Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
How relevant to you is the controversy over feminism?
Options
Comments
-
I think I can see where klaz is coming from on this... society is a lot less conformist than it was in the past. In previous generations those who wanted to rebel against the social order usually did so by joining a sub-culture of one sort or another (hippies, teddy boys, mods, punks, skinheads, metalheads, goths etc.). In refusing to conform to broader societal norms, they effectively chose to conform to the norms of that sub-culture.
With the advent of the internet, those subcultures grew ever more niche as people weren't restricted to finding those who thought like themselves in the real world - resulting in ever more fractured and intersecting sub-cultures. In fact, sub-cultures that would have been shunned, bullied or teased by wider society only a few short decades ago (e.g. gamers, comic book nerds, the LGBTQ community) have become mainstream or are often even considered "cool" now. We're celebrating difference and individuality (and there's an extremely strong argument that this is a great thing!).
While most outliers are harmless e.g. "Bronies" whose "uniqueness" amounts to obsessing over a child's cartoon series or furrys who like dressing up as woodland creature, there is a risk that the positive messaging coming from popular culture (for example artists like Lady Gaga encouraging her fans to "embrace their inner freaks") can be accepted at face value by those whose "inner freak" is a very dark and dangerous thing.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Well, first off, you've decided to latch on to, "being a freak". In addition, you're exaggerating the link between my reference of being a freak, and rape. Which is probably the point, but I'll respond anyway.
The reference of being a freak referred to the various movements which encouraged people to break social norms and behave in, ever increasingly, aggressive ways to show that they didn't belong to the past social norms. The Punk wave really started that off, but it got a refresher in the late 80s and 90s, with a range of music (and other) movements which encouraged people to behave differently.
When I think of 90s culture, I think of Smashing Pumpkins, Radiohead, Nirvana, Rage against the Machine, Nine Inch Nails, Marilyn Manson, Portishead, etc all of which led to alternative music scenes, often with somewhat disturbing lyrics, and attitudes, in addition to the rise of Rap outside of the US, with their own host of dodgy attitudes.
As for any data, nope.. but you knew that already. I posted an opinion piece, and if I'd wanted to pretend that it was based on facts, I would have posted links as supporting evidence.
Or we could have been exposed to different influences. We tend to base our view of reality based on what we've experienced ourselves. I could throw in some snotty points at this stage, but nah, I don't see much point in doing so.
And I have no issue with people disagreeing with me, and what I've posted... but you haven't disagreed. You've exaggerated and sought to dismiss what I said. That's all.
Not sure what I was exaggerating. You made the link yourself between "being yourself" or "being a freak" and the apparent rise in violent crimes of men, including rape. I wouldn't have picked it out if it didn't occur to me as such an enormous leap in logic. If you can't provide any proof of the link between individualism and violence, then it's an opinion piece not based on facts.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Not sure what I was exaggerating. You made the link yourself between "being yourself" or "being a freak" and the apparent rise in violent crimes of men, including rape. I wouldn't have picked it out if it didn't occur to me as such an enormous leap in logic. If you can't provide any proof of the link between individualism and violence, then it's an opinion piece not based on facts.
Which I said as much in my response to you previously. I was simply expressing my thoughts, and possibly it would encourage others to contribute to a discussion over the various points, expanding on the topic. Not everything on boards needs to be an argument.
Every post that doesn't provide supporting links as evidence, is an opinion piece.0 -
I think I can see where klaz is coming from on this... society is a lot less conformist than it was in the past. In previous generations those who wanted to rebel against the social order usually did so by joining a sub-culture of one sort or another (hippies, teddy boys, mods, punks, skinheads, metalheads, goths etc.). In refusing to conform to broader societal norms, they effectively chose to conform to the norms of that sub-culture.
With the advent of the internet, those subcultures grew ever more niche as people weren't restricted to finding those who thought like themselves in the real world - resulting in ever more fractured and intersecting sub-cultures. In fact, sub-cultures that would have been shunned, bullied or teased by wider society only a few short decades ago (e.g. gamers, comic book nerds, the LGBTQ community) have become mainstream or are often even considered "cool" now. We're celebrating difference and individuality (and there's an extremely strong argument that this is a great thing!).
While most outliers are harmless e.g. "Bronies" whose "uniqueness" amounts to obsessing over a child's cartoon series or furrys who like dressing up as woodland creature, there is a risk that the positive messaging coming from popular culture (for example artists like Lady Gaga encouraging her fans to "embrace their inner freaks") can be accepted at face value by those whose "inner freak" is a very dark and dangerous thing.
Incels would be a prime example0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Which I said as much in my response to you previously. I was simply expressing my thoughts, and possibly it would encourage others to contribute to a discussion over the various points, expanding on the topic. Not everything on boards needs to be an argument.
Every post that doesn't provide supporting links as evidence, is an opinion piece.
Not according to the feminists it seems
They just 'know'
No need for facts
That way of going on just boils my slash. Without evidence it's just a religion0 -
Advertisement
-
Not according to the feminists it seems
They just 'know'
No need for facts
That way of going on just boils my slash. Without evidence it's just a religion
Nah. They often do provide facts. The raw data is just interpreted differently, or they rely on research that had biased researchers seeking a confirmation they'd already decided on before starting the research.
I'd view it more as an ideology such as marxism, communism, etc. rather than a religion. But sure, belief is rather important to them, because it's linked to their 'feelings'.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Every post that doesn't provide supporting links as evidence, is an opinion piece.
But surely even if a post links to evidence it can - and likely still is - an opinion piece. You might a) only reference evidence that supports your opinion and b) who says the evidence is accurate and valid.
Sure we wouldn’t need prosecution and defence barristers if all we needed was evidence.0 -
But surely even if a post links to evidence it can - and likely still is - an opinion piece. You might a) only reference evidence that supports your opinion and b) who says the evidence is accurate and valid.
Sure we wouldn’t need prosecution and defence barristers if all we needed was evidence.
Is it appropriate if I just roll my eyes at the stating of the obvious? Does all this really need to be spelled out? It's not like any of this is new to boards.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Is it appropriate if I just roll my eyes at the stating of the obvious? Does all this really need to be spelled out? It's not like any of this is new to boards.
No it’s not new to boards.
Neither is being a smart arse in response to a post that someone doesn’t like rather than engaging on the point.
It’s ok to be wrong.0 -
No it’s not new to boards.
Neither is being a smart arse in response to a post that someone doesn’t like rather than engaging on the point.
It’s ok to be wrong.
Wrong? I don't believe I am. In any case, this is going nowhere, and I've no desire to be an ass to anyone.
I'll leave it at that.0 -
Advertisement
-
[Deleted User] wrote: »Wrong? I don't believe I am. In any case, this is going nowhere, and I've no desire to be an ass to anyone.
I'll leave it at that.
People often do when they’re wrong.
Let me explain - you said that unless you provide evidence then a post is only an opinion.
I countered that by saying - no, that’s not accurate - even if you do provide evidence it’s still could be an opinion and I gave two reasons I) the evidence is selected to support ones opinion and ii) who died and made the poster the arbiter of whether that evidence is accurate and valid.
I then gave a real life example that if we followed your logic there would be no need for defence and prosecution barristers.
You didn’t like my pedantry - the same pedantry you pedalled in your post.
It’s my opinion - backed by the evidence I’ve supplied above - that you’re wrong.
Your initial response was to dismiss me and not engage with the point.
And your second response by to check out and not engage.
Case closed, your honour.0 -
People often do when they’re wrong.
As opposed to those who claim others are wrong.Let me explain - you said that unless you provide evidence then a post is only an opinion.
I countered that by saying - no, that’s not accurate - even if you do provide evidence it’s still could be an opinion and I gave two reasons I) the evidence is selected to support ones opinion and ii) who died and made the poster the arbiter of whether that evidence is accurate and valid.
I then gave a real life example that if we followed your logic there would be no need for defence and prosecution barristers.
You didn’t like my pedantry - the same pedantry you pedalled in your post.
It’s my opinion - backed by the evidence I’ve supplied above - that you’re wrong.
Your initial response was to dismiss me and not engage with the point.
And your second response by to check out and not engage.
Case closed, your honour.
You backed up your post with "evidence" based on your opinion, as opposed to relying on external sources (external to your own thoughts), which would have provided some actual support to your opinions. Instead, you have built a foundation and structure, based entirely on your own opinions, seeking to present them as having greater value to another persons opinions.
I chose to check out because your pushing of this has no value to the thread. Previously I posted an opinion to the thread, which was related to the topic... but you've decided to run down a rabbit hole steering away from the thread.
So.. yeah.. I have zero interest in debating this with you. I tried to deal with this in a relatively nice manner, after my initial flippant response. You have decided to run with it. Fine... but you'll be running with it alone.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »
You backed up your post with "evidence" based on your opinion, as opposed to relying on external sources (external to your own thoughts), which would have provided some *actual support to your opinions*. Instead, you have built a foundation and structure, based entirely on your own opinions, seeking to present them as having greater value to another persons opinions.
Maybe you did understand my point but just didn’t want to admit it.
The post just reiterates the points I used to undermine your argument.
Congratulations.0 -
Don't know if this is the right thread for this or not...
But, am I one of the only one's who never heard of Mary Lavin?
She was a writer, and is getting a new building named after her. I hadn't a clue who she was.
(And I know some Irish women writers. Alice Taylor wouldn't be the most well known, but she's a favourite of my mother's. Maeve Binchy was talented, but is somewhat overlooked in modern times. A shame.)
Maybe Lavin is a 'Dublin' thing?0 -
RabbleRouser2k wrote: »Don't know if this is the right thread for this or not...
But, am I one of the only one's who never heard of Mary Lavin?
She was a writer, and is getting a new building named after her. I hadn't a clue who she was.
(And I know some Irish women writers. Alice Taylor wouldn't be the most well known, but she's a favourite of my mother's. Maeve Binchy was talented, but is somewhat overlooked in modern times. A shame.)
Maybe Lavin is a 'Dublin' thing?
+10 -
RabbleRouser2k wrote: »Don't know if this is the right thread for this or not...
But, am I one of the only one's who never heard of Mary Lavin?
She was a writer, and is getting a new building named after her. I hadn't a clue who she was.
(And I know some Irish women writers. Alice Taylor wouldn't be the most well known, but she's a favourite of my mother's. Maeve Binchy was talented, but is somewhat overlooked in modern times. A shame.)
Maybe Lavin is a 'Dublin' thing?
Not quite sure what you’re trying to impart here.
That award winning female writers are so unimportant and beneath your contempt to not even be worth a cursory google... or that you enjoy coming across as uneducated?
Misogynistic or self-deprecating? Toughie.0 -
Not quite sure what you’re trying to impart here.
That award winning female writers are so unimportant and beneath your contempt to not even be worth a cursory google... or that you enjoy coming across as uneducated?
Misogynistic or self-deprecating? Toughie.
Wow replying to question with an insult
Must've cut close to the bone eh0 -
Cecelia Ahern Avenue was the alternative option.0
-
Not quite sure what you’re trying to impart here.
That award winning female writers are so unimportant and beneath your contempt to not even be worth a cursory google... or that you enjoy coming across as uneducated?
Misogynistic or self-deprecating? Toughie.
I was thinking about whether or not to respond to you...but then decided 'sod it'...
I googled Lavin, I've never heard a single story she wrote. None were read to me. Nada. I'd never heard of her. Not in school, not at home, nowhere.
Despite my mentioning women writers I DID grow up reading, you jumped on the misogynist card... baffling. Almost like you woke up this morning disappointed with life, and decided to project. (Binchy won awards too, achieved international recognition and success... but you ignored that).
I love women writers, I do-I think Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is a damn masterpiece. I think Ilsa J Bick's 'Draw the Dark' is a great mishmash of horror , fantasy and thriller.
But hey... that's enough of my time wasted. Peace out.0 -
https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/gutless-government-caves-to-twitter-campaign-targeting-press-freedom-40246928.htmlGutless Government caves to Twitter campaign targeting press freedomLast Tuesday, Micheál Martin, Leo Varadkar and Eamon Ryan cravenly condemned as "misogynistic" Jim Cogan's cartoon attached to my column in the Sunday Independent. There was no media pressure on them to do so. RTÉ did not cover the story, possibly because it would mean breaking their ban on me.
Andrea Gilligan, irreverent presenter of Newstalk's Lunchtime Live, and guests Terry Prone and cartoonist Niall O'Loughlin refused to follow the woke agenda that depicting Mary Lou McDonald as a strong political witch was misogynistic.Cartoonist Niall O'Loughlin took a professional view: "The cartoon fit the narrative of the piece - it opens with a witch-hunt on Leo Varadkar."
Likewise, there was no political pressure on Martin or Varadkar to condemn it, even if some of Ryan's greenier Greens supported SF's line.Behind the Sinn Féin targeting is a censoring culture. Seán Mac Brádaigh, former adviser to Gerry Adams, retweeted: "Eoghan Harris is a poisonous toad. Best banished to the bin as we did with Myers, Hook etc."
Leo Varadkar kicked Kevin Myers when he was down. Last Tuesday, he opportunistically attacked a political cartoon attached to my column defending him! In doing so, he subverted freedom of the press as if Charlie Hebdo had never happened.
Luckily, my employers believe in press freedom. So I am free to point out that Sinn Féin now knows it just takes a Twitter campaign to cause this Government to cave in on a basic principle like press freedom - and in passing hang one of its strongest supporters out to dry.0 -
Advertisement
-
Oxfam Ireland again:
https://twitter.com/OxfamIreland/status/1371859306539286531?s=20
Oxfam are another beauty, they should be defunded...
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-566701620 -
Larissa Nolan wrote an interesting piece for the Irish independent.
(It's behind a paywall, but if you register with Independent.ie, you can read 3 articles for free, per month. Easily done via gmail or facebook).
https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/no-excuses-for-blowing-1m-of-statemoney-on-absurd-adverts-about-sexual-assault-40295748.html
It initially criticises the huge amount of money the government has spent on the adverts (A million quid... bloody hell. They didn't spend that much on mental health).
But then she actually argues against the militant feminists, and with actually genuine logic.
(Roe McDermott, Louise O'Neill and the likes would want to take note).
A few choice quotes.Those stupid sexual harassment ads are State propaganda – and the Government should stop spending our money on them.
The Department of Justice’s €1m ‘No Excuses’ media campaign seems intent on brainwashing the nation into believing we live in a rape culture – that is, a society that legitimises sex crime.
A world where women are routinely sexually assaulted in public, while other men look on like half-wit complicit voyeurs and say: “He’s a trier.”
That’s the sinister scenario of the latest ad on national television, in a warped public message that is all wrong. It insults both men and women, and fosters distrust and resentment between the sexes.As a male friend of mine said: “He’d be on the flat of his back in two seconds.” As a woman, I’d have given him a swift kick where it hurts before calling the gardaí.
Young women should be told explicitly: this kind of behaviour is a criminal offence and is completely unacceptable. It’s a matter for An Garda Síochána. Sexual harassment is also against the law.
Why doesn’t the public message include this information? Without it, there is a real chance this ad will only inadvertently normalise such a narrative. It’s an outrage that taxpayers’ money would be squandered on such claptrap, to pander to a radicalised political agenda that sees all men as potential predators and all women their helpless victims-in-waiting. There’s an industry in all this and we shouldn’t be funding it.The No Excuses campaign seeks to police and control sexual desire, fomenting alarm and panic. Started by former justice minister Charlie Flanagan, it should have been seen through by his young female successor Helen McEntee as paternalistic nonsense, and cut off.
Instead, she bought into the BS, saying: “By making excuses, we are allowing a culture that tolerates sexual harassment and assault to exist.” Who’s making excuses? Where’s the objective truth in that?
If you have the time, I'd genuinely suggest reading the article. She's amazingly on point.
People are profiting from making folks scared to go outside.0 -
RabbleRouser2k wrote: »Larissa Nolan wrote an interesting piece for the Irish independent.
...
It initially criticises the huge amount of money the government has spent on the adverts (A million quid... bloody hell. They didn't spend that much on mental health).
It’s not the main point of your post, but the Irish Government in 2021 allocated an extra €50m in the budget to provide for mental health services -
Minister of State with responsibility for Mental Health and Older People Mary Butler said:
"I am delighted today to announce that more than €1 billion has been allocated to mental health in Budget 2021. This is an increase of €50 million on last year’s budget and comprises €38 million for new measures, including the continuation of COVID-19 supports, and €12 million to meet existing needs.
Budget 2021: €4 billion to protect, reform and expand health and social care services and implement universal healthcareRabbleRouser2k wrote: »If you have the time, I'd genuinely suggest reading the article. She's amazingly on point.
People are profiting from making folks scared to go outside.
And Ms. Nolan too, as a journalist, is profiting off perpetuating the same divisive rhetoric that keeps her in employment. I read the article and it appeared desperately overwrought, much like the kind of hyperbolic rhetoric I’d read in any other tabloid publication, like this one -
Feminists should stop talking women down
Being honest, I found it difficult to take her writing seriously. She has the same point that’s been made time and time again already - that Feminism, as a political philosophy and social movement, just has no relevance in most people’s daily lives. There’s just no need to go overboard against it either, because that’s just as irrelevant (except if writing about it is how one makes their living).0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »It’s not the main point of your post, but the Irish Government in 2021 allocated an extra €50m in the budget to provide for mental health services -
Minister of State with responsibility for Mental Health and Older People Mary Butler said:
"I am delighted today to announce that more than €1 billion has been allocated to mental health in Budget 2021. This is an increase of €50 million on last year’s budget and comprises €38 million for new measures, including the continuation of COVID-19 supports, and €12 million to meet existing needs.
Interesting. Definitely more needs to be done, because I know too many who took their own lives during Covid lockdown. (They already had problems, the lockdown compounded them). But it's small steps, unfortunately.
Much of the improvement depends on the individual. Similar to anything else, really.
And Ms. Nolan too, as a journalist, is profiting off perpetuating the same divisive rhetoric that keeps her in employment. I read the article and it appeared desperately overwrought, much like the kind of hyperbolic rhetoric I’d read in any other tabloid publication, like this one -
Being honest, I found it difficult to take her writing seriously. She has the same point that’s been made time and time again already - that Feminism, as a political philosophy and social movement, just has no relevance in most people’s daily lives. There’s just no need to go overboard against it either, because that’s just as irrelevant (except if writing about it is how one makes their living).
Oh, no worries. I can agree or disagree with someone's opinion, and still respect them. (Outside of really nasty stuff- white hoods and burning crosses get no respect from me).
I'd agree somewhat with that. I think the biggest issue I have with modern day feminism is much the same thing I have with any kind of movement, really. It's often used to hide one's own failings or ineptness.
Projecting it onto an invisible (or undefeatable) enemy.0 -
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/restaurants-chief-says-sorry-for-ironing-and-cooking-tweet-which-mocked-international-womens-day-40493797.htmlRestaurants chief says sorry for ‘ironing and cooking’ tweet which mocked International Women’s DayRestaurants Association of Ireland CEO Adrian Cummins made the remark on Twitter. He said: “Is today international ironing and cooking day? Sorry I was corrected it’s international women’s day.”
Tweet was made in 2012.0 -
Ah the good old days of 2012 when a very obvious and innocuous joke wouldn’t warrant a grovelling apology.
He should have had the cop on not to mix business and personal on Twitter buts is clearly just lighthearted banter. Nothing too trivial to drag up from the past for SJW’s.0 -
Why so many more women are deciding they won’t be silenced by modern feminism by Larissa Nolan
https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/why-so-many-more-women-are-deciding-they-wont-be-silenced-by-modern-feminism-40517852.html
Among other things, discusses a new book, Citadels of Pride, by philosopher Martha Nussbaum.I’ve never supported the #MeToo movement. It was a return to mob justice in the guise of feminism that would inevitably destroy innocent men, row back decades of progress on female liberation and backfire on women .
...
But anything that worked on the nonsense equation – accuser automatically innocent, accused automatically guilty – would soon turn nasty for all involved.0 -
https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/why-so-many-more-women-are-deciding-they-wont-be-silenced-by-modern-feminism-40517852.html
Among other things, discusses a new book, Citadels of Pride, by philosopher Martha Nussbaum.
I've noticed there are quite a few youtube channels where feminist views or 'takes' on a subject are disputed or denounced. It's happened quite a lot in the last number of years. And if folks want to say these viewpoints are held by 'white privileged men', well-no. These channels are hosted by women, quite a few of whom are 'People of Colour' (a phrase I hyphenate, because it sounds rather similar to the phrase 'Coloured people' which in itsself has racist connotations).
I think Nolan isn't wrong, imho. But the 'turning away' from feminism has been going on for some time, longer than the youtuber's who challenge feminism..
There was a book, years ago, called 'Living Doll's' which sort of discussed how feminism had been either dying or corrupted from within.
I think it came out about ten years ago. And it was written by a feminist who was like 'We messed up-big time'.1 -
If you asked Leo Varadkar about how women are treated in Fine Gael, he would tell you that female Fine Gael deputies, the ones who are not first-time TDs, are all junior or Cabinet ministers.
That suggests a bias in favour of females TDs.
1 -
Advertisement
-
If you think all internet trolls are textbook male loners, think again
And because women are more likely to experience online abuse, we imagine that most internet trolls are men.
Online harassment against women and girls is a serious issue and I’m not for one moment claiming that men aren’t part of the problem. (You only have to look at some of the comments women receive on a daily basis to see that a lot of it is driven by men with a chip on their shoulder.)
But still, I wonder are we missing a trick when we assume that gendered online harassment is fundamentally rooted in patriarchy?
There are those who would argue that misogyny is learned behaviour, and the women who target other women online are experiencing internalised misogyny.
But there are others who would argue that it’s just another example of us refusing to examine the dark side of women when it’s so much easier to blame the patriarchy.
The other problem with the widespread assumption that trolls are male is that it frames men as online agitators and women as online peacekeepers.
Provisos:
- I'm not a big fan of the use of "patriarchy" without it being explicitly justified each time it is used.
- Also, I'm not sure that women are more likely to experience online abuse (I know it's the opposite for politicians)
0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement