think both need to be addressed. Less men choose to go into childcare and primary teaching, but that's reflective of wider societal issues. I think those issues need to be addressed but I don't think people should be forced to teach if they don't want to. It's important to respect individual choice but I don't see a problem in looking at why people make those choices. Especially if it results in addressing inequality, and allowing people to be more free to make the choices they want to.

I don't think they're the vocal majority at all. I think people are choosing to pay attention to them and amplify them in an effort to be outraged. I paid a lot of attention to people campaigning for trans equality for a bit, I was very active on twitter. Then I realised I was paying attention to the idiots and I gave up. They're easy to pay attention to because they're so outrageous but ultimately they're not representative at all. They're just good at being dramatic.

As for yer man's shirt. I was watching the ESA stream as it was happening (I watched the rocket that blew up in America as well) and my reaction was just to roll my eyes. It was a bit sad to wear a shirt like that but on the grand scheme of things it's relatively minor. Like the time the bar I frequent was selling lighters of booby women. Not a huge deal but more indicative of immaturity. The other barman got rid of them when he came in as it was obviously a bit weird to have pictures of titty women on sale.

Why is it a bit sad to wear a shirt like that?

Why is a picture of a human being immature? Is a picture of a tree immature?

steddyeddy · 06-12-2014 03:48PM

So the hypothesis is: There are very few women CEOs therefore women must be discriminated against in these roles. Correlation does not equal causation.

steddyeddy · 06-12-2014 03:49PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

People often get confused between individual choice and societal attitudes. I think both need to be addressed. Less men choose to go into childcare and primary teaching, but that's reflective of wider societal issues. I think those issues need to be addressed but I don't think people should be forced to teach if they don't want to. It's important to respect individual choice but I don't see a problem in looking at why people make those choices. Especially if it results in addressing inequality, and allowing people to be more free to make the choices they want to.

I don't think they're the vocal majority at all. I think people are choosing to pay attention to them and amplify them in an effort to be outraged. I paid a lot of attention to people campaigning for trans equality for a bit, I was very active on twitter. Then I realised I was paying attention to the idiots and I gave up. They're easy to pay attention to because they're so outrageous but ultimately they're not representative at all. They're just good at being dramatic.

As for yer man's shirt. I was watching the ESA stream as it was happening (I watched the rocket that blew up in America as well) and my reaction was just to roll my eyes. It was a bit sad to wear a shirt like that but on the grand scheme of things it's relatively minor. Like the time the bar I frequent was selling lighters of booby women. Not a huge deal but more indicative of immaturity. The other barman got rid of them when he came in as it was obviously a bit weird to have pictures of titty women on sale.

Do you judge everyone by what they wear?

The Corinthian · 06-12-2014 03:50PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That makes no sense.

So a defense lawyer claiming to represent balanced justice makes sense? Or a labour tribunal made up only of union representatives going to result in an unbiased ruling?

You seem to be under the curious opinion that one can have partisanship, bias, yet still be able to claim impartiality. You can't. To be egalitarian, you cannot have a bias for any group by definition. You may be biased and coincidentally have aims that could be described as egalitarian, upon occasion, but that's not the same thing as actually being egalitarian, you're still going to be pursuing those aims for other reasons - because it benefits the group you represent, not because you give a crap about equality. It's a coincidental overlap of objectives, nothing more.

So no, you cannot be both. That's appears to be a fantasy than some has repeated to themselves so often that they've forgotten that it is contradictory nonsense.

Lyaiera wrote: »

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.

No they're not. Crying out? Thanks for the lip service, but lip service does not an egalitarian make. Do feminists cry out for more parental rights for fathers if it means that women would no longer have a monopoly on them? Not likely.

How many feminists would support gender quotas for custody cases? After all, if quotas are good enough to apply to our democracy, why not children? And that's where women's interests will end up trumping equality every time in feminism.

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.

Firstly, I never said women, I said feminists. Not the same thing.

Secondly, of course feminists want men to be involved with children or families, but not if it means any change in the status quo in relative rights. Paternity leave is a great thing to support, for example, an unmarried father could help in the early rearing of his child, but still have the same rights as a hired baby sitter. Easy 'right' to cry out for.

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.

Given how men typically lose out financially in divorces, this is clearly a very beneficial financial 'control' for us...

Look I'm not saying feminism is a monolithic evil movement. What I am saying is that all feminism will share the aim to represent the rights of women. Not men, not equality, only women. This will mean that when faced with a choice to support a policy that will promote equality over the rights of women, then it will not. Full stop. If you disagree, suggest a single example where this has not been the case since second wave feminism appeared.

So just don't claim that it's about equality, it's not. It's a trade union for women, representing them, which is fine, but don't tell me that it's egalitarian.

Lyaiera · 06-12-2014 03:52PM

Cincodemayo wrote: »

Why is it a bit sad to wear a shirt like that?

Why is a picture of a human being immature? Is a picture of a tree immature?

If you're questioning why hyper-sexualised images are inappropriate for the workplace then I'm not willing to engage with you. You're either disingenuous in your questioning and I won't engage with that, or if you are genuine I don't believe I have the ability to explain to you the theories of objectification, social context, or oppression.

Edit: @ The Corinthian. I've presented my experience of feminism, you've presented yours. I can argue all I want but you're unwilling to accept anything I say so I'm not discussing this with you.

Earl Turner · 06-12-2014 03:55PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

If you're questioning why hyper-sexualised images are inappropriate for the workplace then I'm not willing to engage with you. You're either disingenuous in your questioning and I won't engage with that, or if you are genuine I don't believe I have the ability to explain to you the theories of objectification, social context, or oppression.

Edit: @ The Corinthian. I've presented my experience of feminism, you've presented yours. I can argue all I want but you're unwilling to accept anything I say so I'm not discussing this with you.

The guy wore a harmless shirt, get a ****ing life.

steddyeddy · 06-12-2014 03:55PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

If you're questioning why hyper-sexualised images are inappropriate for the workplace then I'm not willing to engage with you. You're either disingenuous in your questioning and I won't engage with that, or if you are genuine I don't believe I have the ability to explain to you the theories of objectification, social context, or oppression.

Oppression. That man was somehow oppressing people. Words fail me.

Lyaiera · 06-12-2014 04:02PM

Earl Turner wrote: »

The guy wore a harmless shirt, get a ****ing life.

I disagree it was harmless. The man who wore it disagrees it was harmless. Lots of people disagree it was harmless. Most businesses would disagree it was harmless. You can say it was harmless but it's certainly not contentious to say it is an issue.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Oppression. That man was somehow oppressing people. Words fail me.

As I already said it seems some people have their minds made up on this and aren't even willing to entertain any other ideas. It seems I was right not to engage.

Cincodemayo · 06-12-2014 04:05PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

If you're questioning why hyper-sexualised images are inappropriate for the workplace then I'm not willing to engage with you. You're either disingenuous in your questioning and I won't engage with that, or if you are genuine I don't believe I have the ability to explain to you the theories of objectification, social context, or oppression.

Edit: @ The Corinthian. I've presented my experience of feminism, you've presented yours. I can argue all I want but you're unwilling to accept anything I say so I'm not discussing this with you.

What's appropriate attire for the workplace is determined by the employer, industry, role etc. It's a sweeping generalisation to say that sexual imagery is inappropriate for the workplace. It's none of your business what an ESA employee wears to work, that's the business of ESA and it's employees, not yours.

As for objectification, I believe people are entitled to objectify other people if they want. Dictating how people view other people authoritarian and immoral in my opinion. Any one who is actually troubled by being objectified needs to see a psychiatrist in my opinion as it is not healthy to base one'side mental stand emotional well being on other people's perceptions which are out of your control.

steddyeddy · 06-12-2014 04:06PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

I disagree it was harmless. The man who wore it disagrees it was harmless. Lots of people disagree it was harmless. Most businesses would disagree it was harmless. You can say it was harmless but it's certainly not contentious to say it is an issue.

As I already said it seems some people have their minds made up on this and aren't even willing to entertain any other ideas. It seems I was right not to engage.

Go on explain then. I'm open to discussion.

The Corinthian · 06-12-2014 04:11PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

Edit: @ The Corinthian. I've presented my experience of feminism, you've presented yours. I can argue all I want but you're unwilling to accept anything I say so I'm not discussing this with you.

This is something I've noticed happens in these debates; when faced with the question of whether feminism truly behaves as a movement for equality where equality will demand that women lose rights, the adherent to feminism will be unable (or refuse) to answer and walk away from the discussion.

It's a simple test of your beliefs as a feminist, that's all. If all you can do is refuse to test those beliefs, what does that say of them? Or you?

Lyaiera · 06-12-2014 04:13PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

This is something I've noticed happens in these debates; when faced with the question will feminism truly behave as a movement for equality where equality will demand that women lose rights, the adherent to feminism will be unable (or refuse) to answer and walk away from the discussion.

It's a simple test of your beliefs as a feminist, that's all. If all you can do is refuse to test those beliefs, what does that say of them? Or you?

I've already said that that's how I experience feminism, how I interact with my friends (who are feminists) and how I read and educate myself about feminism. You reject that. What more is there to say?

anonyanony · 06-12-2014 04:18PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

I've already said that that's how I experience feminism, how I interact with my friends (who are feminists) and how I read and educate myself about feminism. You reject that. What more is there to say?

If all your info comes from within an echo chamber you will never learn anything, the only way to get new perspective is to discuss with others that don't have the same opinion as you.

Lyaiera · 06-12-2014 04:22PM

anonyanony wrote: »

If all your info comes from within an echo chamber you will never learn anything, the only way to get new perspective is to discuss with others that don't have the same opinion as you.

I discuss a lot of things with people who have differing opinions to me. I find a lot of people with differing opinions to be broadly intelligent, open to ideas and enjoyable, if challenging to converse with. Some people with differing opinions don't have any of those qualities. If I'm not enjoying a conversation I don't converse.

Cincodemayo · 06-12-2014 04:27PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

I discuss a lot of things with people who have differing opinions to me. I find a lot of people with differing opinions to be broadly intelligent, open to ideas and enjoyable, if challenging to converse with. Some people with differing opinions don't have any of those qualities. If I'm not enjoying a conversation I don't converse.

Which in effect for you means when you're point has successfully been proven wrong you don't enjoy it so you refuse to converse, do you think that's mature?

steddyeddy · 06-12-2014 04:27PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

I discuss a lot of things with people who have differing opinions to me. I find a lot of people with differing opinions to be broadly intelligent, open to ideas and enjoyable, if challenging to converse with. Some people with differing opinions don't have any of those qualities. If I'm not enjoying a conversation I don't converse.

By not enjoying a conversation you seem to mean you make a statement (I.E oppressive scientist), you are asked to explain why and you can't back up your argument. You're just making nonsensical and expecting people not to counter them.

anonyanony · 06-12-2014 04:27PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

I discuss a lot of things with people who have differing opinions to me. I find a lot of people with differing opinions to be broadly intelligent, open to ideas and enjoyable, if challenging to converse with. Some people with differing opinions don't have any of those qualities. If I'm not enjoying a conversation I don't converse.

You said

"how I experience feminism, how I interact with my friends (who are feminists) and how I read and educate myself about feminism"

All them seem to be a way of just getting echo chamber of what you already agree and not getting a new perspective on anything.

KomradeBishop · 06-12-2014 04:29PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

I disagree it was harmless. The man who wore it disagrees it was harmless. Lots of people disagree it was harmless. Most businesses would disagree it was harmless. You can say it was harmless but it's certainly not contentious to say it is an issue.

Hmm, in what way was his shirt harmful though? I agree it was in bad taste, but only because it's a shirt I don't personally find appealing, not because I think there was anything inherently wrong with it.

Lyaiera · 06-12-2014 04:32PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

By not enjoying a conversation you seem to mean you make a statement (I.E oppressive scientist), you are asked to explain why and you can't back up your argument. You're just making nonsensical and expecting people not to counter them.

This is what I mean. I never said the scientist was an "oppressive scientist." I was trying to discuss why hyper-sexualised images are inappropriate for the workplace as seen through the lenses of the theories of objectification, social context, and oppression. People jumped at me and immediately thought I was saying the scientist was "oppressing" people. I never said that. I've had this same discussion with many people, using the same ideas and the same language and there was no problems with understanding or communication. There is a big problem with understanding and communication here. So why would I continue the conversation about that issue?

If you want an enjoyable, constructive discussion the ability to communicate at the same level of understanding is important. That's not happening here.

Cincodemayo · 06-12-2014 04:35PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

This is what I mean. I never said the scientist was an "oppressive scientist." I was trying to discuss why hyper-sexualised images are inappropriate for the workplace as seen through the lenses of the theories of objectification, social context, and oppression. People jumped at me and immediately thought I was saying the scientist was "oppressing" people. I never said that. I've had this same discussion with many people, using the same ideas and the same language and there was no problems with understanding or communication. There is a big problem with understanding and communication here. So why would I continue the conversation about that issue?

If you want an enjoyable, constructive discussion the ability to communicate at the same level of understanding is important. That's not happening here.

Could you elaborate on the lenses of objectification, oppression and how it relates to his shirt?

Venus In Furs · 06-12-2014 04:35PM

SeanW wrote: »

I belive that a movement should be judged by its objectives and accomplishments - and when both of those are so overwhelmingly negative, it's entirely reasonable to judge the movement as a whole, unless the rest of the movement clearly and unambiguously objects to this and offers an alternative.

Ok, but what about individuals who deem themselves feminist but only in favour of the actual sensible stuff, have no time for the stuff that affects men's rights, and have contempt for the crazy stuff, and have lots of time for men, lots of men in their life, no issue with women looking sexy etc. These people exist - is it still unacceptable for them to deem themselves feminist? Can't feminists be a particular type?

E.g. I believe in elements of socialism - there should be state benefits because not everyone is born on an equal footing, I don't have a problem with private enterprise but I don't believe all services should be privatised either and some should remain the state/people's; I believe in taxes in order for us to be a society working together, rather than a bunch of individuals out on our own.
But that doesn't make me a bolshevist or someone that doesn't roundly condemn/is terrified of hardline communism. It doesn't even make me a socialist. However some of my views would fit under the moderate end of these umbrellas.

Lyaiera · 06-12-2014 04:36PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Hmm, in what way was his shirt harmful though? I agree it was in bad taste, but only because it's a shirt I don't personally find appealing, not because I think there was anything inherently wrong with it.

Showing that type of bad taste as a senior official in a major organisation dominating the news can have repercussions for how people view the nature of that organisation. It's basic marketing and public relations. In that way it's harmful. But as I said at the very beginning of this thread of conversation I didn't think it was a big deal and just rolled my eyes when I saw it and got on with watching a stream about something very cool that happened in space.

To be honest it was just an aside. I thought my general nonchalance about it was evident but people keep bringing it up.

steddyeddy · 06-12-2014 04:38PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

This is what I mean. I never said the scientist was an "oppressive scientist." I was trying to discuss why hyper-sexualised images are inappropriate for the workplace as seen through the lenses of the theories of objectification, social context, and oppression. People jumped at me and immediately thought I was saying the scientist was "oppressing" people. I never said that. I've had this same discussion with many people, using the same ideas and the same language and there was no problems with understanding or communication. There is a big problem with understanding and communication here. So why would I continue the conversation about that issue?

If you want an enjoyable, constructive discussion the ability to communicate at the same level of understanding is important. That's not happening here.

What do you mean by the same level of understanding? You haven't explained your points, just made statements. How is the image hyper-sexualised, is "hyper-sexualised" a definition", are images that people find attractive all sexualised and is it wrong to find images of the opposite sex sexy and if so why?

KomradeBishop · 06-12-2014 04:38PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

This is what I mean. I never said the scientist was an "oppressive scientist." I was trying to discuss why hyper-sexualised images are inappropriate for the workplace as seen through the lenses of the theories of objectification, social context, and oppression. People jumped at me and immediately thought I was saying the scientist was "oppressing" people. I never said that. I've had this same discussion with many people, using the same ideas and the same language and there was no problems with understanding or communication. There is a big problem with understanding and communication here. So why would I continue the conversation about that issue?

If you want an enjoyable, constructive discussion the ability to communicate at the same level of understanding is important. That's not happening here.

The thing is, whether or not his shirt is objectifying is actually a subjective (down to personal opinion) thing - it's only objectifying (i.e. portraying women as only or primarily useful for sex) if that's his intention in wearing it; he seemed like a totally decent/nice person, who would never objectify someone like that.

Is feminism a dirty word?

Comments