Malignant Feminism caused misery and chaos

Bottle_of_Smoke

Full title:
Kevin Myers: Like any other ideology, imposed regardless of reality, Malignant Feminism caused misery and chaos

Forty years on, this week, from the publication of Germaine Greers's 'The Female Eunuch' and you can take your pick of the headlines that tell you of TFE's consequences for women, or indeed, lack of them. "Stringfellows lap dancer was women's rights officer" is one deeply enjoyable example: "Padded bras for girls, 9, on the shelves at Asda" provides a different vision, one of a dis-infantalised and sexualised childhood-hell.

As a good little lefty and sympathiser of feminism, I once tried to read TFE: I found it trite, undergraduate bilge. My few proto-feminist braincells withered and died shortly afterwards when I was told by a young woman-television producer from Foxrock: "Being a female in Ireland is like being a black in Soweto."

Feminism is, of course, like socialism or Christianity -- an ideological piece of string that is as long as you want it to be. Most of what we might call the Benign Feminist agenda was already being implemented across Europe before TFE was published. Ireland, of course, was not yet in the EEC and barely in the 20th Century. Legal equality for women here was not really achieved by any political agitations of the Irish feminist movement, which seemed largely content to get headlines and celebrity for a couple of individuals. The famous condom train of 1971 was not followed up on by any further or riskier actions. Both the Labour Party and the trade union movement were, quite scandalously, opposed to equality of pay: it was finally imposed by the EEC Commissioner, Paddy Hillery.

So the BF agenda offers an irresistible moral and political case. It does not propose the dogmatic egalitarianism of Malignant Feminism, and nor does it conduct its debates in the depraved dialect of MF: a combination of aggressive victimhood, ad hominem abuse and selective fact-finding all enunciated in the nasty, unending jeer that became the characteristic of TFE-speak.

TFE-speak enabled Malignant Feminists to make wicked generalisations about men which would not be legally tolerated if they were made about ethnic minorities. The most common is this evil lie: "The most important thing for women to understand is how much men really do hate and despise us."

And whenever this malignant falsehood is uttered, most men present in radio and television studios to defend their sex have merely shifted uncomfortably in their seats because to refute such toxic fantasies with the mockery and ridicule that it deserves would, of itself, be seen as sexist and bullying. Yet the ancient truth is that unless you stand up to the bully, the bully will keep hitting you: and so this vile mantra has been repeated ceaselessly by the great she-bear of malignant feminism, Germaine Greer, and her Pooh-Bear followers.

MF ideologues employ another very simple technique when responding to what little criticism they get from male critics. This is to destroy a man's argument by quoting back his words at him, but saying that he had "harrumphed" them. Not even the most commonplace and self-evidently correct observation survives this treatment. Try it: "I'm Irish," he harrumphed. "It's raining," he harrumphed. (MF shrieks of gleeful disdain).

So, all an MF has to do to turn any man into a buffoon at the clubroom fender is to deploy the self-destruct verb. No wisdom survives this -- not even the words of the great she-bear herself, from her own TFE: "Whenever you see nail varnish, lipstick, brassieres and high heels, the Eunuch has set up her camp," he harrumphed.

Well, as it happens, the Eunuch has set up her camp, complete with bra, lipstick and thong, in both the feminist campus and the child's nursery. In 2005 Nadine Quashie was a paid-up full-time operative of the feminist thought-police on Thames Valley University campus -- "I was women's sabbatical officer, representing women and women's wellbeing in the university and their rights and making sure they were not underprivileged or anything like that." In 2007, she was dancing naked, all but for a g-string, on men's laps in Stringfellows in London.

Meanwhile, supermarkets sell 28AA padded bras to nine-year old children; and Tesco, God help us, has even been selling a little girl's pole-dancing kit in its toys-and-games department.

Moreover, the victimhood culture that was in large part created by TFE now means it is illegal for a state-financed medical school which charges no fees to ask applicants -- who are going to occupy a precious place, at the exclusion of someone else -- if they intend to continue practising should they become mothers. It means that armies have to deploy female soldiers even though the moment they go into the front-line a huge number will promptly get pregnant and, by law, must then be transferred to safer, rear-echelon duties. It means that women merchant bankers who take two years off to have a baby, and who don't get promoted in their absence, will often then sue, citing that dreary cliche "the glass ceiling".

Like any ideology, imposed regardless of reality, Malignant Feminism has caused misery, chaos and confusion, in which the law -- sensing the wind, as lawyers usually do -- has invariably taken the MF's side. Forty years of TFE is long enough: Time the Farce was Ended.

Though t this was one of Myer's better articles. Cannot stand how people complain women earn less than men even though they're not talking like for like. And don't get me started on the glass ceiling bullsh*t

It does appear to me it is much more acceptable to generalise about men than ethnic minorities or religious minorites. Why do men put up with this?

Aswerty

Myers has a kernel of validity in this tirade of his, malignant feminism is bad. This is fairly obvious since malignant anything is bad in general.

This malignant feminism is an issue that should be brought to light since what I would consider it to be is an ethos that problems within our society that affect men and women should be looked at as female problems. This brings about the idea that parental leave, abortion and other issues should be addressed by addressing the female issue. I find this nonsensical as these types of issues are of importance and have very large impacts on both genders. The malignant feminist will look only with respect to their own gender, or if they do recognise they affect males they will consider it to only a negligible degree.


I think most reasonable people of both sexes do recognise this form of feminism is detrimental to society as a whole and as such it does not seem to be especially widespread. Malignant feminism grew up and apart from the moderate feminism that was very much an equality movement. Moderate feminism has brought gender equality to a somewhat even keel. That being said most moderate feminist hang-ups are based on the fact that our current society while not being patriarchal still retains some of the residue of the old patriarchal society. I would look at the Catholic Church, political parties and other such organisations as being the main culprits of this residual discrimination. These orginisations are currently being pushed to redress these issues, though they are often resistant to these pushes.


I don’t understand why Myers is throwing the sexualisation of girls at the feet of anyone. It seems pretty obvious that the young will try to imitate their older counterparts. It is the sexualisation of women in society (which is a good thing when they are doing it for themselves, though that’s often not the case) that is causing this knock on effect.


Gender issues are always going to occur but I think listening to what Myers has to say on them is not the best tactic in resolving or learning about them.

Miss Mimsy

Myers is a chauvinist, anyone that agrees with this article is a chauvinist! To use the term Malignant to describe the modern feminist movement is vile and promotes/endorses the attitudes against womens rights. I have never been a great reader of the indo but today's addition raised many poignant points about feminism in Ireland and the EU.

Lately, I have been seeing this prevalent attitude of forcing archaic 18th century views on young women in this country. Irish women today have to continue fighting for equality and break through the glass ceilings forced on them by like minded chauvinists like Myers.

Maguined

Why? He is not opposing feminism has a whole? he clearly states feminism is a very broad label that is applied to varying ideologies under the genre and then separates into two different groups, the group he agrees with is benign and the group he disagrees with malignant.

He is clearly not tarring all feminism by the same brush when he specifically separates them into two camps and only disagrees with one so to say he opposes feminism is not really accurate or fair.

PeakOutput

Miss Mimsy wrote: »

Myers is a chauvinist, anyone that agrees with this article is a chauvinist! To use the term Malignant to describe the modern feminist movement is vile and promotes/endorses the attitudes against womens rights. I have never been a great reader of the indo but today's addition raised many poignant points about feminism in Ireland and the EU.

Lately, I have been seeing this prevalent attitude of forcing archaic 18th century views on young women in this country. Irish women today have to continue fighting for equality and break through the glass ceilings forced on them by like minded chauvinists like Myers.

the modern feminist movemtn in MOST first world countries is irrelevant and outdated and annoys me to no end

there is no need for a group to solely pursue the female agenda anymore there is only need for a group to promote equal rights for everybody

Aswerty

PeakOutput wrote: »

the modern feminist movemtn in MOST first world countries is irrelevant and outdated and annoys me to no end

there is no need for a group to solely pursue the female agenda anymore there is only need for a group to promote equal rights for everybody

I don't think you can blame the women when the fact is men just don't care too much or aren't arsed campaigning about issues that affect them. I think it would be a bit hypocritical to tell the women to campaign for mens rights when a lot of us aren't bothered doing it ourselves. I see where you are coming from though but until there is a unified movement made of both genders that pushes gender equality I don't think we have a leg to stand on when giving out about "benign feminism" as Myers puts it.

At a personal level I'd say feminism is annoying but that's just me being a cynical c*nt :pac:.

metrovelvet

I thought men would be happy that some or most of the pressure for them to be the breadwinner has been taken off and that they dont have to get married now to have sex. No?

That is thanks to feminism guys.

CDfm

Miss Mimsy wrote: »

Myers is a chauvinist, anyone that agrees with this article is a chauvinist!

This is a misue of the term chauvinist and uses is out of context.. Ariel Levys book Female Chauvinist Pigs in which she claims that women objectify themselves. Either gender can have superiority issues.

A person should not be demonised for disagreeing with an ideology they think is flawed or prejudiced.

Aswerty wrote: »

I think it would be a bit hypocritical to tell the women to campaign for mens rights when a lot of us aren't bothered doing it ourselves.

Well I have a 17 year old daughter and I would like to think she would have equal opportunities with men of similar abilities and aspirations which is what equality is all about.I have similar aspirations for my son.

Thats what I find odd about those with gender agenda's because I am sure that women want equality and fair treatment for their sons.

So egalitarian issues are very important for progress.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Miss Mimsy wrote: »

Myers is a chauvinist, anyone that agrees with this article is a chauvinist! To use the term Malignant to describe the modern feminist movement is vile and promotes/endorses the attitudes against womens rights. I have never been a great reader of the indo but today's addition raised many poignant points about feminism in Ireland and the EU.

Lately, I have been seeing this prevalent attitude of forcing archaic 18th century views on young women in this country. Irish women today have to continue fighting for equality and break through the glass ceilings forced on them by like minded chauvinists like Myers.

Could you give specific examples and explain why he is/anyone agreeing with this article is a chauvinist?

Where exactly do women have to continue fighting for equality?

PeakOutput

Aswerty wrote: »

I don't think you can blame the women when the fact is men just don't care too much or aren't arsed campaigning about issues that affect them. I think it would be a bit hypocritical to tell the women to campaign for mens rights when a lot of us aren't bothered doing it ourselves. I see where you are coming from though but until there is a unified movement made of both genders that pushes gender equality I don't think we have a leg to stand on when giving out about "benign feminism" as Myers puts it.

At a personal level I'd say feminism is annoying but that's just me being a cynical c*nt :pac:.

im not talking about only gender equality im talking about all groups be it ethnic, sexuality, gender should all be under the same tree of simple straight forward equal rights for everyone

i also think that a blanket organisation for all would be a far more powerfull lobby then a feminist group on its own and would foster far more debate between groups and people of differing opinions. debate between the militant feminist and the guy who thinks its not unfair for him to be ahead in his career if she decides to take two years off work to have a baby

bluecatmorgana

I think feminism is important and will always be important as long as being girly is seen to be a flaw by men.(example is http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056060005 , I know its AH but still its like Madonnas song were its degrading to look like a woman but not degrading to look like a man.)

Feminism is a part of everyone, everyone has masculine and femimine sides and both should be empbraced, from women wanting to be managers and leaders to men wanting the same amount of paternity leave as maternity leave.

I also believe that more has to be done by men for men in regards their rights to their children.

Fremen

Moreover, the victimhood culture that was in large part created by TFE now means it is illegal for a state-financed medical school which charges no fees to ask applicants -- who are going to occupy a precious place, at the exclusion of someone else -- if they intend to continue practising should they become mothers. It means that armies have to deploy female soldiers even though the moment they go into the front-line a huge number will promptly get pregnant and, by law, must then be transferred to safer, rear-echelon duties. It means that women merchant bankers who take two years off to have a baby, and who don't get promoted in their absence, will often then sue, citing that dreary cliche "the glass ceiling".

This is Kevin Myers at his disingenuous worst. What kind of woman goes to med school then gives it all up once she has a kid? I'd guess might see that kind of thing happen in a fraction of a per cent of all cases. What kind of soldier gets pregnant on the front line? Again, it's possible, but likely to be incredibly rare.

The third case is a little different. He doesn't really address the "dreary cliche". Cliched as it may be, women are still underrepresented at the top levels of management. I'm guessing even childless women are underrepresented, though I don't have figures to back that up.

Yes, he's right that some feminists are obnoxious and offensive. The thing is, feminism is a political movement and has a tendency to polarise people. You see this same level of obnoxious self-righteuosness in every political movement across the board. I'm sure most people here have sat down with a militant socialist and wanted to bury their head in their hands after five minutes of inane chatter.

CDfm

Fremen wrote: »

This is Kevin Myers at his disingenuous worst. What kind of woman goes to med school then gives it all up once she has a kid? I'd guess might see that kind of thing happen in a fraction of a per cent of all cases. What kind of soldier gets pregnant on the front line? Again, it's possible, but likely to be incredibly rare.

I suppose it is better to look at what studies say factualy

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/10/40

Have there been studies done in Ireland?

The third case is a little different. He doesn't really address the "dreary cliche". Cliched as it may be, women are still underrepresented at the top levels of management. I'm guessing even childless women are underrepresented, though I don't have figures to back that up.

But women are also overrepresented in teaching and underrepresented in the dirty jobs or currently unemployment lines.

The Corinthian

Miss Mimsy wrote: »

Lately, I have been seeing this prevalent attitude of forcing archaic 18th century views on young women in this country. Irish women today have to continue fighting for equality and break through the glass ceilings forced on them by like minded chauvinists like Myers.

Wrong glass ceiling. Statistically if you look at salaries and positions withing society women still earn less than men. Patriarchal discrimination? Perhaps, but only if that is the answer you're looking for and are uninterested in finding out the truth.

In reality, if you look at those same statistics, you will typically find that women earn more than men in their twenties, then lose competitiveness as time goes one. A large proportion end up working part time once in their thirties onwards, or taking a few years out or even leaving the workplace altogether, largely to raise a family. If they do return, they do so having missed out on a number of years of work experience, thus naturally command lesser salaries. Or due to continuing child care commitments are not free to prioritize their careers, which further affects earning potential.

Conversely, childless women typically are on a par, or in some cases even out preform men, in jobs.

Now, while this may point to discrimination, it is certainly not in the workplace. Neither can one squarely point the finger at men because we somehow at gunpoint force our spouses or partners to care for our children.

The problem with feminism is that it gave women a choice, but you have to give men a choice too for it to work. Men still are expected to be the breadwinner in families because this is how society (and law) still sees things. In Ireland there are something like 8,000 stay-at-home men, compared to some 400,000 stay-at-home women. Indeed, the idea that men should stay at home is still considered alien; our constitution enshrines only "a woman's place in the home" and where it comes to child care the law firmly believes that women are the one's who should be doing it.

But to change this situation - both legal and the attitudes in society, would require a ceding of gender-based privileges for women that Feminism is still largely silent on - and in some cases even opposes.

Sexual discrimination exists in Ireland, but at this stage there's more against men than women - as an example I would ask if there are any laws that discriminate against women? Even if you can find one I can guarantee I can find two or three against men for every one of them.

Unfortunately, where feminism seems to be in countries like Ireland is entrenched in the post-feminist cake and eat it camp. Women want to be treated equally in the workplace, but they also want to raise a family. Sorry, but choice means you have to choose. Women want to retain their gender-based privileges where it comes to family law, or physical labour or even the tradition of a man picking up the tab at a dinner, then there's a price to that. If you want equality, there's a price to that too.

So I would suggest that you look at the cause for such inequities that remain and ask where they really come from. It stopped being a patriarchal conspiracy a long time ago and frankly hearing that kind of rubbish cited sounds like all those twits on PI who complain how nice guys like them never get girls.

Chauvinism is an extreme and unreasoning partisanship on behalf of any group to which one belongs. Chauvinism is thinking that you bare no responsibility (individually or collectively) for your problems - someone else is to blame. Chauvinism is fighting for equality only when it suits your group. Chauvinism is thinking you can have it all.

So next time you want to cite chauvinism, I would look in a mirror first before accusing others.

tbh

hello folks this is one of those "gender issue" threads that we were talking about aaages ago.

I'm going to butt out in a minute and let ye all carry on, but just to remind you:

• You post in this thread "at your own risk"
• Mods will only get involved for clear cases of personal abuse
• Mods *will not* be responsible for preventing people soapboxing, preaching, ignoring your points, misinterpreting your points etc.

There is quite a good chance that this thread will degrade into people shouting at each other. As long as they don't use terms of abuse, that's ok with us.

metrovelvet

I dont like Myers. I dont agree with his article. I also think it is badly written and he does not deserve a column.

However, I think feminism sold women up the river and the children are paying the price for women's liberation.

I think Gloria Steinem should shut up and Bette Friedan got on the wrong bandwagon.

CDfm

He is a columnist and his job is to sell newspapers.

I haven't seen him get involved in the holistic massage debate and how I was deprived for years -until we discovered Boards Deals.

Thats me done.

limklad

PeakOutput wrote: »

the modern feminist movemtn in MOST first world countries is irrelevant and outdated and annoys me to no end

there is no need for a group to solely pursue the female agenda anymore there is only need for a group to promote equal rights for everybody

It is true, there is no equal rights any more as the pendulum has swung the other direction. Look at Family Law, Men in 99% of the cases loses their equal rights when it comes to children and divorce.

limklad

metrovelvet wrote: »

I thought men would be happy that some or most of the pressure for them to be the breadwinner has been taken off and that they dont have to get married now to have sex. No?

That is thanks to feminism guys.

You got to be kidding, pressure taken off men to be the bread winner. :eek:
When Men receives the comments such as I am having a baby I need more money. The amount of abuse men get from women for not earning enough to feed her lifestyle is something else, never mind the mortgage, bills, food etc are expected to pay fully in additional to her lifestyle. :rolleyes: And If they don't do it, then she threatens with separation and custody and remove access to his kids.

The Corinthian

limklad wrote: »

Look at Family Law, Men in 99% of the cases loses their equal rights when it comes to children and divorce.

While I don't think anyone would suggest that family law is not grossly biased against men, I do think that 99% is an exaggeration.

The only statistic I can think of, offhand, is that only 10% of men get custody, which would indicate more than 1%, albeit a scandalously low number.

goose2005

The Corinthian wrote: »

While I don't think anyone would suggest that family law is not grossly biased against men, I do think that 99% is an exaggeration.

The only statistic I can think of, offhand, is that only 10% of men get custody, which would indicate more than 1%, albeit a scandalously low number.

From Roisin O'Shea

Husbands are being ejected from their homes in 99 per cent of cases where the family law courts are giving one spouse a sole right of residence, according to a new study.

The study was carried out by law graduate Róisín O’Shea, who was given permission to observe family law cases, which are ordinarily held in private.

She said that, where the courts gave one spouse the right to live alone in the family home, husbands were favoured in only 1 per cent of applications.

Judges ordered the transfer of the property into the wife’s sole name in almost seven out of ten cases.

In 160 contested cases relating to family homes, where an order was made to sell the home, the wife received more than half the proceeds in a quarter of cases, while the proceeds were split evenly between the spouses in the remaining cases.

Since October 2008, O’Shea has observed 493 judicial separation and divorce cases in Dublin, Cork and the southeast.

She said 73 per cent of judicial separation cases and 54 per cent of divorce applications were brought by women.

‘‘To date, all of the contested cases that I have observed were brought by the wife," said O’Shea. ‘‘I have not seen a single case where the wife was ordered to pay maintenance for children or a spouse.

Without fail, where maintenance is at issue, it is the husband who has been ordered to pay."

So in 70% of cases the woman was given the house and the kids, while the dad was thrown into a tiny bedsit (and probably ordered to pay maintenance, and maybe got to see the children once a fortnight).

Bottle_of_Smoke

THE EUROPEAN parliament will vote today on a controversial proposal that would extend maternity leave to 20 weeks on full pay.

The vote follows the narrow approval in March by the parliament’s women’s rights committee of a report which called for a European standard of 20 weeks’ fully paid maternity leave.

The report, which was drafted by Portuguese Socialist MEP Edite Estrela, also called for fathers to be given two weeks of fully paid paternity leave.
The report, which proved bitterly divisive, goes beyond the European Commission’s original proposal to extend minimum maternity leave from 14 to 18 weeks throughout the EU’s 27 member states.

The vote in the plenary session of the European parliament has already been postponed once, after MEPs called for further examination of the potential impact of the legislation.

LOL, some socialist she is seeking for men to have 10% the parental leave rights she wants women to have.

Sadly that's probably about as liberal as MEPs go too.

metrovelvet

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

LOL, some socialist she is seeking for men to have 10% the parental leave rights she wants women to have.

Sadly that's probably about as liberal as MEPs go too.

With this recession we'll be lucky if anyone gets parental leave.

The Corinthian

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

LOL, some socialist she is seeking for men to have 10% the parental leave rights she wants women to have.

Ironically, in giving women just under five months maternity leave, she's also managed to reinforce the stereotype than a woman's place is in the home caring for children. Crazy stuff.

On the plus side, with male job seeker unemployment presently being higher than female job seeker unemployment, this measure should do much to reverse this trend as no one will want to hire women anymore.

Good luck getting hired if you're a woman in her thirties.