Feminism

Blowfish

cocoa wrote: »

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.?

Ok, to use an example mentioned earlier in this thread, take a look at the law in relation to rape.

As it stands Women can not be charged with rape, hence the consequences of them raping someone is less than that for a male. Obviously, this is a pretty blatant example of inequality.

Does working out what person/group wrote this and enacted it into law so we can assign blame to them serve any purpose whatsoever? Ultimately it's irrelevant who wrote it initially, sitting down and actually drafting up new legislation to correct the inequality is the important bit.

18AD

cocoa wrote: »

Can we agree that trying to fix the problem without fully understanding exactly what it is is a ridiculous goal?

Yes. But simply just trying to improve our situation does not require there being a problem. It could amount to more of a 'what if we try it this way' approach. Things could be better and we could be focusing on the future and trying to achieve something progressive as opposed to looking at the past and just trying to rejig things until they stop being broken.

You can focus on the positive description or, on your approach, the negative description. I think both are useful.

18AD

CDfm wrote: »

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

That was exactly my point in previous posts, based on the definition outlined by someone else.

I did not mention feminism specifically, because ideologies in general do not just affect the issue they may be setting out to address. Other ideologies may affect feminism as much as it does others.

CDfm

18AD wrote: »

Yes. But simply just trying to improve our situation does not require there being a problem.......................

You can focus on the positive description or, on your approach, the negative description. I think both are useful.

But in public policy 99% of DV funding is paid out to womens groups serving young heterosexual women with kids effectivelly ignoring all other demographic.

So woohoo or boohoo.

It is hardly very fair on other victims.

Lots of people agree that fathers get a raw deal.

Feminism says "tough, not my problem" .

Thats hardly public spirited and neither is it eliminating gender inequality but creating a whole new set of problems.

So can you see how in some peoples minds that "feminism" has now become the problem rather than the cure. In the model of feminism we see it does not stand for equality irrespective of gender or orientation.

18AD

CDfm wrote: »

But in public policy 99% of DV funding is paid out to womens groups serving young heterosexual women with kids effectivelly ignoring all other demographic.

So woohoo or boohoo.

It is hardly very fair on other victims.

Lots of people agree that fathers get a raw deal.

Feminism says "tough, not my problem" .

Thats hardly public spirited and neither is it eliminating gender inequality but creating a whole new set of problems.

So can you see how in some peoples minds that "feminism" has now become the problem rather than the cure. In the model of feminism we see it does not stand for equality irrespective of gender or orientation.

I don't know enough to comment on your specific points here. I don't know what the feminists say in relation to this. I don't know much about the topic as a whole. I don't know what definition of feminism you're using or what groups you are talking about. And that's my ignorance, so sorry to disappoint. :P

My point still stands as there being two ways to progress socially, through positive or negative means and I said I think both are useful. So if what you are saying is a real issue then by all means it should be identified as such and be remedied.

cocoa

Blowfish wrote: »

Ok, to use an example mentioned earlier in this thread, take a look at the law in relation to rape.

As it stands Women can not be charged with rape, hence the consequences of them raping someone is less than that for a male. Obviously, this is a pretty blatant example of inequality.

Does working out what person/group wrote this and enacted it into law so we can assign blame to them serve any purpose whatsoever? Ultimately it's irrelevant who wrote it initially, sitting down and actually drafting up new legislation to correct the inequality is the important bit.

OK, I think I wasn't making myself clear. I'm not advocating search for the source ad nauseam (who taught / educated / trained the people that made the law?), I'm just saying you need to find the thing or person that is wrong. In that case, I would say it's the law, enough said, change it and we can all get along again.

The example I was more focused on was where people point at what I would call symptoms ('only' x many female politicians / CEOs / bin people*), claim they are problems and should be treated directly. The problem, in that case, could be a rogue manager making sexist hiring decisions, or worse still it could be a standard policy. If the system is fine and equal, as far as can be seen, then there is no problem. If the system is broken and unequal, fix that, and the output will shift in time.

*bin people sounds like something rather different than bin men, I wonder if there is a better phrase. sanitation / waste management sounds a bit laboured

18AD wrote: »

Yes. But simply just trying to improve our situation does not require there being a problem. It could amount to more of a 'what if we try it this way' approach. Things could be better and we could be focusing on the future and trying to achieve something progressive as opposed to looking at the past and just trying to rejig things until they stop being broken.

You can focus on the positive description or, on your approach, the negative description. I think both are useful.

I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree here, if it ain't broke don't fix it. But I have a very loose definition for broke which includes 'room for improvement' so maybe we just phrase things differently

18AD

cocoa wrote: »

I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree here, if it ain't broke don't fix it. But I have a very loose definition for broke which includes 'room for improvement' so maybe we just phrase things differently

Ok I think you're wrong, but Ok :pac:

Bottle_of_Smoke

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

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).

Eh seriously? What's the point in just going on about how terrible things are for women and passing snide remarks about the supposed patriarchy?

Its this "I'm the opressed minority" attitude that gives people a sense of entitlement. If you want something you have to take it.

What needs to happen is a pragmatic approach addressing inequalities for both genders from an egalitarian point of view and not just constant sniping about who has the worst deal.

CDfm

18AD wrote: »

I don't know enough to comment on your specific points here. I don't know what the feminists say in relation to this. I don't know much about the topic as a whole. I don't know what definition of feminism you're using or what groups you are talking about. And that's my ignorance, so sorry to disappoint. :P

there are so many I dont know myself.

I picked domestic violence campaigns because they are quantifiable in terms of statistics, organisations and government grant aid.

My point still stands as there being two ways to progress socially, through positive or negative means and I said I think both are useful. So if what you are saying is a real issue then by all means it should be identified as such and be remedied

I have an idea that social workers have conferences for a week in Galway every year and go on mad benders and social policy in Ireland is the bits they remember.

Stheno

CDfm wrote: »

there are so many I dont know myself.

I picked domestic violence campaigns because they are quantifiable in terms of statistics, organisations and government grant aid.

Based on that can you provide the factual links that back up your earlier post that 99% of DV funding is given to womens groups supporting homosexual women please?

Not that I don't believe it, I'd just like to have more proof than a random post on the internet

CDfm

Stheno wrote: »

Based on that can you provide the factual links that back up your earlier post that 99% of DV funding is given to womens groups supporting homosexual women please?

Not that I don't believe it, I'd just like to have more proof than a random post on the internet

its taken from an Irish Times article by Mary Cleary of Amen

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]For every euro spent on female victims less than one cent is spent on male victims.[/FONT]

http://www.amen.ie/Papers/15346.htm

We do better than scottish men

FOR EVERY £3,500 SPENT ON FEMALE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS, £1 IS SPENT ON THEIR MALE COUNTERPARTS

It was noted that the Scottish Executive had spent some £100 million helping females victims, compared to £28,000 on men.

http://therightsofman.typepad.co.uk/the_rights_of_man/2010/06/for-every-3500-spent-on-female-domestic-violence-victims-1-is-spent-on-their-male-counterparts.html

EDIT - LGBT get less spent on them. Tsk tsk tsk.

Stheno

CDfm wrote: »

its taken from an Irish Times article by Mary Cleary of Amen

The Amen article, which is from 2007 is as follows only states the statistic that you quote, but doesn't back it up.

Can you show based on government grants to organisations that this is in fact the case?

Note, I'm very supportive of Amen, but think that when quoting such stats, one should be able to quantify them as real.

n

Are men victims of domestic violence to the same extent as women?

Opinion

Are men victims of domestic violence to the same extent as women?
Yes: Mary Cleary
No: Margaret Martin
Online: join the debate @ www.ireland.com/head2head

HEAD2HEAD: Mary Cleary, chairwoman of advocacy group Amen and Margaret Martin, director of Women's Aid, debate the issue

YES: Mary Cleary says the evidence shows that men and women experience domestic violence in roughly similar numbers

The question posed here is one to which no one can give a definitive answer. Domestic violence by its very nature is largely a hidden crime and includes psychological abuse and false allegations. To answer this question, the best we can do is to look at evidence available from reliable scientific research. We must distinguish between objective, independent research and studies which are commissioned or carried out by those with vested financial or ideological interests in a particular outcome.

Research which could be used for guidance in answering this question would have to look in an even-handed manner at the experiences of both men and women, as victims and perpetrators. A number of Irish studies meet these criteria. All of these have been carried out since Amen was set up 10 years ago and vindicate Amen's position that men and women are both victims and perpetrators of domestic violence in roughly equal numbers.

When Amen was set up we were met with constant denial that women could abuse men. We were regularly asked, where is the evidence? Over the next few years a number of two-sex studies on domestic violence were carried out in Ireland. The most important of these was the Report of the National Study of Domestic Abuse of Women and Men in Ireland , carried out for the National Crime Council (NCC). This was the first ever large-scale study undertaken to give an overview of the nature, extent and impact of domestic abuse against women and men in intimate partner relationships in Ireland. The notable findings of that study as regards gender prevalence are: 29 per cent of women and 26 per cent of men suffer domestic abuse; 15 per cent of women and 6 per cent of men suffer severe domestic abuse; 13 per cent of women and 13 per cent of men suffer physical abuse; 29 per cent of women and only 5 per cent of men report to the Garda. The Government regards the NCC study as the definitive piece of research on domestic violence in this country.

An Accord survey of 1,500 clients found that women were perpetrators in 30 per cent of domestic violence cases, men were perpetrators in 23 per cent of cases and mutual violence accounted for 48 per cent.

A study of patients attending GPs, carried out by Trinity College Dublin (2006), found that 52 per cent of men and 43 per cent of women experienced domestic violence. The author of the study, Dr Susan Smith, said it was "inappropriate to continue to address this issue as solely a woman's problem".

Despite all the evidence, there are those who still deny the truth. They quote studies, mostly quite old, which, they claim, show that men are predominately the perpetrators of domestic violence. Those studies are not independent, neutral, balanced two-sex studies. They were predicated on the assumption that men are the aggressors and women the victims; were based on interviews with women only; did not make any attempt to establish the views or experiences of men, or were carried out by or for people or organisations with a feminist ethos, and a vested or ideological interest in promoting a distorted view of men as inherently violent and responsible for all domestic disharmony. Hardly surprising, therefore, that such studies wrongly portray men as the aggressors in the vast majority of cases.

The most significant statistics from the NCC study is that one in three women report while only one in 20 men do so. We are told that, 30 years ago, when the lid was being lifted on domestic violence, certain vested interests sought to suppress the truth and thereby prevented women victims from speaking out and seeking help. It is sad to see that some of those who are most vociferous in criticising the attitudes of that era are now doing exactly the same thing to male victims. Of course, there are also many who are more magnanimous and support the work we are doing in empowering male victims.

Regardless of how one interprets the statistics, no one can deny that a significant number of both men and women are abused in intimate relationships. The debate as to which sex suffers most, or whether it is a 50/50 phenomenon, will probably never be resolved. What we can say with certainty is that there is not a huge divergence between the numbers of male and female victims. Certainly nothing that would justify the massive difference between the supports available to men and women who are abused. For every euro spent on female victims less than one cent is spent on male victims.

This question puts Amen on the defensive and once again asks us to justify our existence. The fact that we have survived for 10 years should be sufficient testimony to the need for the service we provide. People don't spend 10 years of their lives dealing with a problem that doesn't exist.

• Mary Cleary is chairwoman of Amen, an advice and advocacy group for men and children affected by domestic violence. Amen can be contacted at 046-9023718 or www.amen.ie

CDfm

I did a quick google as it is something everyone takes for granted.

http://www.amen.ie/Downloads/26051.pdf

Anyway - look at all the organisations needed for this policy -its a headmelt.

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/violence/Final%20Electronic%20NS%20full%20doc%203%20March.pdf



Now I am not implying that all women or feminists are anti-men (and you only have to read boards to know that aint so) but the policies that are put in place by government on the basis of lobby groups representing women or on the advice of experts promoting the gender model are anti-men.

I would not like a mens movement competing because other demographics like gays, lesbians, children and the elderly would get marginalised too.

So why not say DV is always wrong no matter who the victims are.

Easy.

LeeHoffmann

Eh seriously? What's the point in just going on about how terrible things are for women and passing snide remarks about the supposed patriarchy?

Its this "I'm the opressed minority" attitude that gives people a sense of entitlement. If you want something you have to take it.

What needs to happen is a pragmatic approach addressing inequalities for both genders from an egalitarian point of view and not just constant sniping about who has the worst deal.

I don't think you understood my point. Do you have any plans, proposals or pragmatic approaches you would like to volunteer, seeing as you are the one calling for them?

What needs to happen is a pragmatic approach addressing inequalities for both genders from an egalitarian point of view and not just constant sniping about who has the worst deal.

Agree with that. Seems to be the main point.

Annasopra

Count Duckula wrote: »

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

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

I'd be interested to read the discussion from a decidedly male perspective.

Have only just started reading this thread. I'm a man who considers myself a feminist and I rarely post in tGC because I find that the forum can be very anti-feminist and there is lots of blaming feminism for problems.

CDfm

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Have only just started reading this thread. I'm a man who considers myself a feminist and I rarely post in tGC because I find that the forum can be very anti-feminist and there is lots of blaming feminism for problems.

I am pro-equality - across the board -irrespective of gender or orientation and its great to see you in TGC cos you always add to a discussion.

Where I am coming from here is asking what feminism is as there is a lack of definition of what it is.

Allocating rights based on gender alone is hardly progressive & analysing society as if gender is the only issue is hopelessly simplistic. Its application has been ad-hoc and populist with no real plan about where we want to be as a society.

Annasopra

CDfm wrote: »

I am pro-equality - across the board -irrespective of gender or orientation and its great to see you in TGC cos you always add to a discussion.

Where I am coming from here is asking what feminism is as there is a lack of definition of what it is.

Allocating rights based on gender alone is hardly progressive & analysing society as if gender is the only issue is hopelessly simplistic. Its application has been ad-hoc and populist with no real plan about where we want to be as a society.

Well firstly equality in my view is not necessarily about everyone being exactly equal. Again I've only read the first few posts so am kind of jumping not having read of the discussion.

The reason feminism is so unclearly defined is that there are many different types of feminism ; radical feminism, socialist feminism, post modern feminism eco feminism being just a few from the top of my head but I think in general feminism is about advocating for and improving women's rights. Masculinities is also a particular type of feminism that i find fascinating but am still exploring.

I wouldn't personally view society from the point of gender only. I would probably consider myself to be an egalitarian feminist. Take for the example the issue of gender quotas in politics - I strongly agree with them but of course they tend to ignore other discriminatory factors such as class, disability etc and of course this means that they serve to promote certain types of women. I am not quite sure where I stand on quotas for other minorities though as I think they might prove unworkable.


Does feminism have an overall vision? I think it's not clear because the different types have different visions.

yawha

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Well firstly equality in my view is not necessarily about everyone being exactly equal. Again I've only read the first few posts so am kind of jumping not having read of the discussion.

The reason feminism is so unclearly defined is that there are many different types of feminism ; radical feminism, socialist feminism, post modern feminism eco feminism being just a few from the top of my head but I think in general feminism is about advocating for and improving women's rights. Masculinities is also a particular type of feminism that i find fascinating but am still exploring.

I wouldn't personally view society from the point of gender only. I would probably consider myself to be an egalitarian feminist. Take for the example the issue of gender quotas in politics - I strongly agree with them but of course they tend to ignore other discriminatory factors such as class, disability etc and of course this means that they serve to promote certain types of women. I am not quite sure where I stand on quotas for other minorities though as I think they might prove unworkable.


Does feminism have an overall vision? I think it's not clear because the different types have different visions.

Ergo "feminism" as a term is completely and utterly redundant. (apart from in a historical context)

Why "egalitarian feminist"? Why not just "egalitarian"?

CDfm

How do we define disadvantaged and arrive at a sense of fairness ?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Johnnymcg wrote: »

I would probably consider myself to be an egalitarian feminist.

What is it that makes you an egalitarian feminist? like compared to any other type?

Ms.Odgeynist

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Well firstly equality in my view is not necessarily about everyone being exactly equal. Again I've only read the first few posts so am kind of jumping not having read of the discussion.

The reason feminism is so unclearly defined is that there are many different types of feminism ; radical feminism, socialist feminism, post modern feminism eco feminism being just a few from the top of my head but I think in general feminism is about advocating for and improving women's rights. Masculinities is also a particular type of feminism that i find fascinating but am still exploring.

I wouldn't personally view society from the point of gender only. I would probably consider myself to be an egalitarian feminist. Take for the example the issue of gender quotas in politics - I strongly agree with them but of course they tend to ignore other discriminatory factors such as class, disability etc and of course this means that they serve to promote certain types of women. I am not quite sure where I stand on quotas for other minorities though as I think they might prove unworkable.


Does feminism have an overall vision? I think it's not clear because the different types have different visions.

Why would other forms of quota prove unworkable? The whole premise of a quota is that you park the rules of democracy that make 'it' workable. If a female quota system can be implemented, surely there is nothing stopping a quota system for people with disabilities, people on the dole, travellers, migrants and whatever else floats your boat.

I don't think workable comes into it when speaking of quotas.

yawha

I'm pretty sure I heard that the number of female TDs elected to the Dáil was proportional to the number of women who stood for election, which indicates zero prejudice in the electorate, the issue is women not standing for election in the first place.

Quotas are an ill thought out "quick fix" which ultimately will do more harm than good.

TaraFoxglove

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

What is it that makes you an egalitarian feminist? like compared to any other type?

The first wave of feminism would fall under this category. The first feminists WERE egalitarian, and saw men as allies. They just wanted equal rights.

CDfm

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

Why would other forms of quota prove unworkable? The whole premise of a quota is that you park the rules of democracy that make 'it' workable. If a female quota system can be implemented, surely there is nothing stopping a quota system for people with disabilities, people on the dole, travellers, migrants and whatever else floats your boat.

I don't think workable comes into it when speaking of quotas.

It gets a lot of discussion and did around GE11 especially when Ivana Bacik was not elected.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056199332

A considerable amount of real political power is wielded by interest groups in Ireland who interact directly with the Public Service. These interest groups are unelected.

Sectoral constituencies are dealt with in the Senate (or at least that is the theory). I would like to see change here and have sectoral groups like the unions, womens rights and other sectoral groups become answerable to the people via parliment in some way.

Electoral quota's does not do that.

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

The first wave of feminism would fall under this category. The first feminists WERE egalitarian, and saw men as allies. They just wanted equal rights.

what happened to that idea then ?

TaraFoxglove

CDfm wrote: »

what happened to that idea then ?

I guess it evolved past that point!

Ms.Odgeynist

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

I guess it evolved past that point!

You hit the nail on the head!

CDfm

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

I guess it evolved past that point!

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

You hit the nail on the head!

So if it has evolved then what is it -good or bad ?

What is the current ideology as no one not even the OP seems to know .

Ms.Odgeynist

CDfm wrote: »

So if it has evolved then what is it -good or bad ?

I don't have an opinion on whether its good or bad, I only know that it certainly cause problems. I think the problems are secondary, and unintentional, but I feel that many of the inherent features of feminism are exclusionary.

CDfm

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

I don't have an opinion on whether its good or bad, I only know that it certainly cause problems. I think the problems are secondary, and unintentional, but I feel that many of the inherent features of feminism are exclusionary.

But we still are nowhere nearer a definition on this thread.

We do not know the rights for women that women seek or those for men , as they are not explicit policy objectives in our society.

We also do not know what rights LGBT are destined to have.

We are lacking a begining , middle and end.

As a small economy with no money we need to be a bit more focused on what we are about.

For example, in my book there is no difference in the needs of any domestic violence victim irrespective of gender, orientation or age of the victim or perpetrator.

I don't think it is ethically possible to defend such a policy.

Neither is it possible to ignore the needs of lesbian families and keep the heterosexual pretense up.

Maslows Hierarchy of Needs is fairly explicit that we all have the same needs

Eric Cartman

I can understand feminism in the past but now with women having equal rights in the western world there is no need for any domestic femenist movements , their efforts and persuits are redundant in some cases and sexist in others. A lot of femenist groups amount to nothing more than a front for a lesbian support group under the banner of 'femenism' women have equal rights, the fight is over.

Women are not superior to men in any way so theres no further feminism can go rather than the equality they have received

TaraFoxglove

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I can understand feminism in the past but now with women having equal rights in the western world there is no need for any domestic femenist movements , their efforts and persuits are redundant in some cases and sexist in others. A lot of femenist groups amount to nothing more than a front for a lesbian support group under the banner of 'femenism' women have equal rights, the fight is over.

Women are not superior to men in any way so theres no further feminism can go rather than the equality they have received

We're not quite there yet with the equality but getting there. Sexism is still around, it's just more insidious these days.

Eric Cartman

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

We're not quite there yet with the equality but getting there. Sexism is still around, it's just more insidious these days.

perhaps, not being a woman I probably wouldnt see it , but on the other hand there are also a few things that are getting a bit sexist the other direction , the abuse men receive in advertising (selling a product to women advertising men as being intellectually inferior) , the car insurance issue (luckily thats ending) , schemes/grants/incentives whether it be financial or a PR incentive to encourage the employment of women over men in certain sectors, some political parties wanting quotas enforced. When all this ends too then equality will be achieved

TaraFoxglove

Eric Cartman wrote: »

perhaps, not being a woman I probably wouldnt see it , but on the other hand there are also a few things that are getting a bit sexist the other direction , the abuse men receive in advertising (selling a product to women advertising men as being intellectually inferior) , the car insurance issue (luckily thats ending) , schemes/grants/incentives whether it be financial or a PR incentive to encourage the employment of women over men in certain sectors, some political parties wanting quotas enforced. When all this ends too then equality will be achieved

Yeah, I agree there, that stuff's not right either.

CDfm

But we still are hardly much closer to defining feminism.

In tgc it gets a roasting mostly for the treatment of men in the family law courts.

So that is one thing Irish feminism has in public policy.

DV is another.

Are there others in the gender war ?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Eric Cartman wrote: »

perhaps, not being a woman I probably wouldnt see it , but on the other hand there are also a few things that are getting a bit sexist the other direction , the abuse men receive in advertising (selling a product to women advertising men as being intellectually inferior) , the car insurance issue (luckily thats ending) , schemes/grants/incentives whether it be financial or a PR incentive to encourage the employment of women over men in certain sectors, some political parties wanting quotas enforced. When all this ends too then equality will be achieved

Full equality will never be achieved. The capitalist system by its very nature ensures discrimination will occur if it leads to profit, and it does.

Sure we can prevent major discrimination with legislation, but women will always be sexualised to a greater extent so long as there are women willing to pose in a bikini for a few hundred euro, as quite frankly it sells. Perhaps this makes society accept the myth women cannot make good managers/executives and entrepreneurs as they're seen as nothing more than tits n ass

Furthermore, if making men out to be domestic idiots sells something it will be done. Perhaps this assists in society believing the myth that men cannot be good house-husbands or child carers, meaning in stable families the child may suffer where the father makes a better carer and where the marriage breaks down men and their children see little of each other.

The best equality we can hope for under capitalism is pretty much already in place, only trail-blazers and inspirational figures can improve attitudes. Communism is the only option to ensure we get full equality, and I don't think that its worth it.

LeeHoffmann

What is the current ideology as no one not even the OP seems to know

.
I think you've been given a few answers to this already, including from myself.

Eric Cartman

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Full equality will never be achieved. The capitalist system by its very nature ensures discrimination will occur if it leads to profit, and it does.

Sure we can prevent major discrimination with legislation, but women will always be sexualised to a greater extent so long as there are women willing to pose in a bikini for a few hundred euro, as quite frankly it sells. Perhaps this makes society accept the myth women cannot make good managers/executives and entrepreneurs as they're seen as nothing more than tits n ass

Furthermore, if making men out to be domestic idiots sells something it will be done. Perhaps this assists in society believing the myth that men cannot be good house-husbands or child carers, meaning in stable families the child may suffer where the father makes a better carer and where the marriage breaks down men and their children see little of each other.

The best equality we can hope for under capitalism is pretty much already in place, only trail-blazers and inspirational figures can improve attitudes. Communism is the only option to ensure we get full equality, and I don't think that its worth it.

communism definitley isnt worth it , capitalism being the only system that really works

CDfm

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

.
I think you've been given a few answers to this already, including from myself.

The answers I am looking for a more precise and not as ambiguos .

There is a lot of sociological psychobabble spouted in the name of gender.

One such debate was not jailing women for crimes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/mar/28/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation

So do you treat criminals as criminals or what ? Women are not children and you get bad women too. Isn't treating a woman who commits a crime leniently like a child patronising.

What type of society do you want.

LeeHoffmann

CDfm, was my answer ambiguous? Really? Please see it again
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056264209&page=10
You asked what is feminism to me? I answered. You did not comment on it or ask for it to be clarified/expressed more precisely in your subsequent post/reply. You moved onto DV. You then returned to your 'somebody give me a definition' after many posts by others. I get bored of repeating myself pretty quickly

CDfm

oops lee - i didnt mean to come accross so snooty

When it comes to feminism etc I really think you can only discuss it in the real context of real public policy and laws enacted.

I gave DV as a real example as an issue where feminism has dictated public policy and where it can be argued that gender style politics may not be a force for good. And, where it does not benefit all women either.

So safety from DV is not just a heterosexual female right but a human right.Do you agree.

I try to give examples where I can.

And I would like to think that human rights should be prioritised with clarity.

LeeHoffmann

oops lee - i didnt mean to come accross so snooty

no problem. Still not sure I know what you're looking for
Me:

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...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. Hence, feminism (for me) in the western world today is concerned with discriminatory practices, norms, attitudes etc that affect women. masculinism...If that refers to the movement that combats discriminatory laws, practices, norms and attitudes that affect men, then I'd be a masculinist too.

You:

When it comes to feminism etc I really think you can only discuss it in the real context of real public policy and laws enacted.

Are you basically saying that when discussing feminism we should not discuss the practices, norms and attitudes that inform(ed) real public policy and laws enacted?

You:

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.

Me:

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

You:

I would like to think that human rights should be prioritised with clarity.

I'm glad we agree on this.

however I think I may have contributed too much to this thread already -
OP:

I'd be interested to read the discussion from a decidedly male perspective.

CDfm

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Are you basically saying that when discussing feminism we should not discuss the practices, norms and attitudes that inform(ed) real public policy and laws enacted?

I probably come accross as having the attention span of a puppy.I have never believed in anything other than equality anyway.

What I am saying is that lots of the norms and attitudes and analysis are subjective and not objective.

In some areas you need to be able to quantify things too.

For example, when people talk about gender quota's and numbers of women in top jobs they can often miss the point that they are talking about elites sharing out top jobs and not gender as such.

Or that in the region of 50% of the occupants of Womens Aid Shelters are travellers.

Those areas are the exception and not the norm.

There is a bit of me that says - simplify out all these theories and tell us where we are at from a factual perspective not from a male or female perspective.

irishh_bob

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I can understand feminism in the past but now with women having equal rights in the western world there is no need for any domestic femenist movements , their efforts and persuits are redundant in some cases and sexist in others. A lot of femenist groups amount to nothing more than a front for a lesbian support group under the banner of 'femenism' women have equal rights, the fight is over.

Women are not superior to men in any way so theres no further feminism can go rather than the equality they have received

the feminist movement nowadays have little if anything to do with equality , any female i know who calls themselves a feminist , thier philosophy is one of , a woman should always be the main beneficiary in any given situation or scenario , be it the sharing of the spoils when it comes to divorce settlements etc , baschically the man is always less deserving

Giselle

Eric Cartman wrote: »

A lot of femenist groups amount to nothing more than a front for a lesbian support group under the banner of 'femenism' women have equal rights, the fight is over.

I'd like to see some proof of that, it seems rather a rather extemporaneous statement.

CDfm

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
A lot of femenist groups amount to nothing more than a front for a lesbian support group under the banner of 'femenism'

The majority of womens groups do nothing to support lesbians - it seems to be quite the opposite in areas like domestic violence where women on women domestic violence is known about and unacknowledged. In fact, any violence/abuse by women/females on other women/females is neither recognised or publicised.

Lesbian led families get no support on the public policy programmes they support.

Even when Denise Charlton headed Womens Aid she did nothing to support other women in same sex relationships.

http://www.marriagequality.ie/about/boardmembers.html

It is a bit odd that two of the leadership/management of Womens Aid dealing with heterosexual relationships were in a same sex relationship and not offering support for their peers.

LeeHoffmann

The majority of womens groups do nothing to support lesbians - it seems to be quite the opposite in areas like domestic violence

The opposite of support is oppose. Do you really want to say that womens groups oppose lesbians? Which womens groups oppose lesbians? Do you have any links to support that claim?

any violence/abuse by women/females on other women/females is neither recognised or publicised.

Do you mean that DV in lesbian relationships is not well publicised? Perhaps the reason for this is that the physical difference in strength is greater between men and women, hence DV in male/female relationships may be seen as having a greater potential for serious injury than female/female relationships. I'm suggesting this reason as an alternative to the one you suggested - i.e. - that DV in lesbian relationshps is under-publicised because womens groups oppose lesbians.

OP, perhaps a poll would be helpful here - e.g. Is feminism a still-relevant movement or is it a man-haters club? It seems to me that most men who posted in this thread think it's either a man-haters club and/or is now redundant. If this reflects the general attitudes in Irish society then it would seem that the term feminism is not helpful or useful anymore. If that is the case, then maybe moving away from the tem and it's ideology in favour of a (well thought-out) alternative term such as gender equality would be more beneficial to all.

Blowfish

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

The opposite of support is oppose. Do you really want to say that womens groups oppose lesbians? Which womens groups oppose lesbians? Do you have any links to support that claim?

That's one hell of a strawman, CDfm didn't say anything even remotely close to what you are claiming. There's a rather huge difference between opposing something and passively doing nothing.

LeeHoffmann

he (?) said the ''opposite'' of support. I didn't mean to erect a strawman (not a fan of those!!) - I really wouldn't have spent so much time in responding to him if I wanted to do that. It wasn't clear what he meant. That's why I followed it through to the end. Obviously, saying ''womens groups are not supportive of'' is a very different claim

CDfm

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

The opposite of support is oppose. Do you really want to say that womens groups oppose lesbians? Which womens groups oppose lesbians? Do you have any links to support that claim?

I am not a lesbian so don't know but I do have lesbian friends

Do you mean that DV in lesbian relationships is not well publicised? Perhaps the reason for this is that the physical difference in strength is greater between men and women, hence DV in male/female relationships may be seen as having a greater potential for serious injury than female/female relationships. I'm suggesting this reason as an alternative to the one you suggested - i.e. - that DV in lesbian relationshps is under-publicised because womens groups oppose lesbians.

I did not say that -how would I know.

It may be that womens groups have a difficulty acknowledging female violence or domestic violence outside the male perpetrator/female victim model.

Maybe its verbotem or taboo to say it.

I don't know but as someone who has strong anti-dv views I would like to know that they could get help.

Domestic Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Statistics, Myths & Facts The typical image of a battered woman is a heterosexual woman attempting to hide a black eye in the grocery store. But domestic violence does not just happen to straight couples. Domestic violence statistics show that violence is just as prevalent in gay and lesbian relationships as it is in heterosexual couples. In fact, 30% of couples struggle with domestic violence of some sort.



http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianhealth/a/DVFactsMyths.htm

If that is the case, then maybe moving away from the tem and it's ideology in favour of a (well thought-out) alternative term such as gender equality would be more beneficial to all.

If its the same dog-different hair then thats just semantics.

By egalitarian it would need a shift in attitude from the chivalry that is percieved within the system by men.

And its not just gender equality, its family & orientation too.

Blowfish wrote: »

That's one hell of a strawman, CDfm didn't say anything even remotely close to what you are claiming. There's a rather huge difference between opposing something and passively doing nothing.

Thanks.

I do get confused at the definitions and find gender models are not always inclusive. Equality is a good thing in my book.


Maybe its the "marxist" philosophy/model that goes with it a lot of the time that gives it a coercive vibe by definition.

I have no doubt if we were discussing one model here like "marxist feminism" it would be easier and we could discuss its implications.

Then there are a whole lot of different types but who knows what ideology we are discussing

http://www.feministissues.com/marxist.html

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Existential Feminism [/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Radical Feminism [/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Liberal Feminism [/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Marxist Feminism [/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Socialist Feminism [/FONT]

Marxist feminism is a sub-type of feminist theory which focuses on the dismantling of capitalism as a way to liberate women. Marxist feminism states that private property, which gives rise to economic inequality, dependence, political confusion, and ultimately unhealthy social relations between men and women, is the root of women's oppression in the current social context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_feminism

So are we talking about men as oppressors and the redistribution of wealth etc.

And of course, what model is used in public policy in Ireland.

Bottle_of_Smoke

So marxist feminism is just marxism really then?