Feminism

Logical Fallacy

Elle Collins wrote: »

I think you need to read my posts again.

The urge to TAKE sex by force is not biologically driven in humans, it is pathologically driven

This is the part i am talking about.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Elle Collins wrote: »

While we're on the subject of abhorrent claims, I view your contention that rape is not a feminist issue abhorrent. Females make up the vast vast majority of victims of rape and other sexual assaults and you are telling us that this is something we women should not concern ourselves with?

No because I do not view females and feminists as being the same thing. You'd have a point if 90% of rape victims were self identifying feminists.

Mallei

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

No because I do not view females and feminists as being the same thing. You'd have a point if 90% of rape victims were self identifying feminists.

You really, really don't understand what feminist means, do you?

18AD

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Maybe not. Interesting study here.

I can't help but think, though, that males are stronger than females generally, and that historically there is a reason for males being socially viewed as more aggressive. As in the tendency for males to be viewed as the aggerssors is historically justified.

I mean, if both males and females were equally aggressive do you not think that the males would dominate and that there would be natural social consequences from this?

Of course, now days things are much different and there are also problems of female violence at home, among other things.
Is this the result of greater equlity? Or maybe it has always been this way.

I'll admit, this is not a topic I frequently discuss or engage with so my view is probably quite narrow, but I think it is an interesting topic and appreciate any criticism or discussion that may broaden my perspective. I do not mean to offend anyone and my views here are fairly provisional.

yawha

Elle Collins wrote: »

Small wonder this 'theory' garnered legions of critics. It basically boils down to 'My stone-aged ancestors did it and I was unwittingly passed on the 'rape gene' ' :rolleyes:

Do you think that a "rape gene" is outside the realms of possibility?

Doesn't make it acceptable, but the idea that some men might be more genetically predisposed to raping a woman seems perfectly plausible to me.

metrovelvet

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

The scary thing about your attitude is it implies that if it actually were true that a rape gene existed it would be ok to rape.

Pretty much everyone accepts we are a product of nature and nurture. Murder could be in our genes but that doesn't mean we can abandon the legal system.

Pointing to biology does not necessarily rate acceptance or approval. Its just pointing to a possible source.

Rape is so vast in its shapes and sizes, I dont know how they point to a rape gene. Animals might rape, but they dont use emotional blackmail, guilt, peer pressure, etc and all those non violent forms of pressuring someone into having sex that legally may not qualify as rape since there is no physical force involved.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Mallei wrote: »

You really, really don't understand what feminist means, do you?

Not all females are feminists. What's your point?

metrovelvet

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Not all females are feminists. What's your point?

Rape has been on the feminist focus for a long time, because 90% of rape victims are women, [I assume this stat doesnt include kids, because in Ireland it seems alot of them have been young men or boys] that its a feminist issue.

Elle Collins

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Not all females are feminists. What's your point?

You seem to be working on the assumption that your own personal interpretation of feminism applies across the board. Any person, male or female, who regards women as equal to men in their human worth and desires to see them treated as such, is a feminist. You may well be a feminist yourself Bottle of Smoke, though you sure as hell seem a long way from knowing it

Elle Collins

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

This is the part i am talking about.

You're actually not making sense to me at this point so I'm just going to drop this line of debate and go enjoy my lunch.

Logical Fallacy

Elle Collins wrote: »

You seem to be working on the assumption that your own personal interpretation of feminism applies across the board. Any person, male or female, who regards women as equal to men in their human worth and desires to see them treated as such, is a feminist. You may well be a feminist yourself Bottle of Smoke, though you sure as hell seem a long way from knowing it

Very important aspect of feminism right there. It's also important to note that the drives and desires of feminists and the methods they imply to further sexual equality and break down social barriers will be many and varied.

Mild aside Elle, do you mind expanding on your point regarding rape that it's cause is pathological? I'm genuinely interest to get more of your thoughts around that.

Edit:

You're actually not making sense to me at this point so I'm just going to drop this line of debate and go enjoy my lunch.

Odd, it's pretty basic as you said that the cause of rape is pathological , Pathology is the study and diagnosis of disease...as such i am merely asking you to expand on your thoughts of rape as a disease...it's not that hard to figure out as you are the one who entered the concept into the debate and i am assuming you have more thoughts on it than a simple statement.

18AD

Elle Collins wrote: »

Any person, male or female, who regards women as equal to men in their human worth and desires to see them treated as such, is a feminist.

See, implicit in this description is that the way men view eachother is actually the best way and that women want to be viewed in such a way. This view itself actually promotes a male dominated mindset. It attempts to 'raise' women up to the level of men.

This I do not understand.

Logical Fallacy

18AD wrote: »

It attempts to 'raise' women up to the level of men.

This I do not understand.

I disagree and feel it more implies there is no different in "level" between men and women.

Elle Collins

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Odd, it's pretty basic as you said that the cause of rape is pathological , Pathology is the study and diagnosis of disease...as such i am merely asking you to expand on your thoughts of rape as a disease...

"rape as a disease"?

I regard the urge to rape as a symptom of a disease of the mind. But this thread is not about rape; it is about feminism. Is there anything you'd like to ask me about that?

Elle Collins

18AD wrote: »

See, implicit in this description is that the way men view eachother is actually the best way and that women want to be viewed in such a way. This view itself actually promotes a male dominated mindset. It attempts to 'raise' women up to the level of men.

This I do not understand.

I don't blame you. I wouldn't understand it either. That theory is nonsense and beyond understanding.

Count Duckula

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Odd, it's pretty basic as you said that the cause of rape is pathological , Pathology is the study and diagnosis of disease...as such i am merely asking you to expand on your thoughts of rape as a disease...it's not that hard to figure out as you are the one who entered the concept into the debate and i am assuming you have more thoughts on it than a simple statement.

It seems pretty obvious what she means to me - that the desire to rape is essentially a mental illness. Are you disagreeing with that?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Elle Collins wrote: »

You seem to be working on the assumption that your own personal interpretation of feminism applies across the board. Any person, male or female, who regards women as equal to men in their human worth and desires to see them treated as such, is a feminist. You may well be a feminist yourself Bottle of Smoke, though you sure as hell seem a long way from knowing it

I reject that notion completely. Its like smug unionists saying everyone born in Northern Ireland is British.

That definition to me is victimhood loving nonsense as it implies the default position is that women are not equal to men in their human worth and desires. In reality, the default position in the western world is quite rightly that women ARE equal to men and people who deviate from that position are sexist.

Logical Fallacy

Elle Collins wrote: »

"rape as a disease"?

I regard the urge to rape as a symptom of a disease of the mind. But this thread is not about rape; it is about feminism. Is there anything you'd like to ask me about that?

Cool, thanks very much for expanding on it for me.

And no, i have nothing to ask you about Feminism.

Count Duckula wrote: »

It seems pretty obvious what she means to me - that the desire to rape is essentially a mental illness. Are you disagreeing with that?

Nope. I was questioning it coming up as a genetic cause for rape has been dismissed as an "excuse" while a psycho-pathological one has not.

I am just wondering why.

18AD

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I disagree and feel it more implies there is no different in "level" between men and women.

Then why the name feminism? Is the source of the movement not that women were treated as second class compared to males?

Would you put transgender and other types of people who are looking for equal rights for themselves as feminists? I think that would be a mistake.

Count Duckula

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That definition to me is victimhood loving nonsense as it implies the default position is that women are not equal to men in their human worth and desires. In reality, the default position in the western world is quite rightly that women ARE equal to men and people who deviate from that position are sexist.

Again, feminism is not saying that women are the victims of anything, merely that it is a movement to ensure that their rights are equal to those of men, both legally and in a more general societal sense. Any person who believes in the equality of women is, therefore, a feminist.

Someone's already questioned whether you actually understand what feminism means, or whether you're just railing against a stereotype of the man-hating, victim-complex feminist that you've built up in your head. I'm beginning to think it's the latter.

18AD

Count Duckula wrote: »

Again, feminism is not saying that women are the victims of anything, merely that it is a movement to ensure that their rights are equal to those of men, both legally and in a more general societal sense. Any person who believes in the equality of women is, therefore, a feminist.

Is the term not then superfluous? If I believe in equal rights for everyone, am I then a masculinist, a feminist and a transgenderist or whatever the terms may be?

Logical Fallacy

I'm going to jump back here as i forgot to give my thoughts on the OP's original questions and i feel kind of bad about that.

Count Duckula wrote: »

What's the attitude towards it from a male perspective?

It will be quite varied, my own personal attitude towards feminism is largely positive. I feel some people will use it as a way to dismiss others and try and dictate their lives to them, but i feel this fraction is a tiny portion of people who would term themselves feminist. Overall, i would view feminism as a positive movement.

A still-relevant movement that has a hell of a lot to fight for yet? Or is it now largely the domain of man-haters or those looking for superiority not equality?

From a global point of view there are varying degrees of work to be done, I feel equality issues driven by feminism have covered some good ground in some parts of the world but sadly there are other parts of the world where a lot ground needs to be covered.

My main musings about feminism in recent times revolve around the fact that i am unsure if insular feminism can really do much more, especially in countries where a lot of the prejudiced views against women are driven by religion...and especially in countries where said religions still have a strong grip on society.

I would consider the Catholic Church to be quite blinkered in it's view of women, contraception and assorted other issues and i think a large part of the victories enjoyed by feminism in Ireland is down to the weakening of the Church's grip on the social conscious, at the same time it's an interesting cycle as i reckon the increased thinking around equality has helped to do this. As such, feminism is like any other battle, you have to push a little bit, gain a beach head, reset and then push again.

I think there are also enormous social, economic and race issues that affect a lot of women the world over...this is, i think, quite obvious. I think trying to develop a full understand of the various types of discrimination and how they can interlink to affect people is very important.

I definitely don't think the feminism is the preserve of man haters, as a lot of men will happily consider themselves feminist and will be interested in move equality issues forward.

Do the men of tGC consider themselves feminists, egalitarians, or neither?

Personally i consider my self to be a egalitarian but i would probably fall into this category under both it's perceived definitions so i guess i am comfortable with it as a label, if i must label myself for the sake of discussion.

Are you interested in men's rights, and if so is the successful acquisition of those rights inextricably tied to the feminist movement and its goals?

Yes, i am interested in mens right, and yes i do see the fight for equal rights for men and women as being interlinked. Without consideration of both sides of an issue it is impossible to find balance i think.

liah

18AD wrote: »

Is the term not then superfluous? If I believe in equal rights for everyone, am I then a masculinist, a feminist and a transgenderist or whatever the terms may be?

Is there some reason people cannot be all of these things at the same time?

metrovelvet

Count Duckula wrote: »

It seems pretty obvious what she means to me - that the desire to rape is essentially a mental illness. Are you disagreeing with that?

If it's a disease of the mind, then its also a disease of the culture and the sense of entitlement it feeds some people into having over someone else's body.

It was only in the 1980s that it became illegal to rape your wife.

Men felt they could take whats theirs.

Some feminists believe that rape is an articulation of the entitlement the culture gives to men coupled with the woman's body being public property.

Logical Fallacy

18AD wrote: »

Then why the name feminism? Is the source of the movement not that women were treated as second class compared to males?

Would you put transgender and other types of people who are looking for equal rights for themselves as feminists? I think that would be a mistake.

I am not to sure what you mean but i imagine the term "feminism" original rose from the the fact it was an attempt to remove the perceived differences between the status of the sexes.

I wouldn't know what to call transgender people who are currently engaged in their fight for equal rights...i would probably ask them? If i had to hazard a guess i suppose i would consider it either egalitarianism or humanitarianism...the simple fact is though that it doesn't matter what something is called...what it means is the only thing that matters.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Count Duckula wrote: »

Again, feminism is not saying that women are the victims of anything, merely that it is a movement to ensure that their rights are equal to those of men, both legally and in a more general societal sense. Any person who believes in the equality of women is, therefore, a feminist.

My imagination or did you initially have "sexist" there instead of feminist!?

That isn't what I'm saying - the definition of a feminist put forward there "Any person, male or female, who regards women as equal to men in their human worth and desires to see them treated as such, is a feminist" by its very nature suggests that the default position of society is that women are not equal to men. This isn't true so I cannot take the definition seriously. I could take it seriously 50 years ago because the default position of society was that women are not equal to men,

I honestly do believe female rights are equal to male, or at least as equal as they can be in capitalist system. Therefore I don't see the point in feminist (or masculist) groups.

I hate the whataboutery line but the reality is for every gripe against women there's one for men too. Therefore feminism comes across as a tad self serving when fighting under the banner of gender equality.

Someone's already questioned whether you actually understand what feminism means, or whether you're just railing against a stereotype of the man-hating, victim-complex feminist that you've built up in your head. I'm beginning to think it's the latter.

When people come out with the disingenuous "pay gap" arguments, which nearly all self identifying feminists do I cannot help but think there is an element of victimhood-loving to it. Though no, I'm not just railing against that stereotype. Like I pretty much agree with everything the writer of feminist.ie posts.

18AD

liah wrote: »

Is there some reason people cannot be all of these things at the same time?

No, that's fine. But I am for gay, transgender, female, male, childrens and everyone's rights. You could say I am all these things individually. But if you said that my view was feminist I think you would be saying too little, and to that extent you have ignored a large section of my views. I agree with what you say, but I think it is superfluous.

metrovelvet

It strikes me that many who say they are feminist dont know what feminist means and many who say they are not feminist also dont know what feminism is. And that is no one's fault really because it is so broad and impossible to grasp this multi armed octupus of an ideology, it cant be helped but to have a partial [in both sense of the word] view on it.

18AD

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I am not to sure what you mean but i imagine the term "feminism" original rose from the the fact it was an attempt to remove the perceived differences between the status of the sexes.

I wouldn't know what to call transgender people who are currently engaged in their fight for equal rights...i would probably ask them? If i had to hazard a guess i suppose i would consider it either egalitarianism or humanitarianism...the simple fact is though that it doesn't matter what something is called...what it means is the only thing that matters.

I disagree. I think the name of a movement is important so that it can create an identity for itself under a name. To say it's irrelevant is a bit much.

The meaning is the imortant part though.

CDfm

As I see it -lots of organisations that label themselves feminist are simply pro-female gender and fcuk everybody else.

Egalitarianism does not get a look in.

I am pro-equality myself (across the board) and against gender discrimination but it needs to be applied equally and fairly and you should also be able to include sexual orientation in that.

18AD

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I wouldn't know what to call transgender people who are currently engaged in their fight for equal rights...i would probably ask them? If i had to hazard a guess i suppose i would consider it either egalitarianism or humanitarianism...the simple fact is though that it doesn't matter what something is called...what it means is the only thing that matters.

Just to clarify what I was saying here. I think the term feminism that is being used here as a catch all term for equal rights is to over extend the use of that term that has significant historical value.

If you went to a african-american rights or a gay rights event and asked them what they were fighting for and they said they were looking for gay or african-american rights and you replied saying, 'oh, you mean feminism', that they would tell you in less polite terms where to go.

The term feminism has connotations of womens struggle, as women, in a way that other people cannot understand. To extend it's use to all egalitarian projects is to undermine the important distinction that made it the movement that it is.

I am not saying that you can't be a feminist, and I am not against feminism, but the terms value has been undermined with this over extended use.

Is there not a sense that if I went to a gay rights march as a straight person and said that I understood the hardships of the gay community that I would be met with disdain? It is to undermine the movement itself to think that I can understand what it means as someone who is not in the demographic of the movement.

Of course I could be for gay rights and I could be desribed as such, but there is definately some sort of gap between my understanding of it and someone who is involved in it.

As applied to feminism, I think I could be said to be a feminist, but that I could not understand what it means in any real tangible way. I can understand it only as an egalitarian issue.

CDfm

18AD wrote: »

Just to clarify what I was saying here. I think the term feminism that is being used here as a catch all term for equal rights is to over extend the use of that term that has significant historical value.

it is a pop term

If you went to a african-american rights or a gay rights event and asked them what they were fighting for and they said they were looking for gay or african-american rights and you replied saying, 'oh, you mean feminism', that they would tell you in less polite terms where to go.

feminism in ireland isn't all about being pro-women because if it were women in same sex relationships experiencing DV or lesbian led families would get support -but they don't.

18AD

CDfm wrote: »

it is a pop term

And I'm saying that to use it as such is a bad move.

feminism in ireland isn't all about being pro-women because if it were women in same sex relationships experiencing DV or lesbian led families would get support -but they don't.

I'm not saying anything about the present situation. I'm just saying that to use the term as outlined previously is a mistake.

Although, just because the rights haven't been achieved yet, doesn't entail that it is not pro-women, does it?

CDfm

18AD wrote: »

And I'm saying that to use it as such is a bad move.

i cant see it having any other currency than that.

its like the labour party describing itself as socialist or the TUI saying as a union that its highly paid teacher members are working class.

Although, just because the rights haven't been achieved yet, doesn't entail that it is not pro-women, does it?

Ah but - when the womens movement in Ireland discuss Domestic Violence they are not inclusive of all victims or critical of all perpetrators.

The Womens movement is not inclusive of gays or of childrens rights in terms of abuse perpetrated by women.

There is no cohesive ideology or value system that can be assessed and ot seems to have left equality behind as an old fashioned idea.

So "pop" or "populist" seems best to describe where its at.

metrovelvet

Did you ever hear that program a "A Woman's Right to be Evil?" It was on bbc radio something some time ago. Very interesting.

cdfm, respectfully, I dont think you have the full picture. I think you cherry picked from the ideology and selectively abstracted bits and pieces to form a reactive opinion to women's advocacy.

Explore a little more and you might see a little more. Because women don't get recognised as violent and destructive they also dont get the same rehabilitiative care that men do.

Mens rights groups also dont give a crap about kids, except their power over them in a court room. They dont cross over into gay rights either or crimes perpetrated by men.

I think your expectations are askance.

CDfm

Ah c'mon.

I have said there is no cohesive ideology called feminism and either you agree or disagree.

I have also said that wonens groups are selective in their campaigns and who they represent. That is not very controvercial either.

When I mention child abuse - I am saying that it is not exclusively a male thing -women also abuse children but we do not know the figures as the studies have not been undertaken. We know that in lesbian relationships you also get DV in levels similar to heterosexual relationships. So gays & lesbians seem to have the same problems as the rest of us.

Personally I am against "gender" politics as characterised by lots of groups. I have been reading up recently on Francis & Hanna Sheehy Skeffington & I am sure the "Skeffies" would have adopted a more egalitarian approach.

Personally I think when we get a handle on being truthful & handling the situation of same-sex couples with a bit more equality that it will be easier to deal with equality because you are dealing with people and not their gender or orientation.

CDfm

liah wrote: »

Is there some reason people cannot be all of these things at the same time?

+ 1

it works for me

Ms.Odgeynist

Count Duckula wrote: »

Out of interest then, do you not consider the following feminist issues (ie, issues that affect only women) or just "socio-economic" ones?:

- The fact that 90% of rape victims are women.
- The media's representation of women as suggesting their worth is in their looks.
- The pay gap.
- Contraceptive and society's dislike of promiscuous women.

I could go on. It seems to me those issues are specifically ones that affect largely women only.

- 90% of assault victims are men.
- The media represents men as worthy only as providers/workers.
- Suicide rates are vastly higher in men. Suicide rates are still increasing. The increase is witnessed only in the male population.
- 1 in 10 men in the US are in prison.
- Men have no right to see their children except when married.

I could go on. It seems to me these issues are specifically ones that affect largely men only.
The matriarchy?

tbh

Sources please. Esp for the 1 in 10 men being in prison. Wiki tells me . In 2008 the breakdown for adults under correctional control was as follows: one out of 18 men, so I'd like to know why your source tells you the number is double that.

Dravokivich

I find it unsettling that this has turned into an arguement about rape...

Men get sexually abused by men and women.

Women also get sexually abused by men and women.

These can only be handled on a case by case basis with the victim reporting it or the rapist being caught in the act. I don't see how it can be an issue with regards to sexism.

citytillidie

Since the advent of Feminism a lot of male only organisations have had to open to allow women to take part, but woman only organisations still remain woman only.

2 examples
PGA for the male golfers have had to open there door to allow females. These females already had the LPGA, who have not opened their door to allow males to take part.

Boy Scouts have now been renamed to just the Scouts as they have had to welcome females who already had the girl guides. Girl guides do not have to allow boys. On their web site its we give girls a voice. What have boys got on their own to give them a voice?

As for the rape, its in the Law that Woman can not rape men

Rape
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents

cocoa

citytillidie wrote: »

Boy Scouts have now been renamed to just the Scouts as they have had to welcome females who already had the girl guides. Girl guides do not have to allow boys. On their web site its we give girls a voice. What have boys got on their own to give them a voice?

slightly off topic but, I don't believe this was a forced move and the scouting movement (which is now Scouting Ireland, previously Catholic Scouts of Ireland and Scout Association of Ireland, previously Catholic Boy Scouts of Ireland) has gained much from including girls, if the girl guides want to miss out on the benefits of including everyone, let them.

CDfm

I don't know much about the scouts thing but if it means that boys no longer do boy things then it may not be on the level. I am not against change I just don't know about it and it was an organisation with guy role models etc.

On the female's abuse thing.

Well , its not something that gets talked about and it should do more. The idea that women will not look at the actions of other women because it would let the gender down is fairly obnoxious.

It is a moving thing and lots of the women I know on boards are open minded and I do not know if they would be representative of Ireland.

Times are changing if this case has anything to go by

The Irish Times - Saturday, February 19, 2011Irish nurse jailed in Australia for rape






PÁDRAIG COLLINS in Sydney
A FEMALE Irish nurse has been jailed for 2½ years for raping a woman in the toilets of the Caxton Hotel in Brisbane, Australia on November 29th, 2009.
Anne-Marie O’Loughlin (25) sobbed as she was sentenced.
The judge told O’Loughlin, who is from Co Offaly, to get help for her “sexual aggression”. He also blamed excessive drinking.
Judge David Reid recommended she be released on parole on March 3rd, 2012, the date of her 27th birthday.

I occasionally have read of women who criticize womens organisations or activists being accused of being anti-feminist. Thats a lot of peer pressure and I wonder what thats all about.

citytillidie

CDfm wrote: »

I don't know much about the scouts thing but if it means that boys no longer do boy things then it may not be on the level. I am not against change I just don't know about it and it was an organisation with guy role models etc.

On the female's abuse thing.

Well , its not something that gets talked about and it should do more. The idea that women will not look at the actions of other women because it would let the gender down is fairly obnoxious.

It is a moving thing and lots of the women I know on boards are open minded and I do not know if they would be representative of Ireland.

Times are changing if this case has anything to go by





I occasionally have read of women who criticize womens organisations or activists being accused of being anti-feminist. Thats a lot of peer pressure and I wonder what thats all about.

I was in the Scouts when they started allowing girls in and we had to stop camping and such as the girls parents did not want the girls to be going away with a bunch of boys staying in tents or make shift shelters

CDfm

citytillidie wrote: »

I was in the Scouts when they started allowing girls in and we had to stop camping and such as the girls parents did not want the girls to be going away with a bunch of boys staying in tents or make shift shelters

I dont remember it and was probably abroad at the time.

Organisations often need to adapt and change and like it or not there were a lot of child abuse allegtions floating around and parents probably were concerned too.

I do take your point that blending scouts and guides probably changed the character and activities of the organisation.

cocoa

Can only speak for myself but my scout group kept doing all the same great activities when girls were allowed in, but things will be different from group to group. I think a lot of the activities that were previously thought of as 'for boys' are coming to be thought of as for 'outdoorsy' people, male or female, which is more accurate IMO.

(sorry for veering a bit off topic )

metrovelvet

I have no problem with boy scouts and girl scouts or organisations that are all men or all women...to a point. Women can always start a women only golf club.

I do have problems with Universities who for a long time didnt let women in. Harvard Law didnt let women in until 1952 for example.

Then this created some problems. Because a lot of universities didnt let women in, you had colleges like Smith, Radcliffe and Barnard pop up, which were for the women. Later on the universities like Columbia and Harvards became co-ed and the women's colleges remained all women.

I went to the only co-ed Catholic high school in the city I grew up in. But it had started out as all boys and let women in in the 1970s. I spoke to an alumna who had entered just as it started letting girls in. She said at the time, the priests were still hitting the boys and throwing them up against the walls and giving them digs. The entry of women into the school changed all that because they werent hitting the girls. They noticed this was hardly fair that they were hitting boys and not girls, and eventually also stopped hitting the boys and developed and alternative disciplining approach.

We had an all scholarship boys Jesuit school across the street which tremendous academic standards for the best and brightest of the city. This school could discriminate. You had to be Catholic and you had to be a boy to be elegible for admission. One of the deceased alum had donated a lot of money to this school on provision that it would be kept all male, and this is entirely legal. While it doesnt sit well, its not the end of the world either.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

We had an all scholarship boys Jesuit school across the street which tremendous academic standards for the best and brightest of the city. This school could discriminate. You had to be Catholic and you had to be a boy to be elegible for admission. One of the deceased alum had donated a lot of money to this school on provision that it would be kept all male, and this is entirely legal. While it doesnt sit well, its not the end of the world either.

You have same sex schools and co-ed is a new thing. Irish nuns set up girls schools for girls.

But do you have evidence to back this up that a guy deliberately gave a donation on condition that the school was kept all male ?

Talking about harvard law school hardly adds to a debate on feminism in Ireland.

That is international male conspiracy stuff and belongs in the conspiracy theories forum really.

Giselle

krudler wrote: »

women get maternity leave of months, men get paternity leave of weeks, is that fair?

I just want to address this. Women have maternity leave to facilitate bonding with the child, as well as recovering from nine months of pregnancy followed by childbirth.

For men to have paternity leave of equal length is to overlook the physical cost of pregnancy.

Is that fair?:)

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

You have same sex schools and co-ed is a new thing. Irish nuns set up girls schools for girls.

But do you have evidence to back this up that a guy deliberately gave a donation on condition that the school was kept all male ?

Talking about harvard law school hardly adds to a debate on feminism in Ireland.

That is international male conspiracy stuff and belongs in the conspiracy theories forum really.

What are you talking about now?

I cant have a discussion with you if you are only going to see what you want to see and dismiss what I say by calling me a conspiracy theorist. Did I say anything about conspiracy theory?

You totally missed the point of what I was saying.