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

what a feminist looks like!

Options
13»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,727 ✭✭✭✭Sherifu


    Pacman working on some kind of echo location :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    Eh no feminism is about choice, I am lucky enough that I have a choice to be currenntly a stay at home mother.

    Isn't it down to a man that you can do that?

    The fact you have the choice is not down to you or feminism.

    It's thanks to the high tax paying men working hard we allow you have that choice.

    Your welcome.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    ntlbell wrote: »
    Isn't it down to a man that you can do that?

    The fact you have the choice is not down to you or feminism.

    It's thanks to the high tax paying men working hard we allow you have that choice.

    Your welcome.

    :rolleyes:

    Actually it's thanks to my co parent and the choices we made for ourselves and our kids.

    And there are no women out there paying high taxes ?
    And I didn't pay high taxes when I was working outide of the home
    and won't be when I do return to working outside of the home ?
    pffff

    But yes there was a wonderful artical I once read called thank you men.
    It detailed the advances in civilizations that women have benefited from and thanked the men that invented and created them and spoke how great it will be now that women are allowed to be inventors and make changes.

    Yes I did take men to change the laws so that women can vote and that it was not illegal for a married woman stay in work, so yes thank you men.

    No one every said men can't and are not and were not feminists.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Thaedydal, don't bother feeding the troll.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,367 ✭✭✭✭watna


    Dudess wrote: »
    Thaedydal, don't bother feeding the troll.

    +1 million. How he's made it to over 4,000 post I'll never know.

    He's here looking for a fight.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    watna wrote: »
    +1 million. How he's made it to over 4,000 post I'll never know.

    Well it's easy 3974 of the posts were not trollish.

    Including the last one.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,658 ✭✭✭✭The Sweeper


    ntlbell wrote: »
    Isn't it down to a man that you can do that?

    The fact you have the choice is not down to you or feminism.

    It's thanks to the high tax paying men working hard we allow you have that choice.

    Your welcome.

    ntlbell, while you maintain your post isn't a troll, it is based on a sweeping generalisation and a number of unfounded assumptions.

    You have to approach the concept of the stay at home mother very carefully. It is easy to preach that stay at home mothers do less work every day, are making less of an effort, are doing something simple that's easy to do and are 'kept' women.

    You need to remember a number of things - first, men want children too. Honestly. They do. Not every family unit is made up of some bloke working his fingers to the bone to keep a woman he got stuck with and a bunch of brats he didn't want.

    Until men can start birthing children themselves, childbirth by definition will interfere with a woman's ability to work. Women are fortunate in that we currently have the freedom to work if we want to, while pregnant and after giving birth. However there is the question of what is best for the child.

    When our children are weaned, we have the choice to go back to work, because feminisim contributed to our right to work if we want. We also have the choice to stay at home and continue to rear our children in a hands-on fashion, because feminism is also working to ensure the role of motherhood is recognised in its importance.

    If the father of the family is funding this stay at home family unit, you might want to look at how it's what he WANTS to do, and the benefits he gains from it, as opposed to viewing it as some sort of benevolent act of charity for his wife.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    :D
    Types of Feminists
    Author: Lenore Levine

    I recently read the classification of feminism's different subsidiary movements, which is part of soc.feminism's FAQ. I would like to submit my own, instead.

    1) Moonbeam Feminism. Utopian idealists have been involved in feminism since the beginning. They do not believe in making any compromise with current reality; instead, they believe that society can be made perfect, and, hence, that individual women can be made perfect. The way to achieve this perfection is to follow some set of rules exactly, and not to stray outside it

    Moonbeam Feminists love to tell women what to do. As a matter of fact, Moonbeam Feminism can be delineated in the following manner: Make a list of your favorite wholesome pleasures, and you can find some Moonbeam Feminist to speak out against them. (As a matter of fact I tried this, and achieved success with every activity except swimming. Takers, anyone? Are you sure my love of the pool isn't politically immature?)

    This school of thought was founded in the 70's by female separatists, who told women to give up having sex with men. I even knew a woman, at the time, who complained about the filthy toms trying to sexually assault her cat! (Meanwhile said animal was trying to climb up the chimney to get at these toms.)

    The torch of Moonbeam Feminism has been passed, in the 90's, to soc.feminism's more aggressive male posters. These self-appointed ideologues seem awfully eager to tell women to give up marriage and other monogamous relationships. And, sometimes, of course, to offer themselves as the person to give up monogamy with. Are you surprised?

    2) Co-Opted Feminism. While Moonbeam Feminists ignore reality, Co-Opted Feminists let it impose on them. This movement was started in the late 70's by the old new Ms., and its imitators (Working Woman and the like). They told us we should do whatever it takes to succeed in the boardroom, even if it means wearing panty hose that bind and high heels that pinch, and spending half an hour fixing our hair each morning.

    Co-Opted Feminists never answer the following questions: 1) If women can change reality enough to get jobs they never could have gotten thirty years ago, can't they change it even further, in comfortable clothing? 2) Isn't it more fun to hang out with four-year-olds than backstabbers in suits? 3) How many of us really want to sell aluminum siding the rest of our lives? That is, are men really happy doing this, either?

    Co-Opted Feminists can, of course, give some good practical advice, which is certainly ethical to follow. But if they only talk about how to get along in a corrupt system, and not about how to change it, is this advice feminism?

    Co-Opted Feminism contains the following commercially oriented subdivisions:

    2a) Mary Kay Feminism. The idea that a woman can do anything she wants, as long as she wears the right makeup.

    2b) Jenny Craig Feminism. The idea that a woman can do anything she wants, as long as she isn't fat.

    2c) Carole Shaw Feminism. The idea that large women should learn to accept their own bodies, and recognize their attractiveness and personal worth. And, that this self-acceptance is shown by buying large quantities of grooming products.

    There are also other, minor schools of feminist thought, which offer their own perspective on the relationship between Woman and Reality. Among them are:

    3) Dominatrix Feminism. Dominatrix Feminism arose in an error of logic: the idea that because feminists are strong, all strong women are feminists. Now, what is the most popular media representation of a strong woman? The dominatrix. That is, a woman in a tight leather jumpsuit and spike heels, who "forces" men to perform sexual activities, and pretends to enjoy this, for money.

    Dominatrix Feminists have made a hero out of Madonna, for wearing a leather brassiere on stage and pretending to masturbate. They love women of dubious character who come on strong, such as Leni Riefenstahl, and just about any female who appears on stage or screen in a tight leather jumpsuit. I'm surprised they haven't said much about that female serial killer featured on 60 Minutes; but I suspect she's next.

    (I sometimes wonder about men who call themselves male feminists. I don't mean men who are kind, or perceptive, or supportive of women's legitimate interests. Believe me, I don't! No, I question the men who post on feminist newsgroups, advocating a female superiority I don't accept, or expecting me to assume a hatred of men I just don't have. Some of them may just be ideological sheep. But I wonder if there are others who don't care that much about women's liberation, in any true sense of the word -- but just want to be dominated!)

    4) Honorary Man Feminism. Honorary Man Feminists do not question the separation of male and female social roles, or their nature. They just believe women should have the right to assume the male one. Honorary Man Feminism may have been the only kind around in the 1930's -- which may explain why Honorary Man Feminists adore butch 30's movie stars (like Dietrich and Hepburn) so much. Honorary Man Feminists are typically annoyed with the post-1968 movement, since by blurring gender roles it's taken away the privileges they worked so hard to earn.

    The noisiest propounder of this movement is, of course, Camille Paglia (though Florence King does the whole schtick much funnier, and with a lot more honesty). And yes, I really think Ms. Paglia is sincere when she calls herself a feminist. It's just that her definition of feminism goes back to her youth, and is not very compatible with the current one.

    Note that the Native Americans of the Great Plains were also Honorary Man Feminists. That is, their culture made quite rigid distinctions in gender role: males were fierce warriors, and females gentle homemakers. But they allowed each individual to assume the gender they wanted.

    4) Nicey-Poo Feminism. Nicey-Poo Feminists have taken the sensible idea that women should be supportive of other women, and distorted it almost out of recognition. That is, Nicey-Poo Feminists believe that feminism means never saying anything controversial (at least in their own circles), and never saying anything about another woman that isn't nice.

    Nicey-Poo Feminism has been promoted by the new new Ms. (post-1990). This magazine is afraid to print anything which any segment of their audience might find offensive. After all, if they actually said anything mischievous or funny, their circulation might increase. (A fate they seem determined to avoid at all costs.)

    5) Me Too Feminism represents the male wing of the Moonbeam Feminist movement (at least, its proponents seem to be most active during the full of the moon). Me Too Feminism is not the concept that men have their own problems with stereotyped sex roles, or that many abuses typically inflicted on women (such as sexual harassment) are also carried out on men. No, these ideas make too much sense for Internet's Lost Boys, the Me Too Feminists. What they are saying is quite different: that whatever problems women have, men have to the same degree, or more. And that, therefore, the feminist movement should be disbanded.

    Me Too Feminists are quite inventive; but I would really like to see their equivalent for menstrual cramps.


  • Legal Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 5,400 Mod ✭✭✭✭Maximilian




  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,503 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    taconnol wrote: »
    Even in 'enlightened' France, there are discriminatory property laws that state that if a husband dies, the property is divided equally between the wife and children. These sort of laws clearly lead to the empoverishment of women.

    No, that's to take care of the children. There is similar legislation in Ireland which requires a person (male or female) who dies to make provision in their will for their children.

    And in any case, what if those children are girls? How is that epoverishing women?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,503 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    taconnol wrote: »

    Husband dies. House is worth €1m. In Ireland, wife would inherit house. Therefore her wealth is increased by €500k. Now let's say it's France and they have 2 children. The house is divided 3 ways and suddenly her share of the house drops from €500k to €333k. ie, a drop of approx. €167k in personal assets. What sort of logic demands that the house should be shared among the children for feck sake?? Even if they have their own homes, their mother is deemed incapable or not deserving of owning her own home and must share it, legally with them? Even if they are 6 and 7 years old???

    So you're advocating that a father can cut out his children from his will? Take another example - man (or woman) has two kids out of wedlock, gets married and then decides to leave his (or her) entire estate to the new spouse. How is that fair? It's got nothing to do with gender, it's about taking care of children. The whole problem I have with feminism is that they don't look at both sides or see things from a neutral point of view (i.e. humanism). They say this law deprives women of property, therefore it is bad, but they don't look at it from a human point of view and then say oh yeah, it makes sense that a person should take care of their children.
    taconnol wrote: »
    The same does not apply if the husband dies. He does not have to worry about this at all.

    Well of course he doesn't have to worry, he's dead you see.
    taconnol wrote: »
    You have situations where the husband dies and children automatically demand that the house is sold so that they can claim their share. The wife is forced out of her home. The situation can be even worse if the married couple have had children in a previous marriage- very messy and TOTALLY discriminatory against women. Shocking in a country that claims to be as progressive as France.

    Most likely to happen where the children and the surviving spouse do not get along. Let them sell it and they can each buy smaller homes or rent or whatever. I reject the idea that a wife (or husband) should be 'kept' as you seem to imply, and I think taking care of children is far more important than taking care of spouses.

    Again you haven't proved how it is discriminatory against women, you seem to be incapable of looking at it from the point of view of, for example, a woman who has children from a previous marriage.
    taconnol wrote: »
    ztoical - yeah equalitism or something but then it becomes this bland word that applies to every form of discrimination..

    A bland word? Are feminists looking for rights, or are they looking for an exciting thing to call themselves?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,502 ✭✭✭thefinalstage


    Pighead wrote: »
    luk_wideweb__430x294.jpg
    Pretty? Nope.
    [/B]

    I think she is pretty...lol


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    No, that's to take care of the children. There is similar legislation in Ireland which requires a person (male or female) who dies to make provision in their will for their children.
    And in any case, what if those children are girls? How is that epoverishing women?

    It's not about making provision for dependents in your will, this is about the lack of standing of wives in France. Does the 'similar' law in Ireland mean that the assets of a dead spouse are distributed evenly among the remaining family? No. Why should the rights of the mother take precedence over that of the children?

    And if the children are girls is pure chance. That is not factored into the logic of the law.
    So you're advocating that a father can cut out his children from his will? Take another example - man (or woman) has two kids out of wedlock, gets married and then decides to leave his (or her) entire estate to the new spouse. How is that fair? It's got nothing to do with gender, it's about taking care of children. The whole problem I have with feminism is that they don't look at both sides or see things from a neutral point of view (i.e. humanism). They say this law deprives women of property, therefore it is bad, but they don't look at it from a human point of view and then say oh yeah, it makes sense that a person should take care of their children.

    Did I say that? Because I'm pretty sure I didn't. I'm afraid the straw man argument won't work with me. I'm not talking about making no provision for children. But they definitely should not be legally obliged to be on equal standing with the parent. That is the issue I have with this law. If this law is so wonderful, and is really concerned with the children, please tell me why it doesn't apply to men? I'd love to hear your response.
    Well of course he doesn't have to worry, he's dead you see

    I obviously made a typo...I meant if the woman does, the man doesn't have to worry about it. He retains full ownership of his property.
    Most likely to happen where the children and the surviving spouse do not get along. Let them sell it and they can each buy smaller homes or rent or whatever. I reject the idea that a wife (or husband) should be 'kept' as you seem to imply, and I think taking care of children is far more important than taking care of spouses.

    Again you haven't proved how it is discriminatory against women, you seem to be incapable of looking at it from the point of view of, for example, a woman who has children from a previous marriage.

    Does the fact that it applies for one gender and not for the other not make it discriminatory enough for you? Give me a break. And yes I think that I have proven how it is discriminiatory against women.

    And we all know how families get when inheritance is involved. The claws come out. With the family I know, the children of the father have assured the wife that they do not want anything to do with the property but we will see what happens when he dies. Again, if she dies first, he has nothing to worry about. Where did I imply that a wife or husband should be 'kept'?

    Well that's mighty fine of you to think that the children are more important than the woman left behind. Let's forget about the fact that she's probably in her 60s or older, has almost zero earning power and worked her ass off for years to help pay off the mortgage on that house while her children will be in 30s/40s, probably have their own properties and will have many years of earning ahead of them. I see the light! Of course she only deserves a portion of it!! (scarcasm)
    A bland word? Are feminists looking for rights, or are they looking for an exciting thing to call themselves?

    A perfect case of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'. People whinge about the word feminism, so I ask what people would prefer. Now I am accused of being petty and worrying about silly things like labels. Really, I don't know what to say to this level of pettiness. You're just looking for a fight.

    Edit: I last studied French law in 2006 so the situation may have changed since then, but up until then, this was most certainly the case.


Advertisement