Is feminism a dirty word?

Lyaiera · 06-12-2014 04:39PM

Cincodemayo wrote: »

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

I could, but I won't. It's a trivial issue which people, on both sides of the issue blew out of all proportion. Also as I've already outlined I don't think conversation on it here is constructive.

anonyanony · 06-12-2014 04:39PM

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.

Ah the I don't want to talk to you cause I am smarter then you an you would not understand tactic.

Tell you what go ahead and mansplain your theories it to me, if I don't understand I will ask questions.

Venus In Furs · 06-12-2014 04:40PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

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.

Yeh I don't understand the controversy over that shirt - only a bit of comic-book-guy type fun IMO. As I read somewhere, the women (and they are illustrations in fairness!) while sexy, also looked like they'd be well able to look after themselves. The two traits aren't mutually exclusive.

steddyeddy · 06-12-2014 04:41PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

I could, but I won't. It's a trivial issue which people, on both sides of the issue blew out of all proportion. Also as I've already outlined I don't think conversation on it here is constructive.

No you couldn't. People here have been very reasonable but you haven't operated outside hyperbole.

Lyaiera · 06-12-2014 04:42PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

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?

You highlight my point about the same level of understanding. The people I've had brief conversations with on this had no issues with my description of the shirt as hyper-sexualised. They disagreed that this was a bad thing. But we had a common level of understanding on which to base our conversation. That isn't happening here. I'm just constantly having to explain things over and over. There is no common level of understanding. To me this conversation is pointless as I see no end to the questions and no beginning to a constructive discussion for all participants.

KomradeBishop · 06-12-2014 04:55PM

Venus In Furs wrote: »

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.

Ya good point - there are a lot of posters that would reflexively dismiss you as "Communist!" or "Statist!" for fairly standard views like that

(my current username, is a pisstake on me often being randomly labelled a Communist)

hatrickpatrick · 06-12-2014 05:01PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

You highlight my point about the same level of understanding. The people I've had brief conversations with on this had no issues with my description of the shirt as hyper-sexualised. They disagreed that this was a bad thing. But we had a common level of understanding on which to base our conversation. That isn't happening here. I'm just constantly having to explain things over and over. There is no common level of understanding. To me this conversation is pointless as I see no end to the questions and no beginning to a constructive discussion for all participants.

I'll agree that it was hyper sexualized, and I'll be the first to state that not only do I see it as harmless, I actually see it as very positive. The sooner everyone gets over the stigma surrounding sex and stops speaking of it in hushed tones, the better.

The taboo may or may not have once had noble intentions, but it is no longer relevant and has done society and individuals far more harm than good.

In my view that's still not really the issue though. The issue is that if someone causes you offense, you do not have the right to an apology from them or to ban whatever it is that offended you - which is something that far too many people, not just feminists, have lost sight of in recent years.

jackofalltrades · 06-12-2014 05:12PM

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.

Given the power and influence of the feminism, I find it hard to believe that there's a single goal that has widespread support, that isn't being worked on or implemented.
Especially given the success of so called "extremists" have had with getting changes made.

I feel if feminists were serious about giving fathers more rights, then it would have been done a long time ago.
In reality it think there is a reluctance to abandon certain female privileges.

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.

And yet every time when the gender pay gap statistics are used by a feminist group, the fact that men do more physical, dangerous jobs in worse conditions never seems to be brought up.

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,

Excluding the CEOs of charities, in general CEOs don't have much power to change society.
Especially in comparison to single interest lobby groups.
Politicians in a lot of cases are slaves to the whip system.

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.

But as you said above this can be explained simply by one gender not wishing to do that role.

Lyaiera · 06-12-2014 05:14PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'll agree that it was hyper sexualized, and I'll be the first to state that not only do I see it as harmless, I actually see it as very positive. The sooner everyone gets over the stigma surrounding sex and stops speaking of it in hushed tones, the better.

The taboo may or may not have once had noble intentions, but it is no longer relevant and has done society and individuals far more harm than good.

In my view that's still not really the issue though. The issue is that if someone causes you offense, you do not have the right to an apology from them or to ban whatever it is that offended you - which is something that far too many people, not just feminists, have lost sight of in recent years.

I broadly agree. I think we need a lot more positive conversation when it comes to ideas surrounding sexuality. I don't think wearing a shirt like that in a worldwide interview is the best place to showcase the need for such discussions. Obviously those discussions can of course come from it, seeing as it happened and nothing can be done about that.

I also generally agree on the idea of offense. There are very few things I would prohibit. And while on the one side you have people looking to censor and ban (a bad thing) you also have people looking to do what they wish without consequence (also a bad thing.) I think people who look to ban things and people who want to be free to do whatever they want without reaction are two sides of the same coin.

KomradeBishop · 06-12-2014 05:15PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...
In my view that's still not really the issue though. The issue is that if someone causes you offense, you do not have the right to an apology from them or to ban whatever it is that offended you - which is something that far too many people, not just feminists, have lost sight of in recent years.

The trouble is though, what is sometimes portrayed as a ban and an attack on free speech etc., often isn't - or is exaggerated hugely, to whip up a controversy, as an excuse for a broad attack on feminism.

It's very common for a tiny event at a university, to be picked out, exaggerated enormously, and then used to generalize/attack feminism as a whole.

Also, what is often portrayed as a free speech issue, actually isn't - if a university offers somebody a platform for a debate, and then renege's on that when they find out that someone holds reprehensible/discreditable views, that the university doesn't want to be seen legitimizing/representing - that's not a free speech issue, nobody is stopping the debate from happening elsewhere.

Everyone has the free-speech right to advocate whatever views they like, but they don't have the automatic right to a platform/soapbox (such as in a university debate), which lends unwarranted legitimacy to their views.

The Corinthian · 06-12-2014 05:20PM

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?

Try to answer the question I posed:

Can you name a single example of any feminist campaign, since the 1970's, that has advocated any change in society in the interests of gender equality that would negatively affect the rights or interests of women?

If you can't then you might want to rethink your beliefs in feminism being a force for equality. As has been pointed out, you appear to be basing your views on the subject in a bit of an echo chamber, where those core beliefs are never questioned. Do you think that wise, or is holding the belief more important than whether the belief is even true?

Lyaiera · 06-12-2014 05:23PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Try to answer the question I posed:
Can you name a single example of any feminist campaign, since the 1970's, that has advocated any change in society in the interests of gender equality that would negatively affect the rights or interests of women?

If you can't then you might want to rethink your beliefs in feminism being a force for equality. As has been pointed out, you appear to be basing your views on the subject in a bit of an echo chamber, where those core beliefs are never questioned. Do you think that wise, or is holding the belief more important than whether the belief is even true?

The campaigns for the right of women to have a career has seen increased pressure on women's role in the home. It's generally termed "The Second Shift."

The Corinthian · 06-12-2014 05:35PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

The campaigns for the right of women to have a career has seen increased pressure on women's role in the home. It's generally termed "The Second Shift."

What's that got to do with the question? If you don't want or can't answer, then fine, but please don't pretend to and simply use it to change the subject.

Lyaiera · 06-12-2014 05:39PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

What's that got to do with the question? If you don't want or can't answer, then fine, but please don't pretend to and simply use it to change the subject.

This is what I mean by understanding not being found in this thread. I feel my answer directly addresses the question you raised. You don't.

Cincodemayo · 06-12-2014 05:44PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

This is what I mean by understanding not being found in this thread. I feel my answer directly addresses the question you raised. You don't.

Your feelings are misguided, your answer was a complete non sequitar, you'd make a good politician.

Lyaiera · 06-12-2014 05:46PM

Cincodemayo wrote: »

Your feelings are misguided, your answer was a complete non sequitar, you'd make a good politician.

Thanks for your contribution. I'll be sure to evaluate my statement in light of it and will use this valuable feedback to address approaches to future instances of conversation.

The Corinthian · 06-12-2014 05:48PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

This is what I mean by understanding not being found in this thread. I feel my answer directly addresses the question you raised. You don't.

But your answer does not answer the question; that campaign did not intentionally sacrifice women's rights in the interests of equality, it got them extra rights, not fewer anywhere and the 'second shift' was simply an unintentional, and frankly inevitable, consequence of trying to have your cake and eat it.

And on top of this, ever since, we've seen an attempt to further change society further so that women have more rights (e.g. quotas) so that they can have their cake and eat it.

Sacrificing women's rights would be sacrificing their near monopoly on control of children as they demand more rights in male roles. That has never been done and feminism will never do this because equality is not it's aim, only maximizing rights for women.

Lyaiera · 06-12-2014 05:52PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

But your answer does not answer the question; that campaign did not intentionally sacrifice women's rights in the interests of equality, it got them extra rights, not fewer anywhere and the 'second shift' was simply an unintentional, and frankly inevitable, consequence of trying to have your cake and eat it.

Wanting equal distribution of work and home responsibilities is a case of "trying to have your cake and eat it?"

And why would you anyone talk of sacrificing rights? I don't think you understand what rights are.

Cincodemayo · 06-12-2014 06:01PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

Thanks for your contribution. I'll be sure to evaluate my statement in light of it and will use this valuable feedback to address approaches to future instances of conversation.

Time will tell.

Cincodemayo · 06-12-2014 06:09PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

Wanting equal distribution of work and home responsibilities is a case of "trying to have your cake and eat it?"

And why would you anyone talk of sacrificing rights? I don't think you understand what rights are.

In instances where woman unfairly have more rights than men, anyone who seeks gender equality should either campaign for less rights for women, more for men or a combination.

Lyaiera · 06-12-2014 06:16PM

Cincodemayo wrote: »

In instances where woman unfairly have more rights than men, anyone who seeks gender equality should either campaign for less rights for women, more for men or a combination.

A lot of women in Ireland are campaigning for the women's rights within the family to be removed from the constitution.

The Corinthian · 06-12-2014 06:17PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

Wanting equal distribution of work and home responsibilities is a case of "trying to have your cake and eat it?"

But there isn't equal distribution of work and home rights. With regards to children, women have an overwhelming share of rights. So wanting to leave these traditional female roles untouched, but seeking an equal footing with men in traditional male roles is looking to have your cake and eat it.

Has feminism even acknowledged this? Or is it willing to address this inequality that now favours women? If not you cannot claim that feminism seeks equality.

And why would you anyone talk of sacrificing rights? I don't think you understand what rights are.

Clearly I understand better than you. Patriarchy may have favoured men, but to suggest that women did not have rights and privileges assigned to their gender would be grossly dishonest. Women did not have to go to war, women were expected to be financially cared for by men, not the other way around, women would (certainly from the twentieth century) would automatically get custody of children, regardless of whether this was in the child's interest.

If you believe in equality, level the system constructed by patriarchy, then you have to accept that both men and women need to sacrifice their traditional gender based rights and privileges, otherwise you don't want equality, you want to have your cake and eat it.

Lyaiera · 06-12-2014 06:18PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

But there isn't equal distribution of work and home rights. With regards to children, women have an overwhelming share of rights. So wanting to leave these traditional female roles untouched, but seeking an equal footing with men in traditional male roles is looking to have your cake and eat it.

Has feminism even acknowledged this? Or is it willing to address this inequality that now favours women? If not you cannot claim that feminism seeks equality.

Clearly I understand better than you. Patriarchy may have favoured men, but to suggest that women did not have rights and privileges assigned to their gender would be grossly dishonest. Women did not have to go to war, women were expected to be financially cared for by men, not the other way around, women would (certainly from the twentieth century) would automatically get custody of children, regardless of whether this was in the child's interest.

If you believe in equality, level the system constructed by patriarchy, then you have to accept that both men and women need to sacrifice their traditional gender based rights and privileges, otherwise you don't want equality, you want to have your cake and eat it.

You're saying these are rights but they're also tools of oppression.

And you're ignoring my whole point about women having to work The Second Shift. The whole point of it is that women have to work in a career and at home. That's not more "rights."

You have the right to earn money and do the hoovering. Fantastic.

The Corinthian · 06-12-2014 06:20PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

A lot of women in Ireland are campaigning for the women's rights within the family to be removed from the constitution.

Firstly, and again, we're discussing feminism, not women and you keep on confusing the two.

Sorry, you mean that silly line about a woman's place in the home? How's that going to change how 92% of custody cases go to the mother? Or 99% of divorce cases the man loses out financially? Lip service, nothing more.

When feminism campaign for quotas on custody cases, I'll take it seriously. Until then, all we've seen is a lot of window dressing and lip service.

Cincodemayo · 06-12-2014 06:23PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

You're saying these are rights but they're also tools of oppression.

And you're ignoring my whole point about women having to work The Second Shift. The whole point of it is that women have to work in a career and at home. That's not more "rights."

You have the right to earn money and do the hoovering. Fantastic.

Neither men nor women are obligated to hoover. Who does the hoovering in the home is a personal decision between the occupants.

The Corinthian · 06-12-2014 06:23PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

You're saying these are rights but they're also tools of oppression.

Now you're taking the piss. So a mother who uses access as a weapon against the father is in reality a victim of oppression? No, that crap is frankly borderline misandrist.

And you're ignoring my whole point about women having to work The Second Shift. The whole point of it is that women have to work in a career and at home. That's not more "rights."

No it's extra responsibility for the extra rights you get. Or do you think we should all get rights without strings attached?

Lyaiera · 06-12-2014 06:25PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Firstly, and again, we're discussing feminism, not women and you keep on confusing the two.

Sorry, you mean that silly line about a woman's place in the home? How's that going to change how 92% of custody cases go to the mother? Or 99% of divorce cases the man loses out financially? Lip service, nothing more.

When feminism campaign for quotas on custody cases, I'll take it seriously. Until then, all we've seen is a lot of window dressing and lip service.

Again, I say something, and again you refuse to accept it. Women have those "rights" (although I'd say oppression) as put forward by the constitution. Women (and feminism) is campaigning to change it. You constantly change the goal posts. You're in no way willing to discuss the issues.

bodice ripper · 06-12-2014 06:28PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

You're saying these are rights but they're also tools of oppression.

And you're ignoring my whole point about women having to work The Second Shift. The whole point of it is that women have to work in a career and at home. That's not more "rights."

You have the right to earn money and do the hoovering. Fantastic.

Only if she allows that to happen. Ain't no man getting to have a family without sacrificing his career without the mother letting that occur.

Lyaiera · 06-12-2014 06:33PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

Only if she allows that to happen. Ain't no man getting to have a family without sacrificing his career without the mother letting that occur.

How do you force someone to do something they don't want? You could just leave them, but what happens if there are children?

ancapailldorcha · 06-12-2014 06:33PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

Again, I say something, and again you refuse to accept it. Women have those "rights" (although I'd say oppression) as put forward by the constitution. Women (and feminism) is campaigning to change it. You constantly change the goal posts. You're in no way willing to discuss the issues.

I really can't get my head around how you'd see things like women being allocated preference for space on lifeboats, exemption from conscription and victory in the vast majority of custody hearings as oppression.

Is feminism a dirty word?

Comments