nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

I'm becoming very cynical about people who say they're interested in eqaulity

steddyeddy

I worked on a few projects in Tanzania such as a prison, an AIDS clinic and a refuge for women. Only 5% of women in Tanzania go on to secondary education and believe me it's one of the more progressive African countries. I asked what they thought about feminism in the west and they said "it stands for white middle class women and hasn't ventured into the savannah".

TBH they're right. I think a lot of people claiming to support equality only support the equality of the group they're a part of. On another thread the findings of a report detailed that bright students from working class backgrounds were discriminated against based on where they were born. One recruiter said this:

One employer suggested firms were unwilling to sift through applications from those of working-class backgrounds. “Is there a diamond in the rough out there?” the unnamed recruiter told researchers. “Statistically it’s highly probable but the question is … how much mud do I have to sift through in that population to find that diamond?”

Now this is discrimination. Yet the same people who complain about sexism supported this stance. If they were really concerned about women they'd open their eyes to the fact that working class women are discriminated too.

It's not just feminism but a lot of people who claim to support equality seem to be only supporting their particular brand of equality because it's the flavor of the month.

Look at the hatred directed at Tim Hunt and then look at what these same people are doing to support other forms of inequality.

In essence people support one type of equality but might support another type of inequality.

I.e some types of discrimination are more fashionable than others.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

steddyeddy

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Well, that's a political issue in the end - that can only change through a change in politics in Tanzania; you can't rely on foreign help/aid for issues like these.

If every feminist association tried to promote awareness of every feminist issue in the world, or if they tried to prioritize them based on the worst breaches of feminist principles in the world, then they'd:
1: Stretch themselves too thin and become completely ineffective.
2: Would be prioritizing issues that they have no political influence over (i.e. things happening far away in the world).

That's not really practical - activist organizations usually have to stay local; sure, they should do a bit of international networking and help out similar organizations elsewhere in the world, but that'd be secondary to their main purpose locally.

Put it this way KB. I think a country where only 5% of women go to secondary school is experiencing some of the biggest sexism problems in the world. These women only want their issue raised.

Feminism isn't a set of shared ideals.

steddyeddy

K4t wrote: »

I've never heard any feminist say that feminism could cure poverty - Feminism you could say attempts to give the same rights and opportunities to the poverty stricken female as the poverty stricken male. Feminism won't make the woman wealthy while the man remains poor though, that would be discrimination.

I do think feminism is for all women, but as you yourself have shown in your examples, class conquers all.

And not enough is being done about that because it isn't fashionable.

One eyed Jack

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's not about working class. To illustrate my point I consider myself an egalitarian in that I think everyone should have equality of opportunity. I don't favor one group over another but desire to see an even playing ground when it comes to opportunity.

Ohh no, say it ain't so? Genuinely eddy I never thought of you as one of those "gender politics" sh1tehawks. Have you met your female equivalent -

Completely ignoring context in favour of imposing your own world view upon other people, and getting absolutely nowhere fast.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

We don't measure movements by their most extreme edges. Jaysus a small bit of cop on would sort out this whole situation for you.

I'm reminded of a quip by one of the 'apprentices' on the Irish version of the tv show a few years back -

"Daddy can't buy you cop on in Trinity College" :pac:

KomradeBishop

steddyeddy wrote: »

Put it this way KB. I think a country where only 5% of women go to secondary school is experiencing some of the biggest sexism problems in the world. These women only want their issue raised.

Feminism isn't a set of shared ideals.

I agree that there should be more international awareness of their issues, sure, but as explained in my previous post, I don't think it's valid to criticise feminist groups focusing on local issues elsewhere in the world, for not promoting awareness of Tanzanian feminist issues (+ all other feminist issues in the world, that are worse than their local issues) - this doesn't mean that the local-issues group, only want their own issues raised, it just means that it's not practical for them to focus on non-local issues.

If you apply that criticism consistently (counting all feminist issues in the world that are worse than their local issues), it would be setting an impossible standard.

steddyeddy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Nobody wants to talk about that because that involves getting people to look at their own prejudices, which are extremely prevalent.
I'm always amazed at how many middle class, private school educated, "enlightened" and "intellectual" people my own age profess to be above racism, sexism, etc and moreover to be absolutely disgusted by those who engage in it - but will happily go on long rants about Travellers if someone mentions taking a trip to Dunsink Observatory. Same thing with class discrimination - we had a thread here on Boards a little while ago about discrimination based on accents, and someone threw in "Well, if you sound like your from the Gardiner St Flats (a block of '50s council flats) then you can hardly expect to get hired above someone who sounds like they're from Foxrock" or some such bullsh!t.

The reason we don't talk about class discrimination in Ireland is because for some bizarre and sad reason, it's still widely socially acceptable.

This is what the thread is about. Some forms of equality are fashionable and some forms of discrimination are fashionable.

On the thread you mentioned bright applicants from a certain area didn't even get to the interview stage. The bit below was the response:

"Well, if you sound like your from the Gardiner St Flats (a block of '50s council flats) then you can hardly expect to get hired above someone who sounds like they're from Foxrock"

The same poster was a major voice in a thread mentioning women aren't paid as much as men and the same poster claimed to be a patron of equality.

A feminist in college stated before "working class people don't want education" and "if you can't afford college you shouldn't be here". Her parents paid for her.

In some parts of college people like her as you describe are help up as a beacon of equality.

steddyeddy

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I agree that there should be more international awareness of their issues, sure, but as explained in my previous post, I don't think it's valid to criticise feminist groups focusing on local issues elsewhere in the world, for not promoting awareness of Tanzanian feminist issues (+ all other feminist issues in the world, that are worse than their local issues) - this doesn't mean that the local-issues group, only want their own issues raised, it just means that it's not practical for them to focus on non-local issues.

If you apply that criticism consistently (counting all feminist issues in the world that are worse than their local issues), it would be setting an impossible standard.

I think it's valid to criticise them for ignoring major sexist issues though.

Trudiha

steddyeddy wrote: »

This is what the thread is about. Some forms of equality are fashionable and some forms of discrimination are fashionable.

On the thread you mentioned bright applicants from a certain area didn't even get to the interview stage. The bit below was the response:

The same poster was a major voice in a thread mentioning women aren't paid as much as men and the same poster claimed to be a patron of equality.

A feminist in college stated before "working class people don't want education" and "if you can't afford college you shouldn't be here". Her parents paid for her.

In some parts of college people like her as you describe are help up as a beacon of equality.

Those quotes are shocking and they show beyond doubt that you’ve met some awful hypocritical bigots who need to check their privilege and nothing more.

steddyeddy

Trudiha wrote: »

Those quotes are shocking and they show beyond doubt that you’ve met some awful hypocritical bigots who need to check their privilege and nothing more.

Don't tell me T some of them who thanked that are posting here!

Trudiha

steddyeddy wrote: »

Don't tell me T some of them who thanked that are posting here!

Yep, I've seen shades of racism in gay rights activists that have made me feel sick to my stomach, men who’ve claimed to be in favour of men’s right who just don’t like their former wives and folks who claim to care about poverty who don’t pay their taxes.

There’s nowt as queer as folk but they were still all partially right. Maybe there’s something admirable in hypocrisy; they know which way they should be heading, even if they can’t meet their own ideals?

Carry

steddyeddy wrote: »

I worked on a few projects in Tanzania such as a prison, an AIDS clinic and a refuge for women. Only 5% of women in Tanzania go on to secondary education and believe me it's one of the more progressive African countries. I asked what they thought about feminism in the west and they said "it stands for white middle class women and hasn't ventured into the savannah".

TBH they're right. I think a lot of people claiming to support equality only support the equality of the group they're a part of. On another thread the findings of a report detailed that bright students from working class backgrounds were discriminated against based on where they were born. One recruiter said this:

Now this is discrimination. Yet the same people who complain about sexism supported this stance. If they were really concerned about women they'd open their eyes to the fact that working class women are discriminated too.

It's not just feminism but a lot of people who claim to support equality seem to be only supporting their particular brand of equality because it's the flavor of the month.

Look at the hatred directed at Tim Hunt and then look at what these same people are doing to support other forms of inequality.

In essence people support one type of equality but might support another type of inequality.

But you see, without campaigning for one thing or another there wouldn’t be any change at all. Look back at history – and beyond the tip of your nose – and you might see that only the commitment to one cause or another, as silly as it looks at the time, did change society.

Think about the living conditions of the working class about 150 years ago, or the peasants, remember the rights of women, it’s not that long ago they had’nt any and they are still seen as inferior to men, generally speaking. Without often ridiculed campaigning in the past you wouldn’t have i. e. minimum wage or social welfare.

Of course everyone speaks for their own brand of equality. Equality, or the aim for it, is embedded in a specific society with all the history and development behind it.

You can’t compare an African country with, say, Ireland. What is an achievement in Ireland might be unheard of in, say, Germany. And vice versa. Not to speak of other countries outside Europe.
And what an African woman sees as normal for herself an puzzling in other countries might be a puzzle for an Irish man – or more so for a Western woman. There are different societies with different values.

Let’s just everyone fight and campaign for every progressive right they deem worthwhile. In the end it benefits society, even if there is a lot of failure on the way - and the odd collateral damage as your poor old Tim Hunt (had to google him, he is so negligible).

Or do you think that we just stand put and do nothing? Discrimination is still everywhere. Best thing and probably most successful is to start fighting it where it’s closer to home.

KomradeBishop

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think it's valid to criticise them for ignoring major sexist issues though.

You're sidestepping what I've said though: Every feminist group in existence, is ignoring major sexist issues, going on somewhere else in the world - simply because there's only so much any one group can focus on - expecting otherwise is just an impossible standard.

steddyeddy

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're sidestepping what I've said though: Every feminist group in existence, is ignoring major sexist issues, going on somewhere else in the world - simply because there's only so much any one group can focus on - expecting otherwise is just an impossible standard.

No I agree. They are all side stepping the major issues in place of some fashionable issues like man wearing an unfashionable t-shirt.

Dimithy

steddyeddy wrote: »

No I agree. They are all side stepping the major issues in place of some fashionable issues like man wearing an unfashionable t-shirt.

Feminists...what a bunch of bastards.

Also, I'm great. Let me tell you about the great thing I did...
Actually, no, instead of trying to raise awareness of this terrible thing in a genuine way, I'm going to tell you how awful feminists are.

Don't you hate feminists?

steddyeddy

Dimithy wrote: »

Feminists...what a bunch of bastards.

Also, I'm great. Let me tell you about the great thing I did...
Actually, no, instead of trying to raise awareness of this terrible thing in a genuine way, I'm going to tell you how awful feminists are.

Don't you hate feminists?

I don't hate them I worked with them. I think some who claim to be feminists haven't a clue about what equality is and are joining it because it's the in thing to do.

NachoBusiness

I think it's disgraceful the way female Hollywood stars were only getting paid 4 or 5 mill for films, when their male counterparts were getting 30 mil. Fair play to Patricia Arquette and Meryl Streep. Sure, Angelina Jolie got $33m for Maleficent and Jennifer Lawrence got $26 for Hunger Games, but they only paid them those large sums because, well, that's not all that important, and anyway the prize money for ladies championship at Wimbledon is now the same as it is for the men's championship winner. They play the same amount of sets and there is same level of demand for tickets (ie: centre court action) and women's tennis generates as much as men's, so it's only fair.

Dimithy

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't hate them I worked with them. I think some who claim to be feminists haven't a clue about what equality is and are joining it because it's the in thing to do.

I think the word you're looking for is people. Some people do things because it's the thing to do.

In saying that, I'm sure the people who benefit from the good that others do, just because its the thing to do or to be seen, don't really give a **** what the motivation for doing it is.

Eugene Norman

NachoBusiness wrote: »

I think it's disgraceful the way female Hollywood stars were only getting paid 4 or 5 mill for films, when their male counterparts were getting 30 mil. Fair play to Patricia Arquette and Meryl Streep. Sure, Angelina Jolie got $33m for Maleficent and Jennifer Lawrence got $26 for Hunger Games, but they only paid them those large sums because, well, that's not all that important, and anyway the prize money for ladies championship at Wimbledon is now the same as it is for the men's championship winner. They play the same amount of sets and there is same level of demand for tickets (ie: centre court action) and women's tennis generates as much as men's, so it's only fair.

Yes. The most important form of equality is the equality of the top .1%. Screw the working classes.

Dimithy

NachoBusiness wrote: »

I think it's disgraceful the way female Hollywood stars were only getting paid 4 or 5 mill for films, when their male counterparts were getting 30 mil. Fair play to Patricia Arquette and Meryl Streep. Sure, Angelina Jolie got $33m for Maleficent and Jennifer Lawrence got $26 for Hunger Games, but they only paid them those large sums because, well, that's not all that important, and anyway the prize money for ladies championship at Wimbledon is now the same as it is for the men's championship winner. They play the same amount of sets and there is same level of demand for tickets (ie: centre court action) and women's tennis generates as much as men's, so it's only fair.

I think its disgraceful the way people in Ireland look for pay rises, when they make far more money than women in Tanzania. Bunch of hypocrites.

Eugene Norman

Dimithy wrote: »

I think its disgraceful the way people in Ireland look for pay rises, when they make far more money than women in Tanzania. Bunch of hypocrites.

Why would that be hypocritical? It would be hypocritical if certain groups in Ireland considered themselves less privileged than certain groups in Tanzania. Say if some female in Ireland thought there was a "patriarchy" and thus she was oppressed compared to all males, including Tanzanian males, or even men in Ireland of a lower class to her. Or if American millionaire stars used the same rhethotic of patriarchy to ignore their privileges of class, nation and empire to declare themselves oppressed.

Annasopra

steddyeddy wrote: »

No I agree. They are all side stepping the major issues in place of some fashionable issues like man wearing an unfashionable t-shirt.

Ah here. Loads of feminists disagreed with that shirt controversy. The way you're going on every single Western feminist was campaigning against it.

steddyeddy

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ah here. Loads of feminists disagreed with that shirt controversy. The way you're going on every single Western feminist was campaigning against it.

But it's still going. They seem to be picking on science for some reason. Tim hunt's the latest. I admit he said a really really stupid joke but he wasn't sexist. There seems to be a trend towards blowing the wrong things out of proportion.

Eugene Norman

steddyeddy wrote: »

But it's still going. They seem to be picking on science for some reason. Tim hunt's the latest. I admit he said a really really stupid joke but he wasn't sexist. There seems to be a trend towards blowing the wrong things out of proportion.

It's generally Americans. The only power in the history of the world that dominates the culture and has projected it's army across the whole world. So much so that everywhere is surrounded.

The SJWs at the centre of this empire are good at finding privilege everywhere but in their own Empire. This is a totally different left to the anti-American left I few up in. Ask these American SJWs about the imposition of the Shah, or the American dictators across Central America and they would draw a blank. Worse, ask leftists outside America and they too would draw a blank.

Privilege isn't power or class or empire but gender or skin colour ( as if Russians, Finns, Greeks or Scots etc had anything like American privilege).

Heck. If the U.S. were about to invade Iran in a few years you would get more angry SJW traction on Twitter by calling American actresses overpaid before the invasion.

Dimithy

steddyeddy wrote: »

There seems to be a trend towards blowing the wrong things out of proportion.

You're here complaining about this, when instead you could have started a thread about the plight of women in Tanzania.

http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/wp-content/uploads/global-burden-of-violence.jpg

Take a look at that and tell me you're blowing the right thing out of proportion?

Eugene Norman

An example today. The British Labour Party -- once the party of the working classes -- abstains from voting against a bill which would impoverish millions of working poor. Leader of the opposition that failed to oppose is feminist icon Harriet Harmon.

Annasopra

Eugene Norman wrote: »

An example today. The British Labour Party -- once the party of the working classes -- abstains from voting against a bill which would impoverish millions of working poor. Leader of the opposition that failed to oppose is feminist icon Harriet Harmon.

Eh no 48 voted against

El_Duderino 09

It's not like those middle class feminists are preventing working class Irish or Tanzanians from organising groups to promote feminism or education.

Maybe people can only do so much so they do what they can to help. People are imperfect and make racist decisions. Except for Steddyeddy?

Ah but to satisfy your egalitarian standards people would need to act equally for all causes involving inequality.

I find people who work with aids patients in places like Tanzania are self interested hypocrites because they do nothing for people with health concerns in South America. Sure some people in South America don't even have water to drink. Aids aiding hypocrites, the lot of them. (Check the above statement for ridiculousness)

Eugene Norman

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Eh no 48 voted against

Eh no, they defied the whip. Harriet is acting leader. She made the policy.

arayess

NachoBusiness wrote: »

I think it's disgraceful the way female Hollywood stars were only getting paid 4 or 5 mill for films, when their male counterparts were getting 30 mil. Fair play to Patricia Arquette and Meryl Streep. Sure, Angelina Jolie got $33m for Maleficent and Jennifer Lawrence got $26 for Hunger Games, but they only paid them those large sums because, well, that's not all that important, and anyway the prize money for ladies championship at Wimbledon is now the same as it is for the men's championship winner. They play the same amount of sets and there is same level of demand for tickets (ie: centre court action) and women's tennis generates as much as men's, so it's only fair.

they do?

i agree with your point with the exception of the hollywood thing.
The actor get their cash based on their "pulling power" male actors tend to have a greater cult following than female actress. I've no idea why but I know from the past girls where I used to work would see a colin farrell or brad pitt movie cos they liked the actor. I myself am guilty of picking a film cos Arnold or Danny Dyer was in it.
I've never - bar maybe angelina jolie (and porn of course) - encountered a female lead having that pulling power.
Not once have I heard anybody saying "oh your one is in that film , we must see it". But with male actors that happens a lot. Why I've no idea probably marketing but who knows.

NachoBusiness

arayess wrote: »

they do?

Nope.

i agree with your point with the exception of the hollywood thing.

Hmm. I think it's the opposite

The actor get their cash based on their "pulling power" male actors tend to have a greater cult following than female actress. I've no idea why but I know from the past girls where I used to work would see a colin farrell or brad pitt movie cos they liked the actor. I myself am guilty of picking a film cos Arnold or Danny Dyer was in it.
I've never - bar maybe angelina jolie (and porn of course) - encountered a female lead having that pulling power.
Not once have I heard anybody saying "oh your one is in that film , we must see it". But with male actors that happens a lot. Why I've no idea probably marketing but who knows.

Agree 100% with the above.

The_Captain

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Why would that be hypocritical? It would be hypocritical if certain groups in Ireland considered themselves less privileged than certain groups in Tanzania. Say if some female in Ireland thought there was a "patriarchy" and thus she was oppressed compared to all males, including Tanzanian males, or even men in Ireland of a lower class to her. Or if American millionaire stars used the same rhethotic of patriarchy to ignore their privileges of class, nation and empire to declare themselves oppressed.

Like Emma Watson talking about being oppressed because of her gender.

Sure, she was a millionaire before starting secondary school and is one of the most famous people in the world, and even if she never became an actress she was still born into a life of upper class English privilege, but sometimes she's called bossy! :eek: