Male Feminists

Millicent

token101 wrote: »

By supporting one interest group, who are seeking equal rights but already have equal rights, it means you want more than equality. Women already have equal rights. When equality was achieved, which it has decades ago, surely that made feminism redundant? Why do we need eleven people in a quango to tell us that these 'issues' are still important? Has anybody ever actually genuinely questioned the role of something like the Womens Council or is that allowed? Does that automatically make you a mysoginist? Look at these reps:

http://www.nwci.ie/about/executive.html

Eleven people. Notice the lack of men? Irish Women Lawyers Association? I'm assuming that's female lawyers, and not just lawyers who only represent women? Why is there an organisation for this? Can men join? If not, then it's sexist! Marraige equality? Marraiges with children aren't equal, women have more parental rights. More of the 'equality'. Women of North East Galway whose remit is to 'empower women through education and training'? Now I'd understand if they were based in Afghanistan, but isn't a bit ridiculous in a country where women consistently outperform men in education? Longford womens' link whose remit is to 'ensure women of Longford can reach their full potential in a safe and equal society'. Pavee point, who recently advertised looking for a administrator, who 'should be a member of the travelling community'. Bit off topic, but it goes to the overall end point that all these people fighting against 'discrimination' are either guilty of the same thing themselves or else are essentially fighting nothing. They should have ceased to exist years ago. And I'd be interested to know how many are riding the quango gravy train along the way.

And no, I don't know you, I don't care who you are really, it's none of my business, I'm basing comments on what you said. No need to start singing R-E-S-P-E-C-T just yet Somebody back along posted the difference between chauvinism and feminism. I'd say take a look. You'll find a lot of the stuff posted by you and others ticks all the boxes of chauvinism.

And FFS stop comparing womens rights to LGBT rights or 'marginalised groups'. There's no comparison.

You're seriously bitching that a women's council is made up of women? Do you bitch that Pavee Point is made up of Travellers or the NAACP is made up of black people?

I'm getting tired of defending myself so I'll just answer briefly. I have never attempted to attack anyone in this thread but yet people have consistently got the claws out for me and one other female poster. I don't think there's any call for it, to be honest. I would hope those posters would ask themselves why they feel the need to get dismissive and aggressive with people who don't agree with them.

Anyway, on this:

And FFS stop comparing womens rights to LGBT rights or 'marginalised groups'. There's no comparison

to my recollection, I haven't made that comparison anywhere in thread, so I'm not sure why you're directing that at me. To answer it though, of course there is basis for comparison.

Lastly, there is no way I fit that chauvinism definition and I challenge you to explain exactly how you think I do. If not, you're making a rude and cruel insult on my good nature and it's unwarranted. I have not called anyone in here a sexist, a chauvinist or any other pejorative as I am trying to treat everyone here respectfully. I find it strange, sad, and genuinely a little hurtful that because I have said I am a feminist, people feel entitled not to treat me with the same respect. I'm just trying to remind myself that it says a lot more about those posters than it does about me.

Scanlas The 2nd

Millicent wrote: »

token101 wrote: »

By supporting one interest group, who are seeking equal rights but already have equal rights, it means you want more than equality. Women already have equal rights. When equality was achieved, which it has decades ago, surely that made feminism redundant? Why do we need eleven people in a quango to tell us that these 'issues' are still important? Has anybody ever actually genuinely questioned the role of something like the Womens Council or is that allowed? Does that automatically make you a mysoginist? Look at these reps:

http://www.nwci.ie/about/executive.html

Eleven people. Notice the lack of men? Irish Women Lawyers Association? I'm assuming that's female lawyers, and not just lawyers who only represent women? Why is there an organisation for this? Can men join? If not, then it's sexist! Marraige equality? Marraiges with children aren't equal, women have more parental rights. More of the 'equality'. Women of North East Galway whose remit is to 'empower women through education and training'? Now I'd understand if they were based in Afghanistan, but isn't a bit ridiculous in a country where women consistently outperform men in education? Longford womens' link whose remit is to 'ensure women of Longford can reach their full potential in a safe and equal society'. Pavee point, who recently advertised looking for a administrator, who 'should be a member of the travelling community'. Bit off topic, but it goes to the overall end point that all these people fighting against 'discrimination' are either guilty of the same thing themselves or else are essentially fighting nothing. They should have ceased to exist years ago. And I'd be interested to know how many are riding the quango gravy train along the way.

And no, I don't know you, I don't care who you are really, it's none of my business, I'm basing comments on what you said. No need to start singing R-E-S-P-E-C-T just yet Somebody back along posted the difference between chauvinism and feminism. I'd say take a look. You'll find a lot of the stuff posted by you and others ticks all the boxes of chauvinism.

And FFS stop comparing womens rights to LGBT rights or 'marginalised groups'. There's no comparison.

You're seriously b[COLOR="Black"]itchi[/COLOR]ng that a women's council is made up of women? Do you bi[COLOR="black"]tc[/COLOR]h that Pavee Point is made up of Travellers or the NAACP is made up of black people?

I'm getting tired of defending myself so I'll just answer briefly. I have never attempted to attack anyone in this thread but yet people have consistently got the claws out for me and one other female poster. I don't think there's any call for it, to be honest. I would hope those posters would ask themselves why they feel the need to get dismissive and aggressive with people who don't agree with them.

Anyway, on this:

And FFS stop comparing womens rights to LGBT rights or 'marginalised groups'. There's no comparison

to my recollection, I haven't made that comparison anywhere in thread, so I'm not sure why you're directing that at me. To answer it though, of course there is basis for comparison.

Lastly, there is no way I fit that chauvinism definition and I challenge you to explain exactly how you think I do. If not, you're making a rude and cruel insult on my good nature and it's unwarranted. I have not called anyone in here a sexist, a chauvinist or any other pejorative as I am trying to treat everyone here respectively. I find it strange, sad, and genuinely a little hurtful that because I have said I am a feminist, people feel entitled not to treat me with the same respect. I'm just trying to remind myself that it says a lot more about those posters than it does about me.

And what's more important to you, increasing the rights of women or equality between men and women?

Eric Cartman

Millicent wrote: »

You're seriously bitching that a women's council is made up of women? Do you bitch that Pavee Point is made up of Travellers or the NAACP is made up of black people?

its an issue of equality again , if I started a "white, straight lads" association, id have every one of these groups on to me and the papers saying its 'racist and sexist'

Millicent

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

And what's more important to you, increasing the rights of women or equality between men and women?

Why does it have to be an either/or situation? One of my particular interests is in women's rights and gender studies, but that doesn't mean I don't support the cause of men's rights when I see issues there. I am for fathers' rights, a change to the constitution to write men into the wording of the family unit, despise sexism against men in advertising and sitcoms (for example) etc. etc.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

its an issue of equality again , if I started a "white, straight lads" association, id have every one of these groups on to me and the papers saying its 'racist and sexist'

Can you not see why that might put people on the defensive, considering you are coming from a historical situation of inherent privilege? For the record, I think you should set up whatever group you wish. I'm for freedom of speech and expression for all people, regardless of age, sex, sexuality, race or social standing. If you feel there are enough issues facing straight, white males to necessitate the forming of a group, you should do so.

Dudess

Borderline bullying of Millicent here, including bullsh1t being made up, which she didn't say. She is a perfectly moderate, reasonable woman and the fact there are some folks pretending she's a feminazi says more about them than her.
Donfers, I'll ask you again: who are the radicals? When you say something so provocative you could at least be specific.

Seems to me Millicent would like that a person's gender isn't used as a reason for them to experience discrimination. She may define herself as a feminist since there is a coherent feminist movement and simply because she is a woman - it does not mean she is putting that group before other groups simply because a feminist is one of the things she defines herself as. Why are people pretending she is?

Millicent

Dudess wrote: »

Borderline bullying of Millicent here, including bullsh1t being made up, which she didn't say. She is a perfectly moderate, reasonable woman and the fact there are some folks pretending she's a feminazi says more about them than her.
Donfers, I'll ask you again: who are the radicals? When you say something so provocative you could at least be specific.

Seems to me Millicent would like that a person's gender isn't used as a reason for them to experience discrimination. She may define herself as a feminist since there is a coherent feminist movement and simply because she is a woman - it does not mean she is putting that group before other groups simply because a feminist is one of the things she defines herself as. Why are people pretending she is?

Thank you.

Dudess

The ganging-up here against a person putting her point across reasonably is disgusting and makes me suspect there's something deeper going on with the ringleaders.

Scanlas The 2nd

Millicent wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

And what's more important to you, increasing the rights of women or equality between men and women?

Why does it have to be an either/or situation? One of my particular interests is in women's rights and gender studies, but that doesn't mean I don't support the cause of men's rights when I see issues there. I am for fathers' rights, a change to the constitution to write men into the wording of the family unit, despise sexism against men in advertising and sitcoms (for example) etc. etc.

I'm not asking you to choose one or the other. I'm asking you as a feminist what is more important, increasing the rights of women or equality between men and women. Under feminist principles what is a a bigger priority, increasing the rights of women or the equality of men and women?

Eric Cartman

Millicent wrote: »

Can you not see why that might put people on the defensive, considering you are coming from a historical situation of inherent privilege?

and if the womens council and feminist movement as a whole was to gain an advantage over men and become the 'dominant' group, would they disband this organization of privilege ? why should a group get its exclusive club based on gender, race or sexual orientation, whether they are at the top of the ladder or not. Start as you mean to go on, fighting exclusion with exclusion wont win.

token101

Dudess wrote: »

The ganging-up here against a person putting her point across reasonably is disgusting and makes me suspect there's something deeper going on with the ringleaders.

Like what? Be specific. Don't know anyone personally, so it's hardly that! It's a debate. How is it ganging up? Maybe because there are more opposed who have points to make.

Millicent

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'm not asking you to choose one or the other. I'm asking you as a feminist what is more important, increasing the rights of women or equality between men and women. Under feminist principles what is a a bigger priority, increasing the rights of women or the equality of men and women?

You're trying to back me into a corner now and put words in my mouth and I'm not going to engage with it. You already know the tenets of feminism and if you don't, I'm not here to educate you.

Here are two definitions for you: Wiki and Dictionary. If you want to read through those two basic resources and then engage in a discussion based on that, I will be happy to do so. Otherwise, I'm not willing to be painted as a misandrist because it suits your preconception of feminism.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

and if the womens council and feminist movement as a whole was to gain an advantage over men and become the 'dominant' group, would they disband this organization of privilege ? why should a group get its exclusive club based on gender, race or sexual orientation, whether they are at the top of the ladder or not. Start as you mean to go on, fighting exclusion with exclusion wont win.

When do you think that might happen, realistically? Women's groups are less than 100 years old. Why do you think they have some permanence past when they outlive their usefulness? And who says it's exclusive? There are plenty of men involved in feminism. I've sat with them in gender studies classes and been lectured on the same by men, so your point is moot. Again, your preconceptions do not facts make.

Millicent

token101 wrote: »

Like what? Be specific. Don't know anyone personally, so it's hardly that! It's a debate. How is it ganging up? Maybe because there are more opposed who have points to make.

Um, you called me a chauvinist and have yet to back it up with any concrete examples.

TheZohanS

Dudess wrote: »

The ganging-up here against a person putting her point across reasonably is disgusting and makes me suspect there's something deeper going on with the ringleaders.

Ah here Dudess there are two sides to the debate and each side are debating with the other, in some instances reasonable debate is being ignored altogether and points are just being ignored. There's ganging up on both sides.

The entire thread is fishy tbh, someone here is having a great laugh at the two sides going at each other. If there's a ringleader it's one person and he's being very disingenuous to both sides.

Dudess

Anger with women because of personal experiences. I have seen two guys on Boards, who are regularly bitching about this alleged conspiracy against men and doing so by being extremely confrontational with female posters, recently admit to bad experiences at the hands of women. It's grim that there are bitches out there who ruin men's lives, but it doesn't mean all feminists, including reasonable ones like Millicent, should pay.

I'm not saying I know for certain there is anger against women here, but I suspect it - and with good cause IMO. The hostility and snideness is palpable.

If there were women saying the equivalent stuff to men I would think the very same thing, genders reversed. Far, far less frequent on Boards though.

Eric Cartman

Millicent wrote: »

You're trying to back me into a corner now and put words in my mouth and I'm not going to engage with it. You already know the tenets of feminism and if you don't, I'm not here to educate you.

Here are two definitions for you: Wiki and Dictionary. If you want to read through those two basic resources and then engage in a discussion based on that, I will be happy to do so. Otherwise, I'm not willing to be painted as a misandrist because it suits your preconception of feminism.



When do you think that might happen, realistically? Women's groups are less than 100 years old. Why do you think they have some permanence past when they outlive their usefulness? And who says it's exclusive? There are plenty of men involved in feminism. I've sat with them in gender studies classes and been lectured on the same by men, so your point is moot. Again, your preconceptions do not facts make.

I dont believe any group should be the dominant group. And im aware there are no physical barriers to men in womens groups, just like there are no physical barriers to women in politics, engineering, science or on a construction site. Its the societal stigma and the ridicule that makes these groups inaccessible to men, in the same way that its not a rights issue for women being in certain professions.

Micky Dolenz

Mod

I'm not liking how this is going. report suspect posts. Debate in a manner that doesn't flame and don't go off topic, Please.

RiseToTheTop

I'm open minded and everything, fairly liberal in this regard.

But I heard about the plans about there should be more female TD's in the Daíl. That is crazy, the best people, male or female, should be in the Daíl. These people are saying that the best TD's shouldn't be in the Daíl, male or female, but that females need be in the Daíl solely based on their sex.

SMH.

Zulu

Care to back up that dudess? Whom are you talking about?

In terms of snideness - it is palpable, but as TheZohan so correctly pointed out, it's coming from one disingenuous source. If you disagree, please name and shame, but making indirect ad-hominem attacks under the guise of defending another is hardly progressing the topic.

Millicent

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I dont believe any group should be the dominant group. And im aware there are no physical barriers to men in womens groups, just like there are no physical barriers to women in politics, engineering, science or on a construction site. Its the societal stigma and the ridicule that makes these groups inaccessible to men, in the same way that its not a rights issue for women being in certain professions.

But what about those men I pointed out to you who can and do engage in feminist groups and education?

You have a point that it is more societal stigma than lack of legal rights that prevents people of both genders from doing what they might otherwise do -- men staying at home to mind the children, for example, or women having to watch what they drink or act like, lest someone think they're sexually available or easy -- but that doesn't lessen the oppressive nature of either's prescribed gender roles. I happen to focus on my own gender's pitfalls as part of my interest in feminism. Why not focus on issues pertaining to yours? I would fully support you. I genuinely mean that.

Scanlas The 2nd

Millicent wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'm not asking you to choose one or the other. I'm asking you as a feminist what is more important, increasing the rights of women or equality between men and women. Under feminist principles what is a a bigger priority, increasing the rights of women or the equality of men and women?

You're trying to back me into a corner now and put words in my mouth and I'm not going to engage with it. You already know the tenets of feminism and if you don't, I'm not here to educate you.

Here are two definitions for you: Wiki and Dictionary. If you want to read through those two basic resources and then engage in a discussion based on that, I will be happy to do so. Otherwise, I'm not willing to be painted as a misandrist because it suits your preconception of feminism.

How can I back you into a corner if you speak the truth and have no biases to hide?

I'm completely willing to change my mind on any subject if someone presents a convincing enough argument.

I never claimed you are a misandrist, I fully support the rights of anyone to try to improve their rights.

As far as I'm aware feminism is supposed to be about the equality of men and women, if this is true you'd expect to come across some evidence of feminists campaigning for men's rights for the equality of men and women. But the reality is its about increasing the rights of women ( nothing wrong with that) not about the equality of men and women which it is supposed to be.

So I asked you your opinion as a feminist which is a bigger priority under feminist principles, the equality of men and women or increasing the rights of women?

Dudess

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

I'm open minded and everything, fairly liberal in this regard.

But I heard about the plans about there should be more female TD's in the Daíl. That is crazy, the best people, male or female, should be in the Daíl. These people are saying that the best TD's shouldn't be in the Daíl, male or female, but that females need be in the Daíl solely based on their sex.

SMH.

I fully agree.

Millicent

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Millicent wrote: »

You're trying to back me into a corner now and put words in my mouth and I'm not going to engage with it. You already know the tenets of feminism and if you don't, I'm not here to educate you.

Here are two definitions for you: Wiki and Dictionary. If you want to read through those two basic resources and then engage in a discussion based on that, I will be happy to do so. Otherwise, I'm not willing to be painted as a misandrist because it suits your preconception of feminism.

How can I back you into a corner if you speak the truth and have no biases to hide?

I'm completely willing to change my mind on any subject if someone presents a convincing enough argument.

I never claimed you are a misandrist, I fully support the rights of anyone to try to improve their rights.

As far as I'm aware feminism is supposed to be about the equality of men and women, if this is true you'd expect to come across some evidence of feminists campaigning for men's rights for the equality of men and women. But the reality is its about increasing the rights of women ( nothing wrong with that) not about the equality of men and women which it is supposed to be.

So I asked you your opinion as a feminist which is a bigger priority under feminist principles, the equality of men and women or increasing the rights of women?

I have no biases to hide, despite the subtle insinuation by many on here that I do.

Why have you not read the links I gave you? This would answer any and all questions you have there. Feminism was never supposed to be about increasing the rights of men; it has always historically been a drive to match women's rights and privileges to an equal level as men's.

You don't need to ask my opinion on the matter. The definition is in black and white in both links I included.

token101

Millicent wrote: »

Why does it have to be an either/or situation? One of my particular interests is in women's rights and gender studies, but that doesn't mean I don't support the cause of men's rights when I see issues there. I am for fathers' rights, a change to the constitution to write men into the wording of the family unit, despise sexism against men in advertising and sitcoms (for example) etc. etc.

Can you not see why that might put people on the defensive, considering you are coming from a historical situation of inherent privilege? For the record, I think you should set up whatever group you wish. I'm for freedom of speech and expression for all people, regardless of age, sex, sexuality, race or social standing. If you feel there are enough issues facing straight, white males to necessitate the forming of a group, you should do so.

Because that's the nature of being equal!

Historical is your key word there. Past tense.

There aren't any issues. It's the most privileged set of circumstances imaginable. Alongside straight, white western women.

Millicent wrote: »

Um, you called me a chauvinist and have yet to back it up with any concrete examples.

Millicent wrote: »

I find it strange, sad, and genuinely a little hurtful that because I have said I am a feminist, people feel entitled not to treat me with the same respect

chau·vin·ism 
1.
zealous and aggressive patriotism or blind enthusiasm for military glory.
2.
biased devotion to any group, attitude, or cause

Millicent

token101 wrote: »

Because that's the nature of being equal!

Historical is your key word there. Past tense.

There aren't any issues. It's the most privileged set of circumstances imaginable. Alongside straight, white western women.

I don't agree that the genders are equal. You have yet to engage me on any of the points I have made on the issues affecting women. It seems you have decided that there is no call for feminism in the developed world and are completely disregarding any input I have on the matter. That is not a discussion; that is browbeating and I'm not going to keep responding to it.

token101 wrote: »

chau·vin·ism 
1.
zealous and aggressive patriotism or blind enthusiasm for military glory.
2.
biased devotion to any group, attitude, or cause

And my bias is where? This is the dictionary definition of bias:

bi·as   [bahy-uhs] Show IPA noun, adjective, adverb, verb, bi·ased, bi·as·ing or ( especially British ) bi·assed, bi·as·sing.
noun

1.
an oblique or diagonal line of direction, especially across a woven fabric.
2.
a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.
3.
Statistics . a systematic as opposed to a random distortion of a statistic as a result of sampling procedure.

Are you accusing me of being prejudiced?

Scanlas The 2nd

Millicent wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Millicent wrote: »

You're trying to back me into a corner now and put words in my mouth and I'm not going to engage with it. You already know the tenets of feminism and if you don't, I'm not here to educate you.

Here are two definitions for you: Wiki and Dictionary. If you want to read through those two basic resources and then engage in a discussion based on that, I will be happy to do so. Otherwise, I'm not willing to be painted as a misandrist because it suits your preconception of feminism.

How can I back you into a corner if you speak the truth and have no biases to hide?

I'm completely willing to change my mind on any subject if someone presents a convincing enough argument.

I never claimed you are a misandrist, I fully support the rights of anyone to try to improve their rights.

As far as I'm aware feminism is supposed to be about the equality of men and women, if this is true you'd expect to come across some evidence of feminists campaigning for men's rights for the equality of men and women. But the reality is its about increasing the rights of women ( nothing wrong with that) not about the equality of men and women which it is supposed to be.

So I asked you your opinion as a feminist which is a bigger priority under feminist principles, the equality of men and women or increasing the rights of women?

I have no biases to hide, despite the subtle insinuation by many on here that I do.

Why have you not read the links I gave you? This would answer any and all questions you have there. Feminism was never supposed to be about increasing the rights of men; it has always historically been a drive to match women's rights and privileges to an equal level as men's.

You don't need to ask my opinion on the matter. The definition is in black and white in both links I included.

Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.[1][2] In addition, feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist is a "person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism

Feminism is about establishing equal rights rights for women, so a true feminist should be also concerned about increasing men's rights if it means establishing equal rights.

But I have yet to see feminist groups campaigning for men's rights when men are discriminated against. All I see is a group of people selfishly (nothing wrong with being selfish, we all are, but let's not pretend its out of pure moral principals) seeking to increase their rights.

Millicent

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.[1][2] In addition, feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist is a "person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism

Feminism is about establishing equal rights rights for women, so a true feminist should be also concerned about increasing men's rights if it means establishing equal rights.

But I have yet to see feminist groups campaigning for men's rights when men are discriminated against. All I see is a group of people selfishly (nothing wrong with being selfish, we all are, but let's not pretend its out of pure moral principals) seeking to increase their rights.

How did you parse that from the definition?

Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.[1][2] In addition, feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment

I've bolded the important parts. That doesn't mean a feminist can't campaign for men outside of the umbrella of feminism, just that that particularly ideology is not focussed on it. And of course certain groups act to better their own interests. It's not exactly practical to go and better the interests of other groups. I don't see why that's a massive issue, tbh.

Why isn't it a moral principle to tackle an injustice or a damaging facet of societal influence in relation to one particular group?

token101

Millicent wrote: »

I don't agree that the genders are equal. You have yet to engage me on any of the points I have made on the issues affecting women. It seems you have decided that there is no call for feminism in the developed world and are completely disregarding any input I have on the matter. That is not a discussion; that is browbeating and I'm not going to keep responding to it.





And my bias is where? This is the dictionary definition of bias:



Are you accusing me of being prejudiced?

I have quoted you every time, and responded. How is that disregarding what you've said. You've responded each time too so that doesn't make an awful lot of sense.

Towards women! That's pretty much the entire point that's being made. The minute someone says, 'I'm for progressing women's rights'; that's a fairly enthusiastic devotion to a specific cause, another definition of chauvinism. That's not equality, which is supposedly the idea of feminism. You've not been able to give an instance, one that holds water at least, where women have less rights in 21st Century Ireland. Workers pay is set by an organisation, I have never heard of a specific case where it has been proven that a woman has paid less than a man.

Scanlas The 2nd

Millicent wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.[1][2] In addition, feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist is a "person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism

Feminism is about establishing equal rights rights for women, so a true feminist should be also concerned about increasing men's rights if it means establishing equal rights.

But I have yet to see feminist groups campaigning for men's rights when men are discriminated against. All I see is a group of people selfishly (nothing wrong with being selfish, we all are, but let's not pretend its out of pure moral principals) seeking to increase their rights.

How did you parse that from the definition?

Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.[1][2] In addition, feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment

I've bolded the important parts. That doesn't mean a feminist can't campaign for men outside of the umbrella of feminism, just that that particularly ideology is not focussed on it. And of course certain groups act to better their own interests. It's not exactly practical to go and better the interests of other groups. I don't see why that's a massive issue, tbh.

Why isn't it a moral principle to tackle an injustice or a damaging facet of societal influence in relation to one particular group?

Who says it's a massive issue. Feminism seeks equal opportunities for women. So Feminists should not be happy where they have greater opportunities than men. They seek equal oppurtunities for women meaning they seek less oppurtunities for women and/or more oppurtunities for men to achieve the primary goal of equal oppurtunities. Having more oppurtunities is not equal oppurtunities.

I don't think I've ever come across a real feminist. I've come across people who seek to increase the oppurtunies of women, I don't know what you call that movement, but it sure as hell ain't feminism. Feminism seeks equal oppurtunies for women, not increasing oppurtunies for women.

token101

desertcircus wrote: »

Richard Keys and Andy Gray were fired for loudly and vociferously declaring entirely seriously that a female linesman had made a match-altering error purely because she was a woman. They roundly abused her in their capacity as match analysts for no other reason than she was a woman. There was nothing joking about it, and they absolutely deserved to be fired. Show me a clip of Loose Women where a panellist pours genuine hatred on someone and says they're genetically incapable of doing their job because they have a Y chromosome and I'll absolutely support you in calling for them to be fired.

How about a female Minister for Equality in the UK?

WindSock

Zulu wrote: »

Care to back up that dudess? Whom are you talking about?

In terms of snideness - it is palpable, but as TheZohan so correctly pointed out, it's coming from one disingenuous source. If you disagree, please name and shame, but making indirect ad-hominem attacks under the guise of defending another is hardly progressing the topic.

*snort*

I wouldn't worry about the claims of radicals in this thread, in fact wouldn't even bother rising to or arguing about it. It's intent is to wind-up and take the discussion off topic when there are reasonable points being made.

It's only going to go in a hypocritical strawmannery circle as usual.

Although I am surprised the 'white knighting' term hasn't cropped up more.