Feminism

Maguined

Giselle wrote: »

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?:)

What about the bonding aspect? I thought in countries with very little maternity leave you get about 3-4 weeks for actual physical recovery so anything beyond that would be mostly for mother to bond with their children. So men receiving 0 paternity leave leaves nothing for bonding.

LeeHoffmann

men get paternity leave of weeks

men receiving 0 paternity leave

does anybody know how much paternity leave men are actually legally entitled to (preferrably with a source/link, if possible)?

CDfm

Giselle wrote: »

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?:)

i think when people raise the issue it largely is that if you have a higher earning ambitious woman etc or any earning couple where she may want to work that they have the option for the man to be the main carer -be that stay at home or not.

I know I am not explaining this properly but equal rights or something like couples rights could give a couple the right to choose rather than legally forcing the issue that it always has to be the woman.

Whats wrong with a woman with great earning power having an ordinary joe partner and them wanting to put her career first. Makes sense to me .

source

This is what passes as paternal leave in Ireland, 14 weeks unpaid leave. Available to both parents, and has none of the benefits of maternity leave.

ie, you can take 14 weeks, but you will get no pay or pension benefits for those 14 weeks, also by law the minimum time that you can take for parental leave is 6 weeks, which is a hell of a long time to not have money coming in the door, and is pretty much a block to a person taking parental leave, lets face it, a newborn baby is not cheap. Living on the mothers benefits for 6 weeks is not an option. Especially if there are other children in the household.

metrovelvet

foinse wrote: »

This is what passes as paternal leave in Ireland, 14 weeks unpaid leave. Available to both parents, and has none of the benefits of maternity leave.

ie, you can take 14 weeks, but you will get no pay or pension benefits for those 14 weeks, also by law the minimum time that you can take for parental leave is 6 weeks, which is a hell of a long time to not have money coming in the door.

Who should pay for paternity leave? The state or the company?

LeeHoffmann

who pays for maternity leave? excuse my ignorance on this topic, obviously got no kids

source

It should be the same as maternity leave, entitled to pay during the time depends on your work contract, but if the company doesn't pay, a paternity benefit similar to maternity benefit from the state.

metrovelvet

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

who pays for maternity leave? excuse my ignorance on this topic, obviously got no kids

In Ireland I dont know. Wondering that myself.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Giselle wrote: »

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?:)

I think maternity length is as much for the benefit of the child as the mother. Particularly the later stages as mothers of uncomplicated preganancies are physically able to go back to work much sooner than 8 months(that does not suggest they should though)

The other element is the father being around makes recovery for the mother easier - she has more time to rest and sleep so I don't think overlooking the physical cost comes into it.

Maguined

Maternity leave entitles you to 26 weeks leave and you can apply for maternity benefit from the state if you employer does not provide you with pay. You can then take an additional 16 weeks unpaid after that if you want.

Larger international companies tend to top up your maternity benefit entitlement to bring it back up or close to your normal monthly salary, though this is not an obligation on employers just a perk of the contract.

Count Duckula

metrovelvet wrote: »

Who should pay for paternity leave? The state or the company?

The same people who pay for maternity leave.

But having two rigid leaves for both parents doesn't make sense, in my opinion. The suggested option of "parental leave", that either partner can take, seems much more sensible.

metrovelvet

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think maternity length is as much for the benefit of the child as the mother. Particularly the later stages as mothers of uncomplicated preganancies are physically able to go back to work much sooner than 8 months(that does not suggest they should though)

The other element is the father being around makes recovery for the mother easier - she has more time to rest and sleep so I don't think overlooking the physical cost comes into it.

You realise with the ever increasing caesarian and induction rate, and women having kids later in life, uncomplicated pregnancies are getting further and farther between?

metrovelvet

Count Duckula wrote: »

The same people who pay for maternity leave.

But having two rigid leaves for both parents doesn't make sense, in my opinion. The suggested option of "parental leave", that either partner can take, seems much more sensible.

Do you think this should also apply to parents of children born into single parent households?

Maguined

Count Duckula wrote: »

The same people who pay for maternity leave.

But having two rigid leaves for both parents doesn't make sense, in my opinion. The suggested option of "parental leave", that either partner can take, seems much more sensible.

The current parental leave catered for under the law is not specifically to do with the birth of the child but to cater for any possible eventuality that would require a parent to stop working to care for their child, serious illness etc.

Basically you can't lose your job over having to care for your child but you won't get paid one cent while you do it.

source

Count Duckula wrote: »

The same people who pay for maternity leave.

But having two rigid leaves for both parents doesn't make sense, in my opinion. The suggested option of "parental leave", that either partner can take, seems much more sensible.

But parental leave in these economic times is sheer stupidity. I don't know anybody who would be in a position to take unpaid leave at a time when their costs have grown by two or three times.

source

metrovelvet wrote: »

Do you think this should also apply to parents of children born into single parent households?

Or single income households where the father is the sole breadwinner of the house.

Otis Driftwood

Right.

The paternity/maternity stuff has been covered on more than one occasion here so please get the thread back on topic.

CDfm

What is Irish feminism ?

I mean is there like a definition. I dont like hearing the "what feminism means to me" cos it is often very imprecise. Its a bit like Fianna Fail & Fine Gael -we know there is a difference but what it is -who knows.

If it has an agenda what is it.

Are there equality imbalences it is trying to redress and how ?

Like the treatment of women in the Middle East has nothing to do with me -a guy in the Dublin Area. Equality in China would be a chinese matter.

LeeHoffmann

Like the treatment of women in the Middle East has nothing to do with me -a guy in the Dublin Area. Equality in China would be a chinese matter.

I'd say equality is a human rights matter, therefore it has something to do with everyone

Count Duckula

CDfm wrote: »

What is Irish feminism ?

I mean is there like a definition. I dont like hearing the "what feminism means to me" cos it is often very imprecise. Its a bit like Fianna Fail & Fine Gael -we know there is a difference but what it is -who knows.

If it has an agenda what is it.

Are there equality imbalences it is trying to redress and how ?

Like the treatment of women in the Middle East has nothing to do with me -a guy in the Dublin Area. Equality in China would be a chinese matter.

How many of the top jobs in Ireland are held by women? What about politicians?

What about the women on TV who are there not on merit but because they look nice? You might argue the increasing and shared presence of women on television is addressing the imbalance, but a lot of those women are being picked on looks - ie, still for the benefit of men.

Yes, Ireland (and the wider Western world) are not so backward as to be stoning women to death for daring to be raped, or demanding they emerge in public only with an escort, but there are still more subtle bonds holding women back. They're so insidious that a lot of people - and not exclusively men - don't even see them anymore, but if you take the time to think they start to become apparent.

PeakOutput

There is no need for a feminist movement in todays western world there is only a need for a general equality movement.

In my experience, feminists are self righteous hypocrites who think the world should bend to their needs.

LeeHoffmann

In my experience, feminists are self righteous hypocrites who think the world should bend to their needs.

not controversial at all. How many feminists have you met? I'd sometimes call myself a feminist but I wouldn't describe myself that way. It's a bit silly to say all xyz are the same

CDfm

Count Duckula wrote: »

How many of the top jobs in Ireland are held by women? What about politicians?

What top jobs are you talking about ?

Do women go for election & get elected- by definition they would in a general election if supported by other women. I didn't vote for a woman in this election because there was not one running in my constituency that I agreed with politically.

No candidates seemed to mention gender or equality issues except Lucinda & the Greens.

And yes I use women profesionals if they are good enough and my doctor & solicitor are women.

Do the top jobs also go to guys from certain schools colleges and families. TD's almost all come from certain families etc. So class & schools & family are every bit as important as gender.I didnt attend any of the right ones either.

What about the women on TV who are there not on merit but because they look nice? You might argue the increasing and shared presence of women on television is addressing the imbalance, but a lot of those women are being picked on looks - ie, still for the benefit of men.

What about ugly men ? Name an ugly male presenter.

Dr McDreamy anyone, Friends ???

Yes, Ireland (and the wider Western world) are not so backward as to be stoning women to death for daring to be raped, or demanding they emerge in public only with an escort, but there are still more subtle bonds holding women back. They're so insidious that a lot of people - and not exclusively men - don't even see them anymore, but if you take the time to think they start to become apparent.

But what can I do about the treatment of women in another country. I dont discriminate in my own country and treat women as equals.

I disagree strongly with it and female circumcision etc but if they wont listen to Mr Obama & Mrs Clinton they wont listen to me. As a man I have no power over it.

CDfm

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

not controversial at all. How many feminists have you met? I'd sometimes call myself a feminist but I wouldn't describe myself that way. It's a bit silly to say all xyz are the same

But what are the criteria & how can they be applied to Ireland ?

LeeHoffmann

Name an ugly male presenter.

Aidan Cooney :-p

But what are the criteria & how can they be applied to Ireland ?

You said you don't want personal interpretations, so I'm going to assume you think I'm part of some official movement or that I can speak for feminists as a group. If you are asking me to supply an official definition of feminism, a quick google threw this up http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/g/Feminism-Definition.htm as well as some definitions from dictionary.com etc
Do you think Irish feminism is distinct from e.g. British or American feminism in some significant way?

source

Count Duckula wrote: »

How many of the top jobs in Ireland are held by women? What about politicians?

THE top job in Ireland has been held by a woman for the last 20 years, The job I speak of is the Presidency. The CEO of O2 Ireland is a woman.

Count Duckula wrote: »

What about the women on TV who are there not on merit but because they look nice? You might argue the increasing and shared presence of women on television is addressing the imbalance, but a lot of those women are being picked on looks - ie, still for the benefit of men.

And vice versa, Television tends to be the domain of the good looking.

Count Duckula wrote: »

Yes, Ireland (and the wider Western world) are not so backward as to be stoning women to death for daring to be raped, or demanding they emerge in public only with an escort, but there are still more subtle bonds holding women back. They're so insidious that a lot of people - and not exclusively men - don't even see them anymore, but if you take the time to think they start to become apparent.

If you go looking for anything you can find evidence that will tell you it exists whether it does or not. for example, the loch ness monster, People still believe it exists, and will find evidence to prove their point, which they believe to be correct. Even though with modern technology the entire lake has been examined and nothing ever found. Not a great example I know but it gets the point across.

I personally believe that feminism has run its course, The very word to me conjures up thoughts of positive discrimination, in favour of women. I believe myself to be an egalitarian. I believe in equal rights for eveyone, but I'm also willing to acknowledge the differences (physical and emotional) between the sexes. Something anyone I've ever known who calls themselves feminist refuses to do.

liah

foinse wrote: »

And vice versa, Television tends to be the domain of the good looking.

Far, far more ugly/fat men in the industry (media in general, really) than ugly/fat women, I'll tell you that much.

Otis Driftwood

Could that perchance be because there are more men working in the media industry?

source

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

Would that perchance be because there are more men in general working in the media industry?

Also to add to this, One major point is that beauty is a subjective idea???

There is a famous saying that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I find that there are quite a few ugly women on the TV and in media, but again beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

CDfm

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

You said you don't want personal interpretations, so I'm going to assume you think I'm part of some official movement or that I can speak for feminists as a group.

I put that clumsily - I meant in a Rose of Trallee " World Peace" way.

I d like to be able to quantify it though what it is as a country we dont do right.

Some of the stuff like politics is down to political parties etc drawn from a small elite.How can you change an elite.

If you are asking me to supply an official definition of feminism, a quick google threw this up http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/g/Feminism-Definition.htm as well as some definitions from dictionary.com etc

Its not clear - like a "sex positive feminist" is a woman who likes or is not averse to watching a bit of porn.

Its sort of like a secret language or code.

Do you think Irish feminism is distinct from e.g. British or American feminism in some significant way?

I think we have imported cracked idea's that are not relevant to us and as a small country we can actually effect real change but we get sidetracked down bogroads (for want of a better term).

CDfm

liah wrote: »

Far, far more ugly/fat men in the industry (media in general, really) than ugly/fat women, I'll tell you that much.

Ya mean less charasmatic then



pics of gtfo

liah

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

Could that perchance be because there are more men working in the media industry?

Are there really, though? It's actually one of the few industries that seems pretty balanced.

liah

foinse wrote: »

Also to add to this, One major point is that beauty is a subjective idea???

There is a famous saying that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I find that there are quite a few ugly women on the TV and in media, but again beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Sorry for the double post. This only goes so far, in fairness. Everyone has their personal preferences, but most people can recognize when someone's objectively attractive, even if they personally aren't attracted to them. E.g. I don't really find Angelina Jolie to be all that, but I'd be just blatantly lying if I tried to say she was ugly. Anyone would be, people only say things like that to separate themselves from the crowd, not because they find them genuinely repulsive (purely on physical basis, at least).

This is a trend we can see just by looking around - you'll more often find good-looking women with not-that-impressive men than the reverse. Has to do with how we're attracted to the opposite sex, which does (generally) differ depending on your gender. It's only natural that that trend would be reflected in the media.

CDfm

Tbh - I dont watch TV journalists for their looks and don't understand the hoo-haa around the Seoiges. Anne Doyle is as monotonal as I know on newsreaders.

Women dress for other women etc.

Suzzane Byrne who was on Newstalk is the bees knees of fresh radio delivery for me.

Now I normally don't respond to female actresses or models. Too skinny and incredibly unbelieveable.

Where is the new Angelica Houston or Sigourney Weaver both who have an incredible range and could believebly kill things and not take themselves too seriously



Sigourney in Ghostbusters .

My point is that mainstream women actresses and journalists and models are normally there for the female market -not the male market.

otto_26

-What about the 10% of male rape victims? because there's only 10% of them they dont count? they are still human's and deserve as much protection and help as the other 90% of rape victims.
- The media's representation of men as suggesting their worth is in their looks also.
- I have the same qualifications as females in my work place and get paid the same as them? every girl i have known as a child has had the same opportunities as me in every situation in my life so far.
-In general men are more attracted to women who respect themselves. I have travelled around australia and if you think society's dislike of promiscuous women has any affect on all the girls i met travelling then it doesnt they are the new men!!

I hope in the future everything will be looked at as humans and people and not women and men we are all the same in every way. I think in this day and age feminist groups are sexest.

LeeHoffmann

I put that clumsily - I meant in a Rose of Trallee " World Peace" way.
I d like to be able to quantify it though what it is as a country we dont do right.
Some of the stuff like politics is down to political parties etc drawn from a small elite.How can you change an elite.

You've put this in a way that makes it hard for me to answer (I don't mean intentionally), so I'm going to switch around and answer the best way I can. You asked earlier on what feminism is - probably because there are so many interpretations/waves etc. There's also quite a bit of hostility to at least the term feminism on this thread from some men, a lot of whom have said that feminism has run it's course. I think that may be due to feminism's probably first and primary definition/agenda - i.e. feminism is about achieving equal rights for women. When we talk of rights, we're generally talking about laws. I think the laws of Ireland don't discriminate against women all in all. In this sense, I would say feminism has achieved it's aims in the western world.

However, I think feminism still has a legitimate reason to exist as I believe sexism is still too prevalent in popular culture, the media and society in general. Culture (and I guess this is where my concerns lie) is not something that can be legislated and controlled but that doesn't mean we shouldn't challenge sexist or other types of negative attitudes and I believe they are abundant enough to warrant discussion.

I believe that men are also subject to discrimination particularly with regards to father's rights. That bugs me just as much as discrimination against women. If men however are being discriminated against through laws, that is a great area for concern and one that really needs immediate attention. When these laws no longer discriminate against men, I believe men will focus more on cultural discrimination such as I discussed re: women above (e.g. generally cited discrimination includes the pressure to be a 'strong silent type' which can lead to depression/suicide etc). Hence, feminism (for me) in the western world today is concerned with discriminatory practices, norms, attitudes etc that affect women. I had never heard the term masculinism before reading this thread. If that refers to the movement that combats discriminatory laws, practices, norms and attitudes that affect men, then I'd be a masculinist too.

I think maybe a lot of men on this thread have a quite extreme view of feminism and feminists as screeching overdramatic over-sensitive loonies who believe women should be more equal than men. Who are these feminists? I don't know any feminists like that. On the contrary, the self-proclaimed feminists on this thread and other similar threads on boards seem to say that they are all for correcting discrimination against men too.

So, maybe it's the history and etymology of the term 'feminism' that so many of the men (not all men) on here are objecting to. Maybe using a term like 'gender equality', AND realising that gender equality includes both feminist concerns (such as the kind I discussed) and masculinist concerns as well as trans-gender concerns, would be beneficial to all. That might help us all to see each other's point of view and combat any discrimination together.

On a different but related note, I just had lunch with a male friend. Although I'm working and he isn't, he insisted on buying lunch. I objected but it was getting very awkward so I let him, on condition that he lets me buy next time. Some of my male friends insist on thing like letting me walk first through a door, holding doors open, even going so far as to offer me their seat! It's very sweet but totally unnecessary. It makes me feel really uncomfortable because it doesn't seem fair or necessary at all, and I only go along with it because it seems quite important to them. I'd be interested to know what the boards men think of this kind of stuff? Is this discriminatin? If so, is it discrimination for women or discrimination against men?

Sorry for the super-long post!!

18AD

otto_26 wrote: »

I hope in the future everything will be looked at as humans and people and not women and men we are all the same in every way.

See, this is wrong. We are not the same. There is a point where talking about equal everything ignores this fact. The more I think about it the more I'm inclined to think of the idea of 'equal rights' is a rather oversimplistic and possibly detrimental way of looking at things.

CDfm

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Is this discriminatin? If so, is it discrimination for women or discrimination against men?

Sorry for the super-long post!!

Ah yer alright.

Me & my OH alternate buying -her sometimes more than me as she drinks & I dont so it evens out.

My poor little head gets mashed with the different gender & orientation rights groups etc and we should try to standardise a "Bill of Rights" across the board where we can as the system is hugely imbalenced.

It is of no benefit to me that lesbian families cannot organise themselves legally or do not have assistence with domestic violence support issues.

So when all these things are categorised you end up with a multiplicity of agencies and a plethora of interest groups.

For example, why can't we have one domestic violence policy to cover and recognise everyone as opposed to service delivery along gender lines.Domestic violence funding is owned by feminist groups facilitating women with kids in heterosexial relationships. Simplicity and clarity is what we need as we are too small a country.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Count Duckula wrote: »

How many of the top jobs in Ireland are held by women? What about politicians?

What about the women on TV who are there not on merit but because they look nice? You might argue the increasing and shared presence of women on television is addressing the imbalance, but a lot of those women are being picked on looks - ie, still for the benefit of men.

Yes, Ireland (and the wider Western world) are not so backward as to be stoning women to death for daring to be raped, or demanding they emerge in public only with an escort, but there are still more subtle bonds holding women back. They're so insidious that a lot of people - and not exclusively men - don't even see them anymore, but if you take the time to think they start to become apparent.

What do you think has to change for this to become balanced? Who is at fault for these subtle bonds? Who is at fault for women not getting themselves elected?

Lot of empty rhetoric here, but no real plan or proposals

LeeHoffmann

that seems a bit harsh, BoS. Is Count Duckula supposed to solve these problems single-handedly? I just mean I haven't seen many posts from people offering plans or proposals to fix matters (myself included).

Blowfish

18AD wrote: »

See, this is wrong. We are not the same. There is a point where talking about equal everything ignores this fact. The more I think about it the more I'm inclined to think of the idea of 'equal rights' is a rather oversimplistic and possibly detrimental way of looking at things.

I agree with you that we definitely aren't the same, but that's actually not what equality is about. If you think about it, equality basically means 'of equal quality'. You can have 2 gems of different colour, hue, size and cut, yet marked as the same quality. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging the difference between the two, as long as you don't value one above the other.

Bottle Of Smoke wrote:

What do you think has to change for this to become balanced? Who is at fault for these subtle bonds? Who is at fault for women not getting themselves elected?

Why do we need to blame anyone? It's ultimately a futile exercise. Actually fixing it and then moving on is a far better prospect.

otto_26

18AD wrote: »

See, this is wrong. We are not the same. There is a point where talking about equal everything ignores this fact. The more I think about it the more I'm inclined to think of the idea of 'equal rights' is a rather oversimplistic and possibly detrimental way of looking at things.

I dont understand? we are the same.. I have known a girl in my town since i have been 4.. we have always been friends we went to school together college together and both have jobs working the same hours getting the same pay... i have had 1 night stands shes has had 1 night stands.... i can vote she can vote... i can go watch football she can go watch football... i am a boy and she is a girl and our opportunites in life and way of life have been completely equal in everyway. she has never felt in anyway that he was held back from anything because she is a girl.. she has had a few fails in life like me but she got straight back up like me and moved on.. Maybe some women should stop trying to blame men for everything thats wrong in their lives

cocoa

Blowfish wrote: »

Why do we need to blame anyone? It's ultimately a futile exercise. Actually fixing it and then moving on is a far better prospect.

How are you meant to fix it if you don't know what / who is wrong?

Blowfish

cocoa wrote: »

How are you meant to fix it if you don't know what / who is wrong?

Finding out what is wrong is completely different to assigning fault.

18AD

cocoa wrote: »

How are you meant to fix it if you don't know what / who is wrong?

It may be a societal problem. Opinions that reside in not just one person but in a large collective to varying degrees.

Blowfish wrote:

I agree with you that we definitely aren't the same, but that's actually not what equality is about. If you think about it, equality basically means 'of equal quality'. You can have 2 gems of different colour, hue, size and cut, yet marked as the same quality. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging the difference between the two, as long as you don't value one above the other.

Yes, it is an excellent basis off which to make subsequent value judgements in accordance with specific behaviours and situations.

cocoa

18AD wrote: »

It may be a societal problem. Opinions that reside in not just one person but in a large collective to varying degrees.

That doesn't mean no one is wrong, it means everyone is wrong and they aren't going to stop because we go around pretending nobody is wrong. Either there is a problem, and people and/or processes are to blame, in which case I see no benefit to be had from somehow tiptoeing around them, or there is no problem, which would explain the lack of people or processes to blame.

CDfm

cocoa wrote: »

How are you meant to fix it if you don't know what / who is wrong?

LOL

This is surreal .

18AD

cocoa wrote: »

That doesn't mean no one is wrong, it means everyone is wrong and they aren't going to stop because we go around pretending nobody is wrong.

It does not mean that everyone is wrong. It could mean that a large section is wrong and that others are not or that some are wrong about some things and right about others or any computation of right and wrong even residing within the same individual. Someone might be pro gay rights and an ageist.

An ideology could be to blame.

cocoa

Blowfish wrote: »

Finding out what is wrong is completely different to assigning fault.

Really? I'd saying swimming is completely different to stand up comedy. I think it would be strange to find out what is wrong while also being totally unaware of who or what was at fault.

18AD wrote: »

It does not mean that everyone is wrong. It could mean that a large section is wrong and that others are not or that some are wrong about some things and right about others or any computation of right and wrong even residing within the same individual. Someone might be pro gay rights and an ageist.

An ideology could be to blame.

Ok, everybody was an exaggeration. Can we agree that trying to fix the problem without fully understanding exactly what it is is a ridiculous goal?

CDfm

18AD wrote: »

An ideology could be to blame.

But can you see how "feminism" seems to be a theory of everything and a theory of nothing.

It seems to be very makey upey.

And rather then there being anything particularly wrong a set of politically motivated interest groups getting policies adopted specifically to benefit women in a "our heterosexual female gender right or wrong way".