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

Why I am not a feminist and don't believe in 'equality'.

Options
1…1819202123

Comments

  • Options
    #662
    jam_mac_jam
    Registered Users Posts: 4,704 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    OK, fair enough.

    I was trying to point out that the backlash women are facing online is a consequence of the backlash men are facing across media and politics in the developed world...nobody is winning in these circumstances if you ask me!

    The Gillette ad is disgusting


  • Options
    #663
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    jam_mac_jam wrote: »
    The Gillette ad is disgusting

    What is actually concerning is how warped the management culture in Proctor and Gamble must be to allow that ad (which will cost the company billions of dollars) see the light of day. Unsurprisingly it was a radical feminist who produced it....in any other circumstances people would lose their jobs for a f##k up that size!

    The American Psychological Association is even worse if you ask me, these people produce guidelines to Psychologists who men turn to in times of need, imagine a man struggling with a divorce who decides to seek help from one of those head bangers...they have clearly been over run with that same toxic group think that has affected Proctor and Gamble....that same group think is inching its way into government influence here and academia.


  • Options
    #664
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I think it's an example of how a relatively small group can drive a large group of followers to go along with a rotten ideology. Much like the Catholic Church in Ireland, the vast majority of people fervently believed in it and defended it's crazy philosophy. The same fervent belief is evident here.

    The ones hunting out the "fallen" women back then are the same ones now hunting out the "fallen" men. Anyone who doesn't care about "innocent until proven guilty" and believes someone based on their ethnic group or gender alone is a bigot. It doesn't matter how good they think their motives are.

    And just like Catholicism, there were good and moral teachings in it. Still didnt prevent it from being corrupted. The current state of feminism is along the lines of scientology. The rewriting of history to suggest men had it great and women had it terrible when the reality was everyone except a few at the top had it terrible.

    Of all the ideologies out there this is one of the most dangerous as it is hugely powerful and is hell bent on interfering in family life and the raising of children.

    Ironically feminism in its original forms was sorely needed - but it has morphed in to this insane dangerous movement.


  • Options
    #665
    jam_mac_jam
    Registered Users Posts: 4,704 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    What is actually concerning is how warped the management culture in Proctor and Gamble must be to allow that ad (which will cost the company billions of dollars) see the light of day. Unsurprisingly it was a radical feminist who produced it....in any other circumstances people would lose their jobs for a f##k up that size!

    The American Psychological Association is even worse if you ask me, these people produce guidelines to Psychologists who men turn to in times of need, imagine a man struggling with a divorce who decides to seek help from one of those head bangers...they have clearly been over run with that same toxic group think that has affected Proctor and Gamble....that same group think is inching its way into government influence here and academia.

    I only skimmed that but I will have a read of it later. Looks very interesting.


  • Options
    #666
    tjhook
    Registered Users Posts: 730 ✭✭✭tjhook


    Dial Hard wrote: »
    Nonsense. Allow me to explain it to you: feminism is the belief that women should be treated equally to men. No better, no worse. It really is that simple.


    Equality does not define feminism. The clue is in the name. Feminism is about furthering women's interests. That *can* overlap with equality, but not necessarily so. Some feminists may believe in equality, some may not. What they have in common is the furthering of women's interests. That's the most significant attribute that defines the group (although opinions on what constitutes "woman's interests" may vary).

    Saying that feminism is about equality is like saying "vegetarianism is about equality" just because vegetarians would like as many choices available to them as non-vegetarians. I don't doubt that many feminists believe in equality, but it's not a requirement.

    Made-up example to illustrate: if a woman claiming to be a feminist believed that the world should be ruled by women, and men should be subservient, I don't think it would preclude her from being labeled a feminist. It would have little to do with equality though.

    Likewise for feminists working to further women's rights, without doing the same where men's rights are deficient. Striving for women's rights may very well be a good thing, but it's not the same as striving for equality. "Equality" would mean all rights and responsibilities being equal.

    That's not to say modern feminism is right or wrong. But we should be honest about what it is rather than using a term like "equality" in order to place it above debate or criticism.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #667
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Here's an example of the utter ridiculousness of modern feminism. The fact he's male has nothing to do with his pay, except perhaps the male game is just wildly more popular.

    A similar graphic in reverse could be produced for the modelling industry for example.

    There might be a case for female footballers to be paid better but this is a terrible way to make it.


  • Options
    #668
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,381 ✭ [Deleted User]


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Here's an example of the utter ridiculousness of modern feminism. The fact he's male has nothing to do with his pay. A similar graphic in reverse could be produced for the modelling industry for example.

    That's dumb as hell. People need to realise that entertainment and sport are about how much stars bring in. It's not about fairness. It's just economics.

    What would the argument be exactly? That clubs should up the pay for women, or clubs should lower the pay for men? It makes no sense.


  • Options
    #669
    glimmering
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8 ✭glimmering


    Of course women have become less caring - look what they rallied for last year to legalise a baby murdering industry. Yet want to save animals and have a fetish for dog and cats. Feminism is really about destruction of the family unit - one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto.


  • Options
    #670
    Tokyo
    Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,655 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tokyo


    Moved from AH > CA


  • Options
    #671
    bloodless_coup
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,480 ✭✭✭bloodless_coup


    glimmering wrote: »
    Of course women have become less caring - look what they rallied for last year to legalise a baby murdering industry. Yet want to save animals and have a fetish for dog and cats. Feminism is really about destruction of the family unit - one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto.

    Women choose to kill thier offspring in favour of making PowerPoint slides for 28k a year. Pathetic.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #672
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    glimmering wrote: »
    Of course women have become less caring - look what they rallied for last year to legalise a baby murdering industry. Yet want to save animals and have a fetish for dog and cats. Feminism is really about destruction of the family unit - one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto.
    doylefe wrote: »
    Women choose to kill thier offspring in favour of making PowerPoint slides for 28k a year. Pathetic.

    Not everyone believes that life begins at conception, and it will entirely derail this thread if it becomes an abortion debate so could I suggest a splinter thread for this aspect? Abortion and feminism, or something to that extent?

    Regarding the destruction of the family unit, I'd argue that it's more about destroying the idea that people have an obligation to live a certain way. Some feminists do indeed look down on traditional families with traditional gender roles, and f*ck those people in my view - but others simply state that individuals should have a choice.


  • Options
    #673
    Tokyo
    Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,655 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tokyo


    doylefe wrote: »
    Women choose to kill thier offspring in favour of making PowerPoint slides for 28k a year. Pathetic.

    Mod: Nope. Try harder.

    URL="https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057989814"]charter[/URL <<< Read before posting again.


  • Options
    #674
    glimmering
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8 ✭glimmering


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Not everyone believes that life begins at conception, and it will entirely derail this thread if it becomes an abortion debate so could I suggest a splinter thread for this aspect? Abortion and feminism, or something to that extent?

    Regarding the destruction of the family unit, I'd argue that it's more about destroying the idea that people have an obligation to live a certain way. Some feminists do indeed look down on traditional families with traditional gender roles, and f*ck those people in my view - but others simply state that individuals should have a choice.

    When scientists go to inhospitable environments and they find bacteria underneath a rock or wherever, that's called life but not when a baby is up to six weeks old it's not? The reason why they say this is because they don't want people having moral qualms and instead dehumanise the life inside the womb, so people can rationalise an abortion. Scientific rationalism dehumanises!

    And ye true, this is not a thread for abortion.

    But in general society has become so debased and corrupt. The problem is is that there's no common morality anymore. There's subjective morality. The teenagers and people in their early 20s are totally screwed up. And the next generation'll be probably even be more debauched. God help this country in years to come (or even now ha).

    Sorry for the rant and going off topic.


  • Options
    #675
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    glimmering wrote: »
    But in general society has become so debased and corrupt. The problem is is that there's no common morality anymore. There's subjective morality. The teenagers and people in their early 20s are totally screwed up. And the next generation'll be probably even be more debauched. God help this country in years to come (or even now ha).

    Sorry for the rant and going off topic.

    I’d argue that’s a good thing though. The concept of victimless “wrong” is such a bullish!t and messed up concept, the fact that it’s dying a (far too slow) death is good for individual freedom. That’s only my opinion though obviously. I mean morality in the past taught people that even touching themselves sexually, on their own, with nobody else involved, was “dirty” and “wrong”... the sooner that entire ideology completely dies out and can be consigned to the ash heap of history, the better.

    Ironically enough, Feminism 2.0 is now trying to push the idea that fantasizing about people is “wrong” because it’s “objectifying” and people aren’t consenting to being fantasies about, and that fantasizing about certain kinks or activities is wrong because of the hypothetical chance you might act on it without a person’s consent, etc. So I’d argue that feminism wants to do as much psychological harm to people for having natural and involuntary sexual urges as Catholicism did in the past, and at the moment no one mainstream is challenging them on that.


  • Options
    #676
    Blaizes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 809 ✭✭✭Blaizes


    Coming back to the ops question about us losing the mother figure and becoming less kind. Well I do think women should have a choice as to whether they work or they have children but it is becoming more and more a necessity for both parents to work what with cost of living etc. It is probably only the privileged who can afford not to work. Irish society has changed, more women going to university ( and men too I would say) more women developing their academic and intellectual side and other talents and abilities.

    Prior to this the Catholic Church ‘ churched ‘ women after giving birth, then the marriage bar/ban was in place up the seventies or eighties I think, meaning women weren’t allowed to work outside the home, there was also no contraception in Ireland so women would be throwing out babies every year if the husband couldn’t reign it in ( trying to put that politely) But women were happy to have the shackles removed I think and get their own income giving them financial independence. I’m just trying to put it in context, but now I don’t think feminists who divide men from women in a very vehement way are doing any good. Men have their own struggles too and to be fair to Irish men at least they are trying now, being present for the birth of their children( unheard of in my fathers or Grandfathers time) also if you go to any parks, playgrounds , matches, fathers are there with their kids, mothers too, and Irish men have become more enlightened than previous generations imo.

    I’m not sure we ever had any real definition of feminism in this country maybe it was something for the minority of upper middle class women we had, I’m not sure but ordinary women were struggling, probably ordinary men too and I think another poster mentioned it wasn’t necessarily a male versus female issue but more of a question of social class, it hard to figure out.

    Still a good question op even if it raises more and more questions.


  • Options
    #677
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    glimmering wrote: »
    When scientists go to inhospitable environments and they find bacteria underneath a rock or wherever, that's called life but not when a baby is up to six weeks old it's not? The reason why they say this is because they don't want people having moral qualms and instead dehumanise the life inside the womb, so people can rationalise an abortion. Scientific rationalism dehumanises!.
    No, a six-week old baby is of course a life.

    If a woman was raped and had an abortion extremely early on, surely you could understand?

    And I question how caring people are when they say such things about women, like above - just "women", no specifics; no consideration for the women who are anti abortion, or women like me who don't think there should be abortion on demand but can see a need for it very early on in exceptional cases when no sentient foetus has formed and it would be barbaric to make the mother carry on with the pregnancy.

    "Of course women have become less caring - look what they rallied for last year to legalise a baby murdering industry. Yet want to save animals and have a fetish for dog and cats."

    "Women choose to kill thier offspring in favour of making PowerPoint slides for 28k a year."

    Pure hostility towards women.


  • Options
    #678
    Aufbau
    Registered Users Posts: 88 ✭✭Aufbau


    Blaizes wrote: »
    Coming back to the ops question about us losing the mother figure and becoming less kind. Well I do think women should have a choice as to whether they work or they have children
    That's nice of you.

    But what's the connection? If women work do you think they are less kind? I know lots of kind men who work. In fact, I know lots of kind daddies who work and lots of kind mammies who work too.


  • Options
    #679
    Blaizes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 809 ✭✭✭Blaizes


    Aufbau wrote: »
    That's nice of you.

    But what's the connection? If women work do you think they are less kind? I know lots of kind men who work. In fact, I know lots of kind daddies who work and lots of kind mammies who work too.

    I don’t know if you’ve read the ops post but she framed it in terms of losing kindness in society. Many pages later people are discussing including me, I don’t have the definite answers except I think yes we are becoming less kind as a society in some respects, but why I am not actually sure. Maybe we are too rushed, commuting, work, family, modern life. It’s a complex question.


  • Options
    #680
    Aufbau
    Registered Users Posts: 88 ✭✭Aufbau


    Blaizes wrote: »
    I don’t know if you’ve read the ops post but she framed it in terms of losing kindness in society. Many pages later people are discussing including me, I don’t have the definite answers except I think yes we are becoming less kind as a society in some respects, but why I am not actually sure. Maybe we are too rushed, commuting, work, family, modern life. It’s a complex question.
    The OP framed it terms of women who work becoming aggressive. Do you agree with her? Maybe we shouldn't let them work if it's bad for society.

    From my experience I see Irish society becoming much more caring over the years. Think back to the wooden spoon and heavy hands on children, slaps and straps in school, girls put out of the house, industrial schools, very little social welfare, very little charity except for the'black babies' etc


  • Options
    #681
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »

    Ironically enough, Feminism 2.0 is now trying to push the idea that fantasizing about people is “wrong” because it’s “objectifying” and people aren’t consenting to being fantasies about, and that fantasizing about certain kinks or activities is wrong because of the hypothetical chance you might act on it without a person’s consent, etc. So I’d argue that feminism wants to do as much psychological harm to people for having natural and involuntary sexual urges as Catholicism did in the past, and at the moment no one mainstream is challenging them on that.

    What's even more bizarre is that women objectify men just as much. They also objectify the size of their wallet which men don't do. There is an insufferable arrogance and superiority complex about this brand of feminism.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #682
    PistolsAtDawn
    Registered Users Posts: 335 ✭✭PistolsAtDawn


    mike_ie wrote: »
    Mod: Nope. Try harder.

    URL="https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057989814"]charter[/URL <<< Read before posting again.

    Out of interest; which of the forum rules were broken by the poster?


  • Options
    #683
    ExoPolitic
    Registered Users Posts: 353 ✭✭ExoPolitic


    All those people saying that because a woman stays at home to have a baby there is inequality, you know it's a choice to have a baby?

    The fix is do not have a baby.

    If work is something that appeals to you more than a family, then you can go ahead and do that. Your CHOICE.


  • Options
    #684
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    ExoPolitic wrote: »
    All those people saying that because a woman stays at home to have a baby there is inequality, you know it's a choice to have a baby?

    The fix is do not have a baby.

    If work is something that appeals to you more than a family, then you can go ahead and do that. Your CHOICE.

    Amazingly enough some of us manage to do both......


  • Options
    #685
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    PistolsAtDawn wrote: »
    Out of interest; which of the forum rules were broken by the poster?
    "Don't be a dick" what with the sh1tty misogyny.
    ExoPolitic wrote: »
    All those people saying that because a woman stays at home to have a baby there is inequality
    Who says that here?


  • Options
    #686
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    ExoPolitic wrote: »
    All those people saying that because a woman stays at home to have a baby there is inequality, you know it's a choice to have a baby?

    The fix is do not have a baby.

    If work is something that appeals to you more than a family, then you can go ahead and do that. Your CHOICE.

    +1 , its the section of society that seems to think that taking a career break to have a child and being the primary carer of a child and as a result not having the same career outcomes as somebody who has not done that is infuriating.

    You cannot be parent of the year and employee of the year. Its not a gender wage gap its a primary parent wage gap , anything done to try ‘resolve’ this is inherintly predjudiced against people who chose not to / are unable to have children and thats an injustice.


  • Options
    #687
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    Aufbau wrote: »
    The OP framed it terms of women who work becoming aggressive. Do you agree with her? Maybe we shouldn't let them work if it's bad for society.

    From my experience I see Irish society becoming much more caring over the years. Think back to the wooden spoon and heavy hands on children, slaps and straps in school, girls put out of the house, industrial schools, very little social welfare, very little charity except for the'black babies' etc

    Absolutely agree with this. There is a lot of rose tinted glasses at play when people talk about the past. For all the problems that exist in Ireland of 2019, and there are plenty, I would still take living in this era over any time in the past.


  • Options
    #688
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    +1 , its the section of society that seems to think that taking a career break to have a child and being the primary carer of a child and as a result not having the same career outcomes as somebody who has not done that is infuriating.

    You cannot be parent of the year and employee of the year. Its not a gender wage gap its a primary parent wage gap , anything done to try ‘resolve’ this is inherintly predjudiced against people who chose not to / are unable to have children and thats an injustice.

    The children born now are going to be the ones paying your pension. The type of society you and I spend our "elderly years" in largely depend on the adults todays children become and the type of society they create.
    Childcare, and raising well educated adults is everyone's business.

    Free secondary education transformed this country but the effects weren't felt immediately.


  • Options
    #689
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,365 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    joe40 wrote: »
    Absolutely agree with this. There are a lot of rose tinted glasses at play when people talk about the past. For all the problems that exist in Ireland of 2019, and there are plenty, I would still take living in this era over any time in the past.

    Very true, but the OP and its a real internet/twitter thing is ranting against what she imagines are middle-class women indulging themselves, in the 70s and 80s itt would have been professional woman the rant would have been aimed at.

    Meanwhile, in the real world men and woman are just getting on with it.

    Everyone has to earn a living so women or men working is a mote point.


  • Options
    #690
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    joe40 wrote: »
    The children born now are going to be the ones paying your pension. The type of society you and I spend our "elderly years" in largely depend on the adults todays children become and the type of society they create.
    Childcare, and raising well educated adults is everyone's business.

    Free secondary education transformed this country but the effects weren't felt immediately.

    What has that got to do with anything ive said.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #691
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ExoPolitic wrote: »
    All those people saying that because a woman stays at home to have a baby there is inequality, you know it's a choice to have a baby?

    The fix is do not have a baby.

    If work is something that appeals to you more than a family, then you can go ahead and do that. Your CHOICE.

    You speak of this as if working outside the home is yet another one of those simple "free choices" which free mark fundamentalists love to spout about. In reality, for most couples in Dublin they are compelled to work outside the home in order to pay the mortgage (as well as to not be financially penalised by the tax individualisation which McCreevy brought in years ago, loss of pension and so much else).

    In 1970, for instance, the same Dublin house which could be bought on a single income now requires two incomes. Apparently because we now have 100 satellite channels of ineffable rubbish that compensates for this most fundamental decline in living standards. The capitalist system now gets two people to work for what it could only get one person to work for before. Another victory for "individual freedom" and "individual choice", it seems. So please desist with this disingenuous "free choice" claptrap - at least until Irish governments start to spread employment opportunities and economic growth to cheaper housing areas of Ireland/beyond Dublin.

    PS: You do realise that your pension will be paid out of the state's current expenditure whenever you retire (and your private pension is not, in reality, guaranteed) and therefore if people took your advice to heart and stopped having children now, you'd be in a bit of a bind then?


Advertisement