Feminism

donfers

Sharrow wrote: »

Being a feminist means that you acknowledge the discrimination and prejudice women face just due to being women. If you can't do that then you can't set about helping change it.

I do acknowledge it

where we perhaps differ is


- i don't think feminism as it currently stands is the best way to effect change, in fact i think it's counter-productive

- I don't think the problems that women and women alone face only ultimately affect women (i.e. consequences of women specific issues and men specific issues have a knock-on effect that affects us all)

Morag

donfers wrote: »

- I don't think the problems that women and women alone face only ultimately affect women (i.e. consequences of women specific issues and men specific issues have a knock-on effect that affects us all)

Yup they don't just effect women, women's issues have a knock on effect to all of the partners, fathers, brothers, sons and friends. Which is why imho we should all be feminists.

donfers wrote: »

- i don't think feminism as it currently stands is the best way to effect change, in fact i think it's counter-productive

I disagree, I think that a really slick mud slinging campaign was done to turn the word feminist into something which men and women would not want to be connected with.

Out of curiosity, can you name any of the current irish feminist groups/movements/blogs ?

Maguined

Sharrow wrote: »

I disagree, in the UK a woman can apply to have her tubes tied, see the medical professionals needed, go to counselling and have them done. I know someone who was 21 had no kids and had her tubes done on her 23rd birthday.

This is a medical policy in this country which represses women's choices.

I agree it represses women's choices however we are disagreeing on the reason behind the government and medical professionals restrictions. I believe like any "new" medical procedure the medical professionals weigh up the risk/reward of elective procedures and decide limitations on how/why they would allow such a procedure.

I do not believe the restriction is motivated by any negativity to women but more a fear of being sued and a consideration to the risks involved for women and as such I do not believe it is an inequality between the genders as the male procedure is so different it is not a fair comparison. Having differences in procedures available to the genders is not automatically a sign of gender discrimination but can just be a result of biological differences which I believe is the case for this instance.

Owner

Maguined wrote: »

I really don't think this sort of choice is a matter of inequality, men are just as free as women to make the choice to stay at home and mind the family, yes it may be more socially acceptable for a woman to stay at home and mind he kids but the choice is still there for men and so I would view this as equal among the genders.

If Bob wants to stay at home and raise his children while his wife goes out to work it really does not directly violate his human rights if his neighbour Sally down the street disapproves of this choice, he is still free to live it.

No, men aren't as free to combine work and family or stay at home in the same way women are, whatever about women "mommy blocking" and wanting the role for themselves and whatever stigma left there might be surrounding being a sahd and the shortage of women that are prepared to be the main breadwinner, men simply don't have the same laws and employer attitudes that give women the extra flexibility. As well as that, to qualify as being a man and in a position to marry in the first place, there has to be a career, car etc.

Anyway, I think that we can both agree that as I said initially, women have equal rights and are equal under the law with men except in the cases where they have extra rights, laws and protections.

Maguined

Owner wrote: »

No, men aren't as free to combine work and family or stay at home in the same way women are, whatever about women "mommy blocking" and wanting the role for themselves and whatever stigma left there might be surrounding being a sahd and the shortage of women that are prepared to be the main breadwinner, men simply don't have the same laws and cultural attitudes that give women the extra flexibility.

Anyway, I think that we can both agree that as I said initially, women have equal rights and are equal under the law with men except in the cases where they have extra rights, laws and protections.

I agree that women are "mostly" equal with men under the law and believe any differences are just fine tuning we need to do as a society and do not indicate significant discrimination in either direction.

Why are men not as free to choose? what laws prevent men from doing it? social stigma is irrelevant in my opinion, as long as the legal option of doing something is available to both genders then it is equal in my mind. I don't care if people judge me negatively because of my taste in music or food, I am legally free to indulge in this choice similarly if I had a child and the mother was willing to support me I would have the legal option of being a stay at home parent.

Suggesting there are less women willing to support men than men are willing to support women is irrelevant in a discussion of equality of law and choices.

Owner

Maguined wrote: »

I agree that women are "mostly" equal with men under the law and believe any differences are just fine tuning we need to do as a society and do not indicate significant discrimination in either direction.

Why are men not as free to choose? what laws prevent men from doing it? social stigma is irrelevant in my opinion, as long as the legal option of doing something is available to both genders then it is equal in my mind. I don't care if people judge me negatively because of my taste in music or food, I am legally free to indulge in this choice similarly if I had a child and the mother was willing to support me I would have the legal option of being a stay at home parent.

Suggesting there are less women willing to support men than men are willing to support women is irrelevant in a discussion of equality of law and choices.

You are right that there is no law stopping a man from being a sahd, but he will find it a lot harder to chose that role.

I've already mentioned that the system does not afford men the same flexibility regarding time off. Parental leave for example. This ties into wage gap, a study here into wage gap found that the bast way to close it might be to give men the same work/life balance flexibility that women have, and hope that we take it.

The fact that women are less willing to support men than vias versa is relevant to choice, but not law.


When you say that you agree that men and women are "mostly" equal under the law, do you mean that they ware equal, except in the cases where women have more rights and special protections?

Also by virtue of gender, while not officially law, in sentencing for crimes and in other areas, men and women are treated differently. This is female privilege, the extra flexibility and choices that women have re career and work life balance fall under female privilege too IMO.

Count Duckula

Can I just point out that I asked for male opinions in this thread in the Gentlemen's Club and would be very grateful if it could stop being derailed by women coming in and telling us that we're wrong.

LeeHoffmann

CD, I left the thread for the reason you stated but have been following it with interest still. I will not be posting on this thread again, but could not resist asking wtf? to this:

to qualify as being a man and in a position to marry in the first place, there has to be a career, car etc.

Otis Driftwood

Count Duckula wrote: »

Can I just point out that I asked for male opinions in this thread in the Gentlemen's Club and would be very grateful if it could stop being derailed by women coming in and telling us that we're wrong.

Id like to point out that back seat modding is not welcome across all boards forums and often leads to infractions.

If you have a problem with any of the posts here then use the report post function and the mods will look at it.

donfers

Sharrow wrote: »

Yup they don't just effect women, women's issues have a knock on effect to all of the partners, fathers, brothers, sons and friends. Which is why imho we should all be feminists.



I disagree, I think that a really slick mud slinging campaign was done to turn the word feminist into something which men and women would not want to be connected with.

err...no we shouldn't all be feminists, that's a completely illogical and slanted way of looking at things in my view, i.e. from one perspective i.e. from the perspective of women's rights i.e. motivated by self-interest

There is no mud-slinging campaign. If anything the media, so bound by political correctness, is terrified to confront the issue (John Waters is one of the very few in Ireland who challenges feminist thinking, he stands out because so few offer the alternate for fear of being immedially labelled a misogynist, sexist, chauvinist etc, look at what happened to kenneth Clarke, almost burnt at the stake for stating some rapes are worse than others which is a fact). Therefore any mud-slinging that has been done has been entirely at the movement's own hands and of their own making, they see so little official opposition to their campaigning that at times they go too far and end up looking very foolish and losing public sympathy,

Why are the overwhelming majority of feminists women if it is such a worthy all-encompassing fair-minded humanitarian cause? Do you think all the men who don't describe themselves as feminists have it in for women and don't want them to progress, have equal rights etc.? Because if you think that then I strongly disagree. Ask yourself why many men and women shy away from the feminist label. Yes some are scared away by the looney fringe but I think the majority of those who reject the concept of feminism (not necessarily the principles behind it, let's be aware of that distinction) just don't accept a one-sided approach to solving a problem that affects both genders and realise that nothing will be solved unless we look at the biggr picture.

you can play the semantics game all you like and say that a feminist is anybody who believes in equal rights for women but the truth unfortunately is the impression given by some feminists is that feminism is equal rights for women alone and fcuk the rest of you and we don't care how it affects those around us and all of us I hope are aware that "equality" for one side only is essentially a paradox

we should all be humanists and realise that although some issues may affect our gender more than others, we don't own any issue, it does not belong to us, no one gender monopolises the pain or consequences of any one issue no matter how directly it affects them


"The more we seek to seperate and prioritise our own pain the more we refuse to acknowledge the pain of others, the more pain we cause in the end for all of us" some famous person

Maguined

Count Duckula wrote: »

Can I just point out that I asked for male opinions in this thread in the Gentlemen's Club and would be very grateful if it could stop being derailed by women coming in and telling us that we're wrong.

I really dislike this attitude, someone's gender should not affect the validity of their comments and it makes for a very uninformative and boring debate if you only listen to half the argument.

I have also not noticed any woman accusing a man of being wrong in his opinions, merely they have disagreed with points and offered their own points.

Count Duckula

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

Id like to point out that back seat modding is not welcome across all boards forums and often leads to infractions.

If you have a problem with any of the posts here then use the report post function and the mods will look at it.

I hardly think it's backseat moderation to point out that the thread is heading away from the purpose with which I set it up. But fine, I'll individually report each post in future.

Otis Driftwood

Count Duckula wrote: »

I hardly think it's backseat moderation to point out that the thread is heading away from the purpose with which I set it up. But fine, I'll individually report each post in future.

Count Duckula wrote: »

Can I just point out that I asked for male opinions in this thread in the Gentlemen's Club and would be very grateful if it could stop being derailed by women coming in and telling us that we're wrong.

The above is back seat modding Count Duckula ie giving direction,nay demanding who can post in the threads and what they can post.This,nor any other threads on boards is yours or mine or anyones.People are welcome to post here once the spirit of the charter is upheld,which in my opinion it has been.It is a discussion forum after all.

You are well aware at this stage that arguing with moderator direction is also frowned upon across boards.

Owner

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

CD, I left the thread for the reason you stated but have been following it with interest still. I will not be posting on this thread again, but could not resist asking wtf? to this:

In our culture to be a woman, there are few criteria, you have to reach a certain age, menstruation is a significant rite of passage along the way.

For a man to reach manhood there are various other arbitrary standards to be met. Career, car, house etc. before he will really be considered a man.

CDfm

:eek: there is a bit of us & them creeping in

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Breaking down structural barriers to women that don't exist in law but in culture

+1 there are cultural perceptions and barriers and not just for women but to men too.

In some ways, the law is framed as being equal but enforced unequally.

I can see it both ways.

Johnnymcg wrote: »

no not at all; definitions of what society is encompass the fact that people organise themselves into groups and also the relations between different groups

Yes and you have interest groups representing them.

Some groups have a political policies for their groups alone rather than society as a whole.

Sharrow wrote: »

donfers you can be an advocate and be pro equal rights for everyone but you have to acknowledge that different groups face different types of discrimination and prejudice.

Being a feminist means that you acknowledge the discrimination and prejudice women face just due to being women. If you can't do that then you can't set about helping change it.

But can you be a feminist and be pro-equality ?

Some womens groups have "gender based " philosophies which have become part of public policy.

We don't have a feminist group in Ireland with a holistic approach to society setting out what they see.The pro's with the cons.

I am an egalitarian and if I thought about it I would be cherrypicking rights with the best of them and thats why a "mens rights group" would not suit me. 'This right is ours and that right over there is yours' does not really work as the rights have to be applied equally.

Hetero Men vs Hetero Women Groups is a polarised approach.It's mad to think that is a solution-yet this seems to be what feminism proposes.

And, as some people point out, and my wording is clumsy, (and I dont mean reproductive rights) but for equality to work women need to get treated equally in terms of financial responsibilities etc.

shellykbookey

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

The above is back seat modding Count Duckula ie giving direction,nay demanding who can post in the threads and what they can post.This,nor any other threads on boards is yours or mine or anyones.People are welcome to post here once the spirit of the charter is upheld,which in my opinion it has been.It is a discussion forum after all.

You are well aware at this stage that arguing with moderator direction is also frowned upon across boards.

I have to back Duckula on this, most of the time if a guy makes a comment in the lady's lounge they get the whole "this is a safe place" crap and basically told to get out.

(P.S. I'm not trying to s#it stir I'm just saying)

sam34

shelley, please dont comment on the moderation of other forums here. if you have an issue with the moderation of tll then take it to feedback.

Owner

Awesome and thought provoking film on equality dogma here.. I agree with many of the points that are made in the film.

"The plot is set in the year 2081. Due to the 211th, 212th and 213th Amendments to the Constitution of America, all Americans are mandated equal. “They were not only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way." In America no one is more intelligent than anyone else, no one is better looking or more athletic than anyone else. In order to stop any sort of competition in society these measures are enforced by the United States Handicapper General. The current Handicapper General, Diana Moon Glampers, and her team of agents have developed several forms of "handicaps." Beautiful people are forced to wear masks, athletic people have to carry weights, and intelligent people have to wear radios in their ears that interrupt thoughts with loud noises. In April 2081 the agents of the Handicapper General take fourteen-year-old Harrison Bergeron away from his parents, George and Hazel. The couple is not aware of the full extent of that tragedy because Hazel is of average intelligence and George has to wear the mental handicap radio. Later that day the two are watching ballerinas on television where the talented dancers have weights on their arms and feet. The show is interrupted by a bulletin announcing that Harrison Bergeron has escaped from prison. A picture of Harrison wearing several handicaps is shown. Suddenly the photo is replaced by images of Harrison storming the studio. Ripping off all his handicaps he declares that he is the emperor and a greater ruler than anyone else. He chooses one of the ballerinas as his empress, liberates her from her handicaps, and starts to dance with her. They dance until they kiss the ceiling. A few seconds later Diana Moon Glampers enters the studio and kills Harrison and his empress with a shotgun, and then the screen goes dark. George Bergeron misses these events, having left to get a beer. He returns and finds Hazel crying on the couch. She says that something sad must have happened on TV, but that she cannot remember what it was. George tells her to forget about sad things."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

File here - http://www.zshare.net/video/72659210b5549339/

CDfm

+1 mods.

This discussion should be open to all genders,ages and orientations. It helps me to be a bit more open minded.

Morag

Maguined wrote: »

I agree it represses women's choices however we are disagreeing on the reason behind the government and medical professionals restrictions. I believe like any "new" medical procedure the medical professionals weigh up the risk/reward of elective procedures and decide limitations on how/why they would allow such a procedure.

I do not believe the restriction is motivated by any negativity to women but more a fear of being sued and a consideration to the risks involved for women and as such I do not believe it is an inequality between the genders as the male procedure is so different it is not a fair comparison. Having differences in procedures available to the genders is not automatically a sign of gender discrimination but can just be a result of biological differences which I believe is the case for this instance.

It is not a 'new' procedure, an other counties don't have the same hangups with women opting to get their tubes tied. It is the catholic cultural ethos permeating the medical profession and it's policies and procedures which do not let women make their own choices about getting thier tubes tied.

Gunsfortoys

You can't say the sacred forum anywhere but the forum itself. :rolleyes:

Anyway everyone regardless of gender is responsible for themselves and their own destinies. Gender should never be brought into it.

Maguined

Sharrow wrote: »

It is not a 'new' procedure, an other counties don't have the same hangups with women opting to get their tubes tied. It is the catholic cultural ethos permeating the medical profession and it's policies and procedures which do not let women make their own choices about getting thier tubes tied.

I would personally consider a procedure that only became commonly offered and relatively safe in the last 30 years as still being relatively new. Why the automatic assumption it is the catholic ethos that is the result of the medical professionals decision? From what I remember the 30 year age limit was based on two aspects, the first being that if you get it done under 30 you are more likely to suffer from post-tubal sterilization syndrome and the other being the fact it is a permanent procedure many women might get it done in their early twenties and then regret it later, unlike a vasectomy in men being reversible. Both of these conditions are not based upon catholic dogma.

There are many procedures that have certain requirements, in many countries they limit the size of a breast enlargement depending upon the womans frame as the doctors are afraid of the risks of going too big. Do you also think such restrictions are based solely upon a desire to restrict womens choices as it's a womans body so she should be able to get whatever she wants done?

Stheno

Owner wrote: »

No, men aren't as free to combine work and family or stay at home in the same way women are, whatever about women "mommy blocking" and wanting the role for themselves and whatever stigma left there might be surrounding being a sahd and the shortage of women that are prepared to be the main breadwinner, men simply don't have the same laws and employer attitudes that give women the extra flexibility. As well as that, to qualify as being a man and in a position to marry in the first place, there has to be a career, car etc.

Anyway, I think that we can both agree that as I said initially, women have equal rights and are equal under the law with men except in the cases where they have extra rights, laws and protections.

With the exception of article 41 of the constitution, None of what you have posted above are protected by extra rights, laws or protections for women, or if I am wrong can you point me directly to them? Are you aware that there are at least 7000 men who are sahd's now in Ireland?

Owner wrote: »

You are right that there is no law stopping a man from being a sahd, but he will find it a lot harder to chose that role.

I've already mentioned that the system does not afford men the same flexibility regarding time off. Parental leave for example. This ties into wage gap, a study here into wage gap found that the bast way to close it might be to give men the same work/life balance flexibility that women have, and hope that we take it.

The fact that women are less willing to support men than vias versa is relevant to choice, but not law.


When you say that you agree that men and women are "mostly" equal under the law, do you mean that they ware equal, except in the cases where women have more rights and special protections?

Also by virtue of gender, while not officially law, in sentencing for crimes and in other areas, men and women are treated differently. This is female privilege, the extra flexibility and choices that women have re career and work life balance fall under female privilege too IMO.

Parental leave rights apply equally to men and women, the societal norm/culture may apply it more liberally to women, or men may feel constrained by that societal norm/culture, but there is nothing stopping them from availing of it under law.

You made a point earlier also that women have extra rights under family law, there is a cultural/societal norm here where women with children tend to fare far far better in custodial decisions relating to children, however in the cases of couples with no children the law is absolutely gender neutral, has provision for the payment of spousal maintenance, and women do find themselves paying it.

I think if you are going to post saying that women have more rights/protection/laws in their favour then you really need to distinguish those from societal/cultural norms.

Stheno

Sharrow wrote: »

It is not a 'new' procedure, an other counties don't have the same hangups with women opting to get their tubes tied. It is the catholic cultural ethos permeating the medical profession and it's policies and procedures which do not let women make their own choices about getting thier tubes tied.

I've a non Catholic gynaecologist who is not a follower of the policy and will refer under the relevant ages, in my case the relevant age is forty, but it's only for private patients, so avoids the public system which may use those policies as de facto policies. But I do know at least three women who have had the policy you outlined stated to them with no deviation.

tbh

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

You can't say the sacred forum anywhere but the forum itself. :rolleyes:

When we tell you to drop the subject - we're not kidding. Drop. The subject.

Owner

Stheno wrote: »

With the exception of article 41 of the constitution, None of what you have posted above are protected by extra rights, laws or protections for women, or if I am wrong can you point me directly to them? Are you aware that there are at least 7000 men who are sahd's now in Ireland?



Parental leave rights apply equally to men and women, the societal norm/culture may apply it more liberally to women, or men may feel constrained by that societal norm/culture, but there is nothing stopping them from availing of it under law.

You made a point earlier also that women have extra rights under family law, there is a cultural/societal norm here where women with children tend to fare far far better in custodial decisions relating to children, however in the cases of couples with no children the law is absolutely gender neutral, has provision for the payment of spousal maintenance, and women do find themselves paying it.

I think if you are going to post saying that women have more rights/protection/laws in their favour then you really need to distinguish those from societal/cultural norms.

Special laws, rights and protections for women are increasingly the norm in western countries. They are present in education, healthcare, reproductive rights, employment, funding, victim support, female bias sensitivity training for judges and police, not all the above apply in this country but as we follow along behind, I don't think that we are far off. You are correct in saying that often where the law might be equal, it can often be applied with a pro-female bias. Where there is a pro female bias in how the law is applied, there is inequality under the law. I don't have any experience of family courts/law in Ireland but I do in a country where the system is heavily informed by feminist jurisprudence and a strong anti male bias is present.

Stheno

Owner wrote: »

Special laws, rights and protections for women are increasingly the norm in western countries. They are present in education, healthcare, reproductive rights, employment, funding, victim support, female bias sensitivity training for judges and police, not all the above apply in this country but as we follow along behind, I don't think that we are far off. You are correct in saying that often where the law might be equal, it can often be applied with a pro-female bias. Where there is a pro female bias in how the law is applied, there is inequality under the law. I don't have any experience of family courts/law in Ireland but I do in a country where the system is heavily informed by feminist jurisprudence and a strong anti male bias is present.

So now you've moved from Ireland and generalisations there to generalisations about Western countries in general.
Can you please cite at least one example where

education, healthcare, reproductive rights, employment, funding, victim support, female bias sensitivity training for judges and police, not all the above apply in this country but as we follow along behind, I don't think that we are far off.

currently applies in this country, citing the relevant legislation or acts?

If not can you cite other Western countries enacting these laws?

Given your point about family law here in Ireland, and on the supposition that you've read the link I supplied do you agree that in terms of spousal maintenance and obligations, there is no gender split in the legislation?

CDfm

Stheno wrote: »

Given your point about family law here in Ireland, and on the supposition that you've read the link I supplied do you agree that in terms of spousal maintenance and obligations, there is no gender split in the legislation?

Are there rules the same for same sex couples ?

And what rules apply to same sex couples with children.

So when we talk about gender stereotypes and social & cultural norms, unless policymakers tackle that how can we do other issues.

Stheno

CDfm wrote: »

Are there rules the same for same sex couples ?

And what rules apply to same sex couples with children.

So when we talk about gender stereotypes and social & cultural norms, unless policymakers tackle that how can we do other issues.

I was coming from the perspective of marriage and the spousal commitments arising from marital breakdown as per the link I posted.

My understanding is that a similiar obligation applies in terms of civil partnerships which came into force in January, but am free to be corrected.

CDfm

Stheno wrote: »

I was coming from the perspective of marriage and the spousal commitments arising from marital breakdown as per the link I posted.

My understanding is that a similiar obligation applies in terms of civil partnerships which came into force in January, but am free to be corrected.

Yes they did but there is no real openess on how they would be applied in cases where there are no children.

I know two lesbian led families and the "biological parents" have the legal responsibilities. Parents do not really have rights we have responsibilities.

That is fairly telling because same sex couples may operate under rules with co-habitation agreements (pre-nups essentially) and heterosexuals under a seperate set of rules.

How messed up is that ?

Stheno

CDfm wrote: »

Yes they did but there is no real openess on how they would be applied in cases where there are no children.

I know two lesbian led families and the "biological parents" have the legal responsibilities. Parents do not really have rights we have responsibilities.

That is fairly telling because same sex couples may operate under rules with co-habitation agreements (pre-nups essentially) and heterosexuals under a seperate set of rules.

How messed up is that ?

From the little I know of the Civil Partnership Bill it applies the same criteria to each partnership regardless of gender of the couple/s involved.

I'm currently exempt from it hence my lack of knowledge, but iirc it makes provision for both people in the relationship. How it deals with children I don't know, as that is not what my original point was about, but it raises an interesting point in the situation of two women being in a relationship and having a child by e.g. IVF and then subsequently splitting, and questions in terms of article 41.

The rights of the biological father in terms of IVF and surrogacy are unclear here still as there is no legislation relating to that that I am aware of (and happy to be enlightened)

Going back to my original point that there is equality around spousal obligation it's my understanding that the Civil Partnership Bill takes it's basis from our divorce laws/obligations arising.

Annasopra

CDfm wrote: »

Yes they did but there is no real openess on how they would be applied in cases where there are no children.

I know two lesbian led families and the "biological parents" have the legal responsibilities. Parents do not really have rights we have responsibilities.

That is fairly telling because same sex couples may operate under rules with co-habitation agreements (pre-nups essentially) and heterosexuals under a seperate set of rules.

How messed up is that ?

What? The cohabitant provisions of the civil partnership apply the exact same to heterosexual and homosexual couples

CDfm

Johnnymcg wrote: »

What? The cohabitant provisions of the civil partnership apply the exact same to heterosexual and homosexual couples

I have looked it up and there is a link here with a discussion document.Civil partnership is not marriage and the non parent partner in a relationship is a "legal stranger" to the children of the relationship.

Civil partnerships are not equal, they don't travel, and the children of civil partners are not legally protected.

http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/fulllist/bar-review-the-children-of-civil-partners-in-irish-law/

My point being that in modern society things are complicated enough without have simple a clear rules and principles which apply.

Our society has moved on and this is not really reflected in our social policies. Policymakers are elected to make difficult decisions and there is a part of me that says that they (and we) should be mature enough to discuss the needs of all relationship types.

I just think we would benefit as a society by trying to discuss the lot and not pigeonhole them for administrative convenience.

sam34

FYI all, Owner has been sitebanned for being a re-reg of a previously banned poster.
Kudos to the admins for the detective work.

slowburner

Is it ok to do this? I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes.
There's a thread in another forum which has a bearing on this one but it might invite more discussion here.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056272982

CDfm

slowburner wrote: »

Is it ok to do this? I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes.
There's a thread in another forum which has a bearing on this one but it might invite more discussion here.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056272982

Thanks - it is very topical and a couple of years back I had to ask someone on boards what a "social construct" was and here is an article

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/


So a definition of how gender is seen must be very important to any definition of feminism .

In the article cited men a predisposed to providing but some theorists say thats a social construct " a learned behavior" from roles assigned by society. ( I hope I have that right)

Now, does feminism argue that those roles are not what it wants and is it holding back from going the whole hog towards full equality by not having cohesive and clear definitions.

Gunsfortoys

tbh wrote: »

When we tell you to drop the subject - we're not kidding. Drop. The subject.

I love the oppressiveness of this place.

mod edit: user banned: 7 days

tbh

off-topic posts deleted. If you've nothing constructive to add, don't post - either make that decision for yourself, or the mods will make it for you.

slowburner

CDfm wrote: »

So a definition of how gender is seen must be very important to any definition of feminism .
In the article cited men a predisposed to providing but some theorists say thats a social construct " a learned behavior" from roles assigned by society. ( I hope I have that right)

I can't see how men's "predisposition" to being, or aspiring to be providers, could be anything other than a social construct and I would imagine the same thing applies to women.
The alternative would be an innate or inherited predisposition.

Now, does feminism argue that those roles are not what it wants and is it holding back from going the whole hog towards full equality by not having cohesive and clear definitions.

Hopefully, a feminist will comment on this, I can't - I am a masculinist!

Annasopra

slowburner wrote: »

Hopefully, a feminist will comment on this, I can't - I am a masculinist!

I guess you wouldn't agree with the theory of hegemonic masculinity though!

slowburner

Johnnymcg wrote: »

I guess you wouldn't agree with the theory of hegemonic masculinity though!

Nope......would you?;)

Annasopra

slowburner wrote: »

Nope......would you?;)

Broadly yes

CDfm

A bit off topic.

I post on the History Forum on Alternative Topics (or wherer I see gaps) and currently am doing one on Historical Irish Women -which includes an Irish Hangwoman together with some notable forgotten Irishwomen.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056265715

And Gay Ireland -surprise - Lesbians in the independence,1916 & labour movements.

Fans of the Hoff may be surprised to see that their hero's boss Devon Miles in Knight Rider was a Corkman.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71125722

We have other topics like executions & crime and lunatic asylums too that are about real people and situations and touch on social history and gender at times but with a sometimes tabloid point of view cos I like a bit of scandal.

Its good to know how our society has come about.

CDfm

Johnnymcg wrote: »

I guess you wouldn't agree with the theory of hegemonic masculinity though!

Can you explain what that is Johhny ?

SugarHigh

Is masculinity is just a social construct how did the construct come out about? Just one day BAM!! Social construct develops.

It obviously came from somewhere and early societies obviously gave us different roles for valid reasons. Why does every almost society do this along similar roles?

slowburner

CDfm wrote: »

Can you explain what that is Johhny ?

Yes please. I looked (briefly) at the Wiki definition - love to know if it's the same as Johnnymcg's understanding of the term.

HavingCrack

SugarHigh wrote: »

Is masculinity is just a social construct how did the construct come out about? Just one day BAM!! Social construct develops.

It obviously came from somewhere and early societies obviously gave us different roles for valid reasons. Why does every almost society do this along similar roles?

Could it be as simple as men are generally physically larger and stronger than women so just 'naturally' drift into the role of protectors and providers as a result of physical attributes?

strobe

HavingCrack wrote: »

Could it be as simple as men are generally physically larger and stronger than women so just 'naturally' drift into the role of protectors and providers as a result of physical attributes?

I would have said that was fairly obvious. Men are bigger, faster and stronger and therefore would obviously be better at catching and killing a monkey or goat than women (going back to pre-technology days here). Social construct obviously plays a part in certain things, men having short hair and women long hair for example, but it really annoys me that some people have to make it their mission to push the idea that all male or female traits are socially constructed rather than inherent. It's either ignorant or disingenuous and I'm not sure which is worse.

CDfm

I have found this link.

http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1149&context=artspapers

One think I notice quite a lot in gender material is that Marxist Analysis is to the fore.

Like, my degree is in Economics and Marx was an economist, but political economy usually is flowery prose.

Richard Feynman the Nobel Laureate (and I was introduced to him on boards) had a very good take on lots of things and scientific knowledge.

He also played the bongo's. Anyway, there is a series of you tube video's the Pleasure of Finding Things Out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XgmrMZ0h54

He has a go at sociology and religion because they are not scientific and it is worth looking at his video's . Above is Part 1 of 5 and he talks about theories and doubt and uncertainty on things because its natural.

Its worth watching the 5.

Political economics never really cut it for me and I reckon its the same with gender theories not grabbing me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbY

LeeHoffmann

some people have to make it their mission to push the idea that all male or female traits are socially constructed rather than inherent.

Can you give me an example of an inherrently female or male trait? I'm not sure what you mean.