Anti feminist women

CDfm

AAh Marsha Brady:pac:.

You gotta love Alice - what a campaigner

CDfm

brianthebard wrote: »

The only level at which men are discriminated against is in family rights, and that's for a specific reason, so that men can enjoy favourable discrimination in every other aspect of society. That's not to belittle the lack of rights for fathers, but don't overegg it cd.

Brian can you explain to me while male suicide rates are higher than female suicide rates.

Are you suggesting that women should be encouraged to catch up.

Equality is about promiting the positive.

Dudess

Dragan wrote: »

To get back on topic, i find the idea that somebody MUST accept and appreciate something just because i do, regardless of the evidence of it's positive benefit on the world and lives of the people who live on it, to be hilarious.

Dragan, I don't think that comment is relevant or helpful at all. It's nothing to do with "I feel strongly about something and I can't BELIEVE others don't feel the same way" kind of thinking. And your comment "regardless of the evidence of its positive benefit on the world and lives of the people who live on it" is completely disingenuous: women can go to college - result of feminism; women have the choice to work or stay at home - result of feminism; women can pursue the careers they want to pursue - result of feminism; women can vote - result of feminism.
So really, it's nothing to do with forcing an ideology on someone and getting annoyed when they don't buy it.

Freedom of thought and speech and your right to view the world your way and formulate and express your own idea's and opinions does not work on the assumption that the ends you will reach will be the same as mine, or even by the same means.

The irony - it's because of feminism that women have more freedoms.

Telling a woman that she MUST be proud of Feminism is the same as any other illogical argument to me.

Disbelief at educated career women with the vote being anti-feminist when they have reaped the benefits is not the same as telling a woman she MUST be proud of feminism.

Maybe these people really do believe that their lives, and the lives of others, would be better without it the same way as we really do believe that our lives are better because of it?

As in... they'd be better of NOT getting educated, NOT having careers, NOT being able to vote?
If a woman never worked or got educated and devotes her life to raising children and serving her man and she's anti-feminist, cool.
If she's a career woman, educated, political, she's one of the worst kinds of hypocrite - unless she gives all the latter up. The irony is, the likes of Coulter, Palin and Thatcher wouldn't have a platform for putting such views across in the first place if it were not for feminism.

K-9

taconnol wrote: »

Anyhoo, I get a similar feeling about people like Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin: betrayal.

Why Sarah Palin?

Dudess

Because she works (and has had some very high-powered jobs), she got an education, she had the choice of being a working mother... yet she's just an old fashioned gal etc. :rolleyes:

She can thank Wollstonecraft, Pankhurst and co for the above.

K-9

Dudess wrote: »

Because she works (and has had some very high-powered jobs), she got an education, she had the choice of being a working mother... yet she's just an old fashioned gal etc. :rolleyes:

She can thank Wollstonecraft, Pankhurst and co for the above.

:pac: My point exactly. I don't agree with her politically and on some social issues, but she would seem feminist in many ways, just extremely conservative on some social issues.

Surely that is her personal choice!

Dudess

To be anti feminist? Sure. But doesn't mean people can't object to her hypocrisy and how much of a joke she looks.

K-9

Dudess wrote: »

To be anti feminist? Sure. But doesn't mean people can't object to her hypocrisy and how much of a joke she looks.

But is she claiming to be feminist?

How do you mean hypocrisy? Is she being an anti feminist but she's really a feminist?

Dudess

Of course she isn't claiming to be feminist (was that a typo?)

She's a hypocrite because she's reaping the benefits of what feminism helped to achieve, yet she condemns feminism.

If she advocates women staying in the home, doing nothing but having babies and looking after their men, why doesn't she put her money where her mouth is and **** off and do it?

Macha

K-9 wrote: »

Why Sarah Palin?

Because for me it's the same as an African American today stating that segregation wasn't so bad. I find it actually disrespectful to the people in history who fought for her to have the freedom to stand for vice president.

I mean the woman went on and on about "family values" when her own teenage daughter displayed the all-too-real aftermath of a lack of sex education. She makes rape victims pay for their own rape test kits. She doesn't support abortion, even when the victim has been raped.

And then she tried to claim she was a feminist. Oh and then the women who didn't liker her were told this was because we were all so jealous and insecure because she was so "hot". Grrr..

K-9

Dudess wrote: »

Of course she isn't claiming to be feminist (was that a typo?)

Was a bit confused by your post.

Dudess wrote:

She's a hypocrite because she's reaping the benefits of what feminism helped to achieve, yet she condemns feminism.

Does she condemn feminism, or is the pro life part she just condemns?

I'm sure she appreciates the men and women that enabled her to get to be a VP candidate.

Dudess wrote:

If she advocates women staying in the home, doing nothing but having babies and looking after their men, why doesn't she put her money where her mouth is and **** off and do it?

But does she do that, or is at a certain perception some feminists have of her because of her political views?

I'm answering a question with a question because I don't know if she actually has stated that.

Dragan

Dudess wrote: »

"regardless of the evidence of its positive benefit on the world and lives of the people who live on it" is completely disingenuous

I think you missed the point or i failed to make it. I was saying if someone chooses to not be down with feminism, despite the benefits and breakthroughs that feminism as a movement have given us, then so be it.

If they do so from a position that has been enriched by Feminism then yes, they are a hypocrite.

If they somehow believe there lives would be better without being able to learn, work or vote you really need to ask them, not me. I wasn't saying things would be better for them...they are.

If you would like to apply the point i was making, to what i said, we can go from there. Sorry for not coming across clearly.:o

Basically, what i mean was that if they want to look at all the good things that have come about and say "bully to that" and wish for something else, then let them?

K-9

taconnol wrote: »

Because for me it's the same as an African American today stating that segregation wasn't so bad. I find it actually disrespectful to the people in history who fought for her to have the freedom to stand for vice president.

I don't know, I think that is a bit of an exaggeration.

taconnol wrote:

I mean the woman went on and on about "family values" when her own teenage daughter displayed the all-too-real aftermath of a lack of sex education. She makes rape victims pay for their own rape test kits. She doesn't support abortion, even when the victim has been raped.

I'd agree with those points. Then again being fair to her, preaching family values doesn't automatically mean our kids will follow them! That's a very critical standard for her to keep up.

Completely agree on the rape kits and abortion points.

taconnol wrote:

And then she tried to claim she was a feminist. Oh and then the women who didn't liker her were told this was because we were all so jealous and insecure because she was so "hot". Grrr..

Ach, it was electioneering and appealing to the base, men do it too!

book smarts

There should be equal numbers of women and men as front line troops in the army, as prison officers in male prisons, and doing heavy physical work.
Also no man should ever help a woman in distress because she's a woman, or treat her any differently to a man in ANYWAY. They can walk home alone at night, they can open their own doors.

You want REAL equality, you got it.

Macha

K-9 wrote: »

I don't know, I think that is a bit of an exaggeration.

Ahem...quite possibly :pac:

K-9 wrote: »

Ach, it was electioneering and appealing to the base, men do it too!

Argh, I know. Maybe I'm just easily annoyed but the whole "catty female" thing really, well, annoys me! So the idea that we just didn't like her because we're jealous she's hot is maddening.

The fact that she used her own sexuality so blatently is another black mark against her. There were GOP buttons with the slogan "Hottest V.P. from the Coolest State". It was sad, however, that she was the subject of much sexism during the campaign: the constant discussions of her hair, her glasses, her appearance. The emergence of the sex video, the doctored images, etc. But I have to admit my sympathy for her was somewhat blunted by her own hypocrisy.

Silverfish

book smarts wrote: »

There should be equal numbers of women and men as front line troops in the army, as prison officers in male prisons, and doing heavy physical work.
Also no man should ever help a woman in distress because she's a woman, or treat her any differently to a man in ANYWAY. They can walk home alone at night, they can open their own doors.

And in an ideal world, they should be able to.

K-9

taconnol wrote: »

Ahem...quite possibly :pac:


Argh, I know. Maybe I'm just easily annoyed but the whole "catty female" thing really, well, annoys me! So the idea that we just didn't like her because we're jealous she's hot is maddening.

The fact that she used her own sexuality so blatently is another black mark against her. There were GOP buttons with the slogan "Hottest V.P. from the Coolest State". It was sad, however, that she was the subject of much sexism during the campaign: the constant discussions of her hair, her glasses, her appearance. The emergence of the sex video, the doctored images, etc. But I have to admit my sympathy for her was somewhat blunted by her own hypocrisy.

I don't think she personally set out to exploit her sexuality, probably us men had more to do with that aspect of it :eek:! I would think she is attractive and the camera loves her, similar to Clinton in that single respect. Men and woman do that!

Personally, I think it's because she is so anti abortion that it annoys feminists. I don't like the way pro choice has become nearly an essential part of feminism.

CDfm

Dudess wrote: »

Of course she isn't claiming to be feminist (was that a typo?)

She's a hypocrite because she's reaping the benefits of what feminism helped to achieve, yet she condemns feminism.

I am unclear here I thought she condemned "gender-feminism" not feminism.

Dudess

Dragan wrote: »

I think you missed the point or i failed to make it. I was saying if someone chooses to not be down with feminism, despite the benefits and breakthroughs that feminism as a movement have given us, then so be it.

I kinda think you might be missing my point also.
I'm not saying every female should feel obliged to celebrate feminism.
Not interested in it? Cool. Just don't be anti feminist.

If they do so from a position that has been enriched by Feminism then yes, they are a hypocrite.

I think pretty much every woman - in the west certainly - is in a position that has been enriched by feminism. You don't have to be super successful career woman Sarah Palin - you could just be Ms Average, from Dublin, working in an insurance company with a degree in business studies, 18-month child in the creche.

Sorry for not coming across clearly.:o

Oh please don't be!
Sorry if I appeared to get cranky with ya - not at all. Nothing personal, just a differing view.

Basically, what i mean was that if they want to look at all the good things that have come about and say "bully to that" and wish for something else, then let them?

Hmmm... I don't really get ya. I don't think that applies to anti feminists who are basking in what feminism has achieved.
If you're referring to a woman who doesn't want to work, to get educated, to vote, to be equal to men... and puts that into practice, well yeah, her choice.

coffee_cake

book smarts wrote: »

Also no man should ever...treat her any differently to a man in ANYWAY
They can walk home alone at night

Awesome, I hope that means a man won't pounce, rape, murder a woman on her own at night as well then just because she's a woman

johnnyskeleton

Dudess wrote: »

Came across the following blog entry which sums up perfectly my feelings on women under 60 (or thereabouts) who enjoy the fruits of what the feminist movement helped achieve, yet like to proclaim themselves "anti feminist". Ann Coulter - great example: the ball-busting, unmarried, childless career woman who believes women's place is in the home serving their husbands and raising children.

http://community.feministing.com/2008/07/anti-feminist-women.html

I mean, it's one thing to have no time for man-haters, to be of the view that men have it bad in a lot of ways because of their gender (while also acknowledging that women have it bad in a lot of ways because of their gender), to revel in girlyness, to fancy the strong alpha-male type (yes please )... but I don't see how being anti-feminist is a necessary accompaniment to the above. To me, feminism was originally about deconstructing the notion that women are limited to living life a certain way because of their gender - no more.

Or being conservative = anti-feminist. Why do some people who embrace conservatism have to support EVERY conservative ideology in order to avoid being seen as inconsistent? Why not leave a little room for flexibility?
Margaret Thatcher - another example. Hated feminists. Was totally the type who'd assume a feminist meant unattractive, butch etc - seemingly oblivious to the irony of the fact that you don't get to become female prime minister of Great Britain without what the feminist movement achieved.

Just thought I'd share...

To be any sort of -ist you have to advocate some kind of change or at least point to specific injustices.

We are living in a world where most of what the earlier feminists fought for has been won, and we are left with feminists who want to ban porn, castrate all men or some other obscure cause (Feminist architecture has me in stiches).

There was a thread here a while ago posting a video which tried to re-categorise feminists as people who kinda vaguely support the idea that women should exist (the sthick being that everyone was a feminist), but the reality is that the war has been won so feminists should put up their arms and adapt to peace time. Sure there is the occasional skirmish but by and large there are few areas in which the lives of women can be improved without simply putting them in a more advantageous position than men just for the look of the thing.

I think real feminism has run its course, and that is why, from my point of view, anyone who posits themself as a feminist tends to hold some extreme view or other. Put another way, successful socially adjusted women that I know tend to eschew feminism, and, in a country where women have as equal rights as men, that is the way it should be.

johnnyskeleton

PrivateEye wrote: »

Look at all the 'Lovely Girls' competition that still exist in Ireland today,

Well, they all have lovely bottoms Ted.

johnnyskeleton

taconnol wrote: »

-Women make up ontly 37% of EU Commissioners
-Over all of the EU, women make up 24% of lower houses of parliament and only 21% of upper houses: effectively meaning that 3/4 of decision makers at national level are men.

Economics
-all 27 governers of central banks in the EU are men
-The governing council of the ECB (European Central Bank) is made up a six member executive board, which includes just one woman, and the governors of the central banks of the 15 Euro area countries, who are all men. Overall control of the European financial system therefore has less than 5% female influence

While I agree with you in theory about the central banks (although in practice it's perhaps the fact that the majority of suitable candidates were male rather than a boys club), I don't agree with you as regards politics.

In politics, you really can't say "right, lets have 50% of candidates as men and 50% as women" (or 49%, 49% and 2% misc). People vote for whoever the hell they want to, and if women really want to have 50% of candidates to be women, well they have ~50% of the votes so why don't they use them?

CDfm

Dudess wrote: »

I kinda think you might be missing my point also.
I'm not saying every female should feel obliged to celebrate feminism.
Not interested in it? Cool. Just don't be anti feminist.

Sorry dudess but i dont understand.

I think the analogy is that it doesnt follow that to be pro irish is to be anti -british and so its a side of it she is uncomfortable with. Maybe its easier for her to be a role model in a way an elected official cant be. Fairly brave Id say.

dfx-

taconnol wrote: »

Explain how pointing out inequalities is "genderist" of me. I'm not taking responsibility or any other obscure accusation. I'm pointing out some facts.

Having the vote is not the same as holding decision-making positions.

Yees..I'm quoting current statistics on the inequalities between men and women as "retribution"... bizarre.

So you agree, calling it an "exceptionally good point"? The fact that a few people act like that, again, does not negate the need for further work in achieveing equality.

Yes, there is ample evidence that many men get the job because they are men and testimony to that comes from men as well. I don't blame the men involved - it's human nature that jobs are given through contacts - I think everyone accepts that most jobs aren't even advertised or very often the recruitment process is more for show as the likely candidate has already been chosen. This from the man who instigated the quota law in Norway

Statistics are rarely 'some facts'. It all depends on who holds them

The statistics mean nothing on their own. Applying a solely gender bias to the appointments from there on to redress the balance is where it gets absurd. It resolves nothing but the statistics look nicer. Remind me why there should be gender equality in decision making positions? Again genderist..

It echoes that a certain number of black players must play for South African rugby and cricket teams and are ridiculed by the opposition because of that selection process. The cricket team especially were ordered to pick players by their race. The rugby team who won the World Cup 2 years ago were threatened to break apart because of it. Zimbabwe has lost everything because of the farm redistribution. Some very good sportsmen lost out because of this policy, both black and white. If you are good enough, you will get through and they are now and why they are arguably the best in the world at both sports. And hence the abandonment of that policy, though it still remains in civil life under 'affirmative action', which in law specifically states that a black person should get preference for an equal skilled competition in retribution for apartheid. Should this not act as fore-warning for quota systems? They've all failed spectacularly.

Quota systems and affirmative action are reprehensible and despicable and is retribution in redressing the imbalance. The man or woman who introduces quota laws should be fired on the spot.

I agree it is an exceptionally good point that what is happening now is relevant, not what happened a thousand years ago or even fifty years ago.

K-9

Dudess wrote: »

I don't think that applies to anti feminists who are basking in what feminism has achieved.

I think that is very black and white.

Take Sarah Palin! , Sorry!

I'm sure she appreciates feminism and how it meant she could achieve what she did.

Just because she has different views on certain issues does not mean she is anti feminist?

It's hard to find a similar analogy. FF would have been a Republican party in the 60's. They faced down the Arms Crisis in 1970.
Many Republicans seen that as betrayal. Does that necessarily make FF Anti Republican?

It's not a great analogy, but does opposing something you see as extreme mean you are Anti the general principle?


Transfer that to Palin. Does being extremely conservative on abortion mean she is an anti Feminist?

CDfm

dfx- wrote: »

Statistics are rarely 'some facts'. It all depends on who holds them

I agree it is an exceptionally good point that what is happening now is relevant, not what happened a thousand years ago or even fifty years ago.

I believe we had equality in Ireland during the famine - where are these mythical men that did so well. All men were not pharohs or soldiers but were outnumbered by slaves and the great unwashed.

CDfm

K-9 wrote: »

Take Sarah Palin! , Sorry!

I'm sure she appreciates feminism and how it meant she could achieve what she did.

It's not a great analogy, but does opposing something you see as extreme mean you are Anti the general principle?


Transfer that to Palin. Does being extremely conservative on abortion mean she is an anti Feminist?

Palins take on abortion is an ethical issue.

By comparison Cherie Booth & Tony Blairs failure to dislose their MMR decision for their son probably was viewed as being anti-MMR and some doctors thought for two media darlings unforgiveable and unethical.

I hope the Obama girls have their vaccines updated cos we wouldnt want them catching anything if they meet the Blair kid.

Macha

dfx- wrote: »

The statistics mean nothing on their own. Applying a solely gender bias to the appointments from there on to redress the balance is where it gets absurd. It resolves nothing but the statistics look nicer. Remind me why there should be gender equality in decision making positions? Again genderist..

I'm pointing to statistics that indicate the existence of an imbalance in the sex of appointees to national and EU-level decision making positions, even in a society where the majority of people graduating from third-level education are women. What do you suggest we do?

You question why gender equality in decision making positions is important and then have the audacity to call me sexist?

In relation to business, the argument is clear: Richard Florida has shown that tolerant, open societies are highly correlated with economic success as fewer barriers stand in the way of successful entrepreneurs and business people. By blocking the paths to high business for certain groups of people, society is effectively stunting its own potential economic growth. Just look at the inbred group of village idiots that have been running our financial system for the last 20 years.

dfx- wrote: »

It echoes that a certain number of black players must play for South African rugby and cricket teams and are ridiculed by the opposition because of that selection process. The cricket team especially were ordered to pick players by their race. The rugby team who won the World Cup 2 years ago were threatened to break apart because of it.Zimbabwe has lost everything because of the farm redistribution. Some very good sportsmen lost out because of this policy, both black and white. If you are good enough, you will get through and they are now and why they are arguably the best in the world at both sports.

Jesus, I'm not talking about a cricket match here, nor do I appreciate the snide comparison to a vindictive, murderous, dictatorial, racist regime.

dfx- wrote: »

And hence the abandonment of that policy, though it still remains in civil life under 'affirmative action', which in law specifically states that a black person should get preference for an equal skilled competition in retribution for apartheid. Should this not act as fore-warning for quota systems? They've all failed spectacularly.

Have they really? You cite two examples that refer only to race, not to gender, and are drawn from two unstable post-colonial societies? QED? I think not.

Now let's look at an actually relevant example: Norway. Quota's were introduced a year ago and look, the place hasn't burned down yet. It's worth pointing out that gender quotas have only been introduced in countries where women already have a achieved a significant level of representation. So it's the case that higher representation leads to quotas, not the other way around.

dfx- wrote: »

Quota systems and affirmative action are reprehensible and despicable and is retribution in redressing the imbalance. The man or woman who introduces quota laws should be fired on the spot.

Sure, get rid of them. Just as soon as all the "little boys clubs" are disbanded.

Research by Richard Matland has shown that in general in Europe, voters do not have a problem voting for women. The real obstacles are:
a) the woman putting herself forward (definitely an issue)
b) the party selection process for nominees
c) the party selection process for candidates

The real problem is at stage b). This is why the argument is put forward for a more equal number of candidates, not for more equal elected members of parliament: we know that the voters aren't the problem.

dfx- wrote: »

I agree it is an exceptionally good point that what is happening now is relevant, not what happened a thousand years ago or even fifty years ago.

Riight, so we'll just forget about all that stuff. Sure. Would you be so quick to tell, say, African Americans that what happened 50 years ago isn't relevant and to forget about slavery?

CDfm

taconnol wrote: »

I'm pointing to statistics that indicate the existence of an imbalance in the sex of appointees to national and EU-level decision making positions, even in a society where the majority of people graduating from third-level education are women. What do you suggest we do?



In relation to business, the argument is clear: Richard Florida has shown that tolerant, open societies are highly correlated with economic success as fewer barriers stand in the way of successful entrepreneurs and business people. By blocking the paths to high business for certain groups of people, society is effectively stunting its own potential economic growth.


Riight, so we'll just forget about all that stuff. Sure. Would you be so quick to tell, say, African Americans that what happened 50 years ago isn't relevant and to forget about slavery?

On your regulation of Banks issue (village idiots) would the presence of women socialised into the same regulatory culture have faired any better?

On entrepeneurs- I know a few - the distinguishing factor IMHO is their attitude towards risk and reward. Would you bet your house on your business being a success. Would you work as a commision only salesperson. Those career paths have no obstacles. So as much as Floridas study may be valid -it is equally valid to say that my observation is that the careers that have growth in womens participation are "safer" and risk free. Thats my observation so you can question it.

African-American slavery was almost contemporary with the Irish famine and the Irish and Catholics in the UK were an underclass. I often wonder if this is overhyped.