Male Feminists

Scanlas The 2nd

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

It is everyone's right to view themselves as better than anyone they want, people are entitled to their opinions and there's nothing you can do about it.

Some people "don't tolerate" that you view yourself as better than animals. Some people regard animals as equals.

So because someone holds the view that they are better then another person that gives them the right to treat that other person as inferior?

Are you sure that is an argument you really want to make?

I never said it gives them the right to treat people as inferior but now you mention it you'll hav to be more specific as to what treating someone as inferior means?

People can view themselves and others however they want, it's part of personal freedom.

Sindri

Millicent wrote: »

Hang on till I ring Germaine Greer and tell her the struggle is over; a poster on the internet said so. :pac:

In fairness, we should be discussing the state of women's rights in the developing world where a 5 year old can be married of, and it can be done responsibly since the child will then at least have a future. That is why it's done, and while it is wrong, it's hard, all things considered, to see why it would not be done. The child would usually then move in with her spouse, sometimes a relative once reaching adolescence.

I posted a link to an article earlier on which was about empowering women and young girls in the developing world. I personally think such discussion from feminists would be more productive and beneficial.

Millicent

whatsamsn wrote: »

we have women:

- doctors. But more female nurses than male and less female doctors than male.
- judges. At what ratio to men?
- solicitors. Ibid.
- politicians. Ibid.
- presidents. We've had two. Still better than the states but not really a yardstick to measure gender equality by
- bus drivers. Seriously?!
- postmen. Yay An Post
- CEO's. Again, at a lower proportion that men.
- etc.

How are women being 'held back' today?

By people like the poster above who believes that women are naturally geared towards care-giving roles, as one example. Do you believe that it's in women's natures to want to be nurses or teachers and not judges or scientists, for example?

whatsamsn

Millicent wrote: »

By people like the poster above who believes that women are naturally geared towards care-giving roles, as one example. Do you believe that it's in women's natures to want to be nurses or teachers and not judges or scientists, for example?

:eek:
question, are you a man or woman?
(99.9% of me says woman)

Millicent

Sindri wrote: »

In fairness, we should be discussing the state of women's rights in the developing world where a 5 year old can be married of, and it can be done responsibly since the child will then at least have a future. That is why it's done, and while it is wrong, it's hard, all things considered, to see why it would not be done. The child would usually then move in with her spouse, sometimes a relative once reaching adolescence.

I posted a link to an article earlier on which was about empowering women and young girls in the developing world. I personally think such discussion from feminists would be more productive and beneficial.

I'm not sure what you mean by the first part. Could you expand a little for me?

ETA: Sorry -- I get you now. It doesn't mean we can't discuss those things too. If you're a football fan, for example, surely you can discuss both the Premier League and La Liga, and not be thought of as less of a fan? Same thing.

And I'd love to see that article if you want to link it here or PM it to me.

Bannasidhe

My name is URL wrote: »

That's exactly what it isn't, and is probably the main misconception that people have about feminism.

Sure there will be people who want to bring about balance in the way you describe, but they are a minority, and their views go against the grain of what feminism is supposed to represent.

Indeed there are extremest views with the very broad spectrum of feminism which are direct reactions to extreme views which were part and parcel of society such as women couldn't attend university as it would cause their brains to over heat. That women couldn't manage finances - so all of their property became the legally their husband's upon marriage. He could waste the lot and there was nothing she could do about it.

Until 1981 it was legal for a man to rape his wife. A married woman had no right to control her own body, if himself wanted sex he was, under the law, entitled to have sex by force.

At the beginning of the 20th century it was very difficult for women to obtain a university education. In 1870 Emily Davies and Barbara Bodichon helped to set up Girton College, the first university college for women, but it was not recognised by the university authorities. In 1880 Newnham College was established at Cambridge University. By 1910 there were just over a thousand women students at Oxford and Cambridge. However, they had to obtain permission to attend lectures and were not allowed to take degrees.

Without a university degree it was very difficult for women to enter the professions. After a long struggle the medical profession had allowed women to become doctors. Even so, by 1900 there were only 200 women doctors. It was not until 1910 that women were allowed to become accountants and bankers. However, there were still no women diplomats, barristers or judges.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Wuniversity.htm

Women have had to fight to be allowed an education, the vote, to own property, to work outside the home, to get equal pay for equal work - none of these thing were just taken for granted. Ireland did not legislate against sex discrimination and for equal pay until the EU forced it to.

Up until 1973, women were forced to resign from the civil service when they got married so they could concentrate on bringing up a family.

Read more: http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhaukfaueyql/#ixzz1mI1EjBVF

Women were placed with the Good Shepards simply for not being demure - in Cork alone over 30,000 women and girls suffered this fate.

It has been estimated that around 30,000 women were admitted during the 150-year history of the Magdalen institutions. Most were incarcerated against their will at the request of family members or priests for reasons such as prostitution, being an unmarried mother, being developmentally challenged or abused. Even young girls who were considered too promiscuous and flirtatious were sometimes sent to the Magdalen Asylum.

http://www.abandonedireland.com/mc.html

So yes, there are some who believe the scales were tipped so heavily against women and in favour of men that extreme measures are needed to tip the scales the other way and therefore achieve balance.

That is not the majority view. Most want both genders to be treated absolutely equally under the law, in the workplace and within society. An equality that includes equal pay for women and right's for unmarried fathers.

The problem is that some men see any moves toward equality as a diminishing to men's rights - which it isn't - but, IMHO, what that says about men who hold the view that they need 'more' rights then women is they are afraid of a level playing pitch.

PhlegmyMoses

later10 wrote: »

It exists down the pub, in bathroom urinals, across workstations, in the street, at restaurants... it's popular attitudes to women - those of both women and men - to women's role in society or in married or personal life, that I am talking about.

The expectation that a woman will earn less than her partner, or change her name after marriage, or that she will take the more active part in raising the children, or that men can treat women like objects and talk about them cruelly and be quite serious about it. Obviously we are all capable of sexist jokes, or pretending to objectify women, but I have never heard a woman speak about men in the same way that I have heard some men speak about women, and I would be quite shocked if I did, too.

I openly admit I have found myself taking women less seriously than my male colleagues. Of course I know this is totally irrational, and when I realise i am doing it I stop it. But it is indicative of the way society still treats women as second class citizens, and it is unacceptable.

That's true, but you can legislate for that.

You can't legislate against irrational opinions. Which is the shape that sexism against women usually takes these days.

Only part of your post that I can't relate to. I know plenty of women with an appalling attitude to men, particularly those in unhappy relationships. It's an insidious kind of resentfulness that will be passed on to their kids. You know the type, the ones who tell their daughters not to let any man hold them back and to make sure that they fulfill their dreams at whatever cost as though women are the only ones who make a sacrifice. Because their relationships were god awful, everyone else's is too. I get where they are coming from, it's a reaction to a lot of what you have said, but they should be promoting healthy, mutually respectful relationships rather than going to the complete opposite end of the spectrum and vilifying men. Also women can be just as crude when it comes to talking about men! Otherwise great post.

later12

Millicent wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by the first part. Could you expand a little for me?

ETA: Sorry -- I get you now. It doesn't mean we can't discuss those things too. If you're a football fan, for example, surely you can discuss both the Premier League and La Liga, and not be thought of as less of a fan? Same thing.

And I'd love to see that article if you want to link it here or PM it to me.

I'll get it, Miss

/runs off

Sindri wrote: »

We see some women talking about new age pseudo-psychological shite about women being happy in themselves. Now, obviously, not all feminists are like this, but I'd prefer to see more discussion of women and female children in developing countries and the positive role women can have in society rather than this shite (which is evident in America).

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2046045-1,00.html#ixzz1DR0n2h61

My name is URL

Eric Cartman wrote: »

i wish that were true.

Any time this topic comes up, this thread included, people talk about using quotas in politics, using grands and incentives in science/engineering education, employment advantages etc.. just to get women in the door.

There is no reason in Ireland a woman cant enter any sector of education, work or politics, a lot of women just choose not to, and trying to artificially create diversity hurts everyone.

I don't agree with the idea of quotas etc, but there is no denying that there are various reasons why more women do not enter politics. Be it the belief that men make better politicians, because politics requires full dedication which can be difficult to combine with bringing up a family, or because of a simple tradition of voting for men above women.

Of course it may also be that women simply don't want to do these things for the most part.. but that raises some questions too. And doesn't exactly suggest that some inequalities don't actually exist; because of some old fashioned ways of thinking which continue to prevail. Feminism is about helping women to realise that they can achieve things that seem out of reach, just as much as it's about making society as a whole realise that.

K-9

later10 wrote: »

It exists down the pub, in bathroom urinals, across workstations, in the street, at restaurants... it's popular attitudes to women - those of both women and men - to women's role in society or in married or personal life, that I am talking about.

Yeah, I was getting at it being a society problem, not just men problem. I really don't think it is bad as you go on about below, it exists definitely, but I'd say a loud minority:

The expectation that a woman will earn less than her partner, or change her name after marriage, or that she will take the more active part in raising the children, or that men can treat women like objects and talk about them cruelly and be quite serious about it. Obviously we are all capable of sexist jokes, or pretending to objectify women, but I have never heard a woman speak about men in the same way that I have heard some men speak about women, and I would be quite shocked if I did, too.

The change the name thing I don't get, if a woman wants to keep her old name or use a double name, no problem, I'd leave it as personal choice. Women earning less? In a like for like job I'd go mad at that. As for sexual treatment, I know plenty of women who can very easily treat men as sexual objects when they want, all part of equality apparently!

To me many young women are trying to ape 90's laddish culture and I don't think its a great area for egalitarianism, but again personal choice.

I openly admit I have found myself taking women less seriously than my male colleagues. Of course I know this is totally irrational, and when I realise i am doing it I stop it. But it is indicative of the way society still treats women as second class citizens, and it is unacceptable.

I don' think I've ever thought it consciously, probably have subconsciously at some stage. My mother wasn't the typical Irish Mammy so it wouldn't be as big an issue for me unlike a lot of men.

That's true, but you can legislate for that.

You can legislate for feminism too but as you say yourself, until societal attitudes change........There's a very popular Irish parenting site, probably 95% attitudes and the Irish Mammy attitude is very alive, which I'd argue is inherently sexist.

You can't legislate against irrational opinions. Which is the shape that sexism against women usually takes these days.

You can but it takes time for society to adjust, if it wants to, that is.

Millicent wrote: »

Attitudes like this are why feminism exists. Are you seriously trying to tell me that there is no nurture aspect in society towards women viewing themselves as the caregivers of society?

I'd argue the nurture society coming from women is as bad, if not worse than the attitude towards women. Many women will complain about men not doing enough but often they don't really want the man to do too much, the mother knows best and all that.

Millicent

whatsamsn wrote: »

:eek:
question, are you a man or woman?
(99.9% of me says woman)

Don't be silly. There are no girls on the internet.

Thought of another example for you -- the X Case. Timely too, as it's the twentieth anniversary of it this year and it still hasn't been legislated for.

Millicent

K-9 wrote: »

I'd argue the nurture society coming from women is as bad, if not worse than the attitude towards women. Many women will complain about men not doing enough but often they don't really want the man to do too much, the mother knows best and all that.

That's absolutely a fair point, but it still demonstrates how patriarchal and insidious the gender roles in our society are. Feminism isn't about saying man bad, woman good, it's about challenging attitudes like those you have described, wherever or whomever they come from.

later12

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

I know plenty of women with an appalling attitude to men, particularly those in unhappy relationships. It's an insidious kind of resentfulness that will be passed on to their kids.

Yes but i'm not talking about that. That's a personal dislike of an individual. I'm talking, in part, about comments that we, as men, sometimes feel appropriate to exchange between one another and which suggest a serious lack of respect for women.

The reason I was talking about feminism with some work colleagues earlier, was because of a comment about someone getting our female boss, who was being a bit too regimental this morning, to suck his dick. The same woman commands practically no respect amongst the male employees in her team, and I think it is largely because she is a woman working heading a team of 12 men.

This is just an illustration of attitudes to women that I think are common in our society.

I would accept what others are saying that we need to pay more attention to third world feminism and the treatment of women in developing nations, but I feel we can and should also look at our treatment of women right here at home as well, quite independent of that.

Millicent

whatsamsn wrote: »

:eek:
question, are you a man or woman?
(99.9% of me says woman)

Out of curiosity, now that I think of it, why does that matter?

Eric Cartman

My name is URL wrote: »

Feminism is about helping women to realise that they can achieve things that seem out of reach, just as much as it's about making society as a whole realise that.

well it needs to be marketed under a different banner then, I would agree with feminism if it was exactly what was quoted above, but sadly its been twisted and you now have the

pseudo lesbian feminazi brigade who think women are better than men in every way

the whipped pussy boy feminist who thinks that being submissive to dominant women will get him laid

the quota feminist who wants to make everyone equal by force using quotas and disadvantaging men, same for all same same same end.

then the quietest voice in the room and the only one that makes sense, your type who just want the stigmas to go away. Who realise that the rights are all there and its not protests needed anymore, its education at a young age to remove the stigmas still left in society

Sindri

Millicent wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by the first part. Could you expand a little for me?

And I'd love to see that article if you want to link it here or PM it to me.

The bould Nancy Gibbs. A fine looking lassie.

Basically I'd prefer more discussion on feminism in the developing world and the empowerment of women from feminists.

1. Because I feel it's a more pressing concern.

And 2. Because empowering women reduces poverty and starvation etc.

My other post, incomprehensible as it was earlier in the thread was basically me ranting about my frustration of what certain forms of feminism have become, basically a way to sell things to women, and make women feel happy or complete or some load of bollix, it's mostly seen in America and subtly takes a guise or subtly suggests to women to buy things.

Bannasidhe

Millicent wrote: »

Out of curiosity, now that I think of it, why does that matter?

just putting this out there but maybe, just maybe, the poster who questioned your gender is male and wants to be able to dismiss your arguments on the grounds of you being not male which would mean your arguments are devoid of... Actually, now that I wrote that I realise that can't be right. To think along those lines would be just crazy. It's like saying that person can't think because their genitalia are not on the outside...:eek:

Bannasidhe

Eric Cartman wrote: »

well it needs to be marketed under a different banner then, I would agree with feminism if it was exactly what was quoted above, but sadly its been twisted and you now have the

pseudo lesbian feminazi brigade who think women are better than men in every way

the whipped pussy boy feminist who thinks that being submissive to dominant women will get him laid

the quota feminist who wants to make everyone equal by force using quotas and disadvantaging men, same for all same same same end.

then the quietest voice in the room and the only one that makes sense, your type who just want the stigmas to go away. Who realise that the rights are all there and its not protests needed anymore, its education at a young age to remove the stigmas still left in society

Having fun back there in the 1950s 1850s?

later12

Eric Cartman wrote: »

well it needs to be marketed under a different banner then, I would agree with feminism if it was exactly what was quoted above, but sadly its been twisted and you now have the

pseudo lesbian feminazi brigade who think women are better than men in every way

the whipped pussy boy feminist who thinks that being submissive to dominant women will get him laid

the quota feminist who wants to make everyone equal by force using quotas and disadvantaging men, same for all same same same end.

then the quietest voice in the room and the only one that makes sense, your type who just want the stigmas to go away. Who realise that the rights are all there and its not protests needed anymore, its education at a young age to remove the stigmas still left in society

You're setting alight a straw man that you made yourself, there, by classifying all others as irrational and daft, and "the quiet voice" being the only smart one in the room. For one thing, I think the "whipped pussy boy feminist statement" is totally absurd.

One of the major problems in promoting the woman's societal and personal position to resemble more closely that of men is that men - to our shame - generally stood back from that fight. Or those that did stand up for women were dismissed as queers or "whipped pussy boys" if you like. A bit like the way whites who stood up for minority civil rights in the 60s were "nigger lovers".

Your attitude doesn't help anyone, and the strawman you've made above is not particularly illuminating.

K-9

Eric Cartman wrote: »

pseudo lesbian feminazi brigade who think women are better than men in every way

Took 106 posts to get Godwinned. Quite an achievement for AH.

Millicent

Sindri wrote: »

The bould Nancy Gibbs. A fine looking lassie.

Basically I'd prefer more discussion on feminism in the developing world and the empowerment of women from feminists.

1. Because I feel it's a more pressing concern.

And 2. Because empowering women reduces poverty and starvation etc.

My other post, incomprehensible as it was earlier in the thread was basically me ranting about my frustration of what certain forms of feminism have become, basically a way to sell things to women, and make women feel happy or complete or some load of bollix, it's mostly seen in America and subtly takes a guise or subtly suggests to women to buy things.

But why not tackle all areas, developed and developing?

I've just spotted this thread here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056546992

That to me is still a pressing concern for a supposedly developed country, as is the poor reporting and conviction rate for rape in Ireland.

Cheers for the link, btw.

Eric Cartman

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Having fun back there in the 1950s 1850s?

i apologise for wanting actual equality rather than putting women on a pedestal or listening to some shítetalk about how their 'better than men'

Millicent

Eric Cartman wrote: »

i apologise for wanting actual equality rather than putting women on a pedestal or listening to some shítetalk about how their 'better than men'

Point out one post -- not even in this thread, I will give you the whole of Boards to do it -- where a feminist has said she is better by virtue of her gender than men.

Sindri

Eric Cartman wrote: »

well it needs to be marketed under a different banner then, I would agree with feminism if it was exactly what was quoted above, but sadly its been twisted and you now have the

pseudo lesbian feminazi brigade who think women are better than men in every way

the whipped pussy boy feminist who thinks that being submissive to dominant women will get him laid

the quota feminist who wants to make everyone equal by force using quotas and disadvantaging men, same for all same same same end.

then the quietest voice in the room and the only one that makes sense, your type who just want the stigmas to go away. Who realise that the rights are all there and its not protests needed anymore, its education at a young age to remove the stigmas still left in society

:D:D:D:D:D

Hah, haven't laughed that much in a long time.

Bannasidhe

Eric Cartman wrote: »

i apologise for wanting actual equality rather than putting women on a pedestal or listening to some shítetalk about how their 'better than men'

That interesting as I want actual equality rather than putting men on a pedestal or listening to some shítetalk about how they're 'better than women'.

later12

Eric Cartman wrote: »

'better than men'

Who has ever said that... can you give me an example not even from this thread, but in the entire history of boards.ie?

finality

Millicent wrote: »

Attitudes like this are why feminism exists. Are you seriously trying to tell me that there is no nurture aspect in society towards women viewing themselves as the caregivers of society?

Maybe there is, but that wasn't the point I was making. The fact is that women are naturally more inclined towards those roles, I would go so far as to say it's an evolutionary thing. Yes, we definitely see how the idea of gender roles exists in society, my point is that women have the choice of what careers to pursue and trying to encourage people to pursue careers they don't want to is a bad move.

I'm completely against imposing gender roles on children, but that's different to attempting to push someone into a career they're not interested in. Whether someone is being encouraged to be an engineer or a nurse, it's wrong either way, people should be allowed to make their own minds up.

Sindri

Millicent wrote: »

But why not tackle all areas, developed and developing?

I've just spotted this thread here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056546992

That to me is still a pressing concern for a supposedly developed country, as is the poor reporting and conviction rate for rape in Ireland.

Cheers for the link, btw.

Aye it is, I remember getting a talk in school from the KAS rape people and learning about the state of the judicial system.

One story was about how a woman was raped and the man received a 4 year suspended sentence and this was in the 90's.:eek:

It nearly is that simple though, empower women and you reduce poverty and child mortality, disease, they can contribute to the economy the whole 9 yards. I mean it really is the greatest contributing factor to solving most of the developing worlds problems, and it's so easy.

Scanlas The 2nd

later10 wrote: »

Eric Cartman wrote: »

well it needs to be marketed under a different banner then, I would agree with feminism if it was exactly what was quoted above, but sadly its been twisted and you now have the

pseudo lesbian feminazi brigade who think women are better than men in every way

the whipped pussy boy feminist who thinks that being submissive to dominant women will get him laid

the quota feminist who wants to make everyone equal by force using quotas and disadvantaging men, same for all same same same end.

then the quietest voice in the room and the only one that makes sense, your type who just want the stigmas to go away. Who realise that the rights are all there and its not protests needed anymore, its education at a young age to remove the stigmas still left in society

You're setting alight a straw man that you made yourself, there, by classifying all others as irrational and daft, and "the quiet voice" being the only smart one in the room. For one thing, I think the "whipped pussy boy feminist statement" is totally absurd.

One of the major problems in promoting the woman's societal and personal position to resemble more closely that of men is that men - to our shame - generally stood back from that fight. Or those that did stand up for women were dismissed as queers or "whipped pussy boys" if you like. A bit like the way whites who stood up for minority civil rights in the 60s were "nig[COLOR="Black"]g[/COLOR]er lovers".

Your attitude doesn't help anyone, and the strawman you've made above is not particularly illuminating.

Why should it be to anyone's shame what someone else did or didn't do 50 years ago? Should people with a moustache be ashamed because hitler had a moustache?

dotsman

later10 wrote: »

equality between the sexes. Assuming the meaning is the promotion of equality of women to men in employment, public administration, and personal life

I don't think you understand what feminism actually is.

Personally, I'm an equalist.