Is Feminism Fair?

JamJamJamJam

iptba wrote: »

Letter in Tuesday's Irish Times where a man mentions feminism:

Sir, – For about two weeks, a three-storey building-sized poster of a nearly naked male model has been hanging at the proposed Abercrombie Fitch site at College Green, Dublin.

I remain in a state of sanguine expectation as I await to see the National Women’s Council of Ireland, indeed all the righteous women and men of the nation, step up, as at the time of the Hunky Dorey crisis, and in the interests of equality and fairness (for what else could it be that stokes the fire of feminists everywhere?), declare this cynical advert an assault on the dignity of men by being “offensive, exploitative, tasteless, degrading and sexist”. – Yours, etc,

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0710/1224319720540.html

I absolutely see his point. I also kind of see where the feminist complaints arise. Due to the sheer volume of women portrayed in sexual roles, there is a combined impact on the place of women in society, which is concerning from a feminist perspective. However, I'm not sure how fair it is to pick out an individual ad and claim that it is sexist because it contains a sexual image of a woman. Ironically, that could take from the sexual liberty of women! Organisations naturally do complain about such adverts, because they don't like only seeing women in sexual roles, so it might encourage a broader and more realistic array of female portrayals in general. But doing so sets a standard, that quickly becomes a double standard when their complaints are... I dunno.. A bit misplaced.

Sorry if I'm waffling a bit a lot. It's nearly 3 am :P The point I'm trying to make is something like: (In slight defence of feminist organisations), the range of images of males in the media is relatively large and varied. A far higher percentage of females in adverts, etc, are sexualised. The problem is how common it is. Organisations can only make ineffective general comments, or identify single adverts, which leads to inconsistency. I wouldn't passionately blame feminist groups for this but perhaps they could be more careful about it as it tends to lead to a contradiction of principles!

yawha

yawha wrote: »

Again, don't understand why feminists have to stand up for men's issues. How can women even know for sure that this even offends men in the first place? There are entirely different contexts behind how both genders perceive the world, and what offends and hurts them, and what is damaging towards how they are treated and expected to behave as a result of how society treats both differently, in sometimes subtle, and sometimes dramatic ways, from the time they are born.

I'd guess most men don't find the lack of men in certain sectors as being a major issue and objections stem from the fact that it's always an "issue" when women are underrepresented somewhere.

iptba

yawha wrote: »

Again, don't understand why feminists have to stand up for men's issues. How can women even know for sure that this even offends men in the first place?

But not all feminists are female. So even if your point holds true for female feminists, it wouldn't be true for male feminists.

And it also raises questions about men's involvement in feminism.

iptba

JamJamJamJam wrote: »

Organisations can only make ineffective general comments, or identify single adverts, which leads to inconsistency. I wouldn't passionately blame feminist groups for this but perhaps they could be more careful about it as it tends to lead to a contradiction of principles!

Not sure what the point is about single adverts? It's not as if many groups have just complained in some way (officially, or informally) about a single ad or item - the sort of individuals or groups that complain (officially, or informally) will usually do this about more than one item - by any measure (that comes to mind), there is a lack of balance.

Also, feminism isn't restricted to women's organisations. There is a lot of other people involved in "gender activities" e.g. lecturers, researchers, equality groups, etc. And their output and emphasis tends to be unbalanced.

newport2

yawha wrote: »

Again, don't understand why feminists have to stand up for men's issues. How can women even know for sure that this even offends men in the first place? There are entirely different contexts behind how both genders perceive the world, and what offends and hurts them, and what is damaging towards how they are treated and expected to behave as a result of how society treats both differently, in sometimes subtle, and sometimes dramatic ways, from the time they are born.

I agree, your first line sums up what I am trying to say. The point I (and a few others) are trying to make is that feminism is not about equality (as many claim), but about selective equality, which will inevitably lead to further inequality down the line.

I've no problem with this. Just wish they would stop trying to take moral high ground in saying they are about equality when they are not, that's all.

Dolbert

In that vein, would you expect a men's rights group to speak out against women's issues? In the interests of equality of course.

newport2

Dolorous wrote: »

In that vein, would you expect a men's rights group to speak out against women's issues? In the interests of equality of course.

No, but I would have an issue with them claiming they were fighting for equality if they ignored all advantages that men have and only focused on the disadvantages.

Zulu

Actually I've already complained about this advert, as I did for a similar previous one placed outside Meddows & Berns @ Clarehall in Dublin. I sadly expect the same result for this complaint as I did for the last: PFO.
Interestingly the previous banner was more blatant in that the naked headless male torso was paired with a complete, fully clothed female on the otherside of their slogan.

yawha wrote: »

Again, don't understand why feminists have to stand up for men's issues.

Well they don't have to, but if they really, truly are concerned about how women are portrayed in advertising (eg Hunky Dorey debacle) they should be cognisant that the debasing of humans is bad for women in the long run.

can women even know for sure that this even offends men in the first place?

Don't you mean "feminists" as opposed to "women" in that question?
I guess this is a good question though, in terms of why some people have issues with "feminism".
Using the ad mentioned, if the context and imagery of this ad are scrutinised in a similar fashion to that of the Hunkey Dory ads, it doesn't take a genius to realise that the same logic is applicable, ie: the human form is being objectified as a sexual object as opposed to an actual complex emotional human person with rights.

Now fair enough if a "feminist" knows NO men, then it'd be clearly harder for her to empathise with any potential offence caused - sure men are non-emotional super heros who fight without fear or hurt, or are weedy nerds. However we know that "feminists" know men. They have grandfathers, they have fathers, they have brothers, they have lovers, they have friends, & they have sons. ..but wait, don't they care about these people? Don't they care that these people are being objectified and debased?? Or is it a case that they just don't care enough?

So you ask "can women even know for sure that this even offends men in the first place?" I'll ask, why aren't they offended themselves?

If enough guys perceive this ad as offensive, they should protest against it, and would likely have the support of many feminists.

Well I've complained. Can I expect the feminists from this site to rally behind me?

Just because some men are not offended by something that could be interpreted as male sexual objectification does not mean no women have the right to be offended by any female sexual objectification.

It doesn't, you are right, but it does weaken their moral high ground. Or any claim of equality that may sought to utilise in the persuit of their goal. And doing so while flying under the banner of previous advocates of "equality" sullys their legacy.
Taking objection with women being objectified while doing nothing about men being objectified is pretty shoddy. If white people were only concerned about white people having the vote, you wouldn't consider them democratic.

And if some men are offended by an incidence of male sexual objectification, they should make complaints about the incidence itself, not that feminist groups aren't doing enough.

I'm happy to do both

The Corinthian

yawha wrote: »

Law doesn't come into this. Custody laws and court decisions are biased in favour of women, but children have overwhelmingly been raised in heteronormative, one man, one woman households.

Only as the parents remain together - the moment that ends, society's prejudices (as reflected in law) dictate which parent is overwhelmingly the more important.

And suggesting law does not come into this is ignoring the symbiotic relationship between public attitudes and law. Change law and you influence attitudes.

They're just two really separate issues and the comparison leaves a really bad taste in my mouth. By that logic, opposing quotas means supporting gay marriage?

How by that logic? As I said, I have simply noted that a predicted contradiction in Feminist logic would be demonstrated, sooner or later, and it was. By whom is irrelevant, as is the rest of their agenda and attempting to tar this by association is a bit of a cheap shot, TBH.

A reasonable comparison would be asking if we should have quotas for male nurses, or primary school teachers etc.

Why is that 'reasonable'? You're not going to fall back on the old "won't someone think of the children" appeal to emotion now, are you?

The argument for gender quotas is simple; to help redress a gross imbalance in representation by one gender. And if you can cite the imbalance politics as something that would benefit from such quotas, then it is perfectly reasonable to point to child custody, given that the same occurs there also.

What's good for the goose, is also good for the gander.

yawha wrote: »

Again, don't understand why feminists have to stand up for men's issues.

Because they claim to be a movement for equality? Equality is about standing up for everyone's issues, regardless of gender, and finding equitable compromises between the two.

If you represent only one gender, you're not about equality but about the interests of that gender and that's not equality, no matter how you want to pretend to yourself it is.

So ultimately either Feminism stands up for both genders or it stops pretending it's a movement for equality. Simple really.

Dolorous wrote: »

In that vein, would you expect a men's rights group to speak out against women's issues? In the interests of equality of course.

Why not, women's rights groups effectively do so all the time? For example, the right to have your identity protected when accused of rape in the UK was essentially scuppered by Feminist objections, two years ago.

Ultimately, both Men's and Women's rights groups are not about equality but about representing their own gender.

Together, however, Men's and Women's rights groups are one model of 'equality'. That is, the adversarial model (that you get in courts and industrial relations) whereby two opposing groups keep each other in check and from this a compromise is eventually arrived at.

Of course the ideal model for 'equality' would be a neutral group that is partisan to neither and does not require the adversarial approach, but neither Feminism nor Masculism qualify as neutral. As a species, I suspect we lack the maturity to do this yet.

Feathers

yawha wrote:

Again, don't understand why feminists have to stand up for men's issues.

I've often seen it said in threads on Boards that 'feminists aren't one big group of people'. So if we're taking an individual person who had given themselves the label 'feminist' and who had decided to speak out against the objectification of women in advertising as objectionable - by writing in to the IT, making an official complaint, etc.

If this person understands feminism to be calling for the equal treatment of both sexes, and we know they've a personal dislike for sexual objectification of people, are they not being hypocritical by not reacting in the same way to the same treatment of men?

Surely you're not arguing that because they were born a woman, the subtle nuances in their perception of the world didn't realise a giant poster of a naked guy was sexually objectifying?

Dolbert

Zulu wrote: »

Actually I've already complained about this advert, as I did for a similar previous one placed outside Meddows & Berns @ Clarehall in Dublin. I sadly expect the same result for this complaint as I did for the last: PFO.
Interestingly the previous banner was more blatant in that the naked headless male torso was paired with a complete, fully clothed female on the otherside of their slogan.
Well they don't have to, but if they really, truly are concerned about how women are portrayed in advertising (eg Hunky Dorey debacle) they should be cognisant that the debasing of humans is bad for women in the long run.

Feminists are against advertisements objectifying men/ depicting them as buffoons, because feminists believe gender stereotyping is detrimental to both genders! If it weren’t for feminism, the idea of gender stereotyping wouldn’t even exist in the first place.

Feathers wrote: »

I've often seen it said in threads on Boards that 'feminists aren't one big group of people'. So if we're taking an individual person who had given themselves the label 'feminist' and who had decided to speak out against the objectification of women in advertising as objectionable - by writing in to the IT, making an official complaint, etc.
If this person understands feminism to be calling for the equal treatment of both sexes, and we know they've a personal dislike for sexual objectification of people, are they not being hypocritical by not reacting in the same way to the same treatment of men?

If, hypothetically, feminism only improved the lives of women (a position I strongly disagree with), does that mean it is not worth pursuing? Are women’s lives not worth improving? Or is feminism worthless because men are not the focus of it?

The Corinthian

Dolorous wrote: »

If, hypothetically, feminism only improved the lives of women (a position I strongly disagree with), does that mean it is not worth pursuing? Are women’s lives not worth improving? Or is feminism worthless because men are not the focus of it?

The problem with rights is that they can often impinge upon the rights of others; for one to have a right, another must in many cases sacrifice some of theirs. The only caveat to this is that equality demands that both may need to sacrifice rights so that the two are balanced.

And at this stage men are increasingly asked to sacrifice rights to improve women's lives, far beyond anything that is even vaguely equitable. Meanwhile women have sacrificed no rights to this end.

So no, women’s lives are not worth improving when it means that to do so means that men's lives are worsened by this far beyond the dictates of equality.

Zulu

Dolorous wrote: »

Feminists are against advertisements objectifying men/depicting them as buffoons, because feminists believe gender stereotyping is detrimental to both genders!

Ah now, come off it. If that were true, how come there isn't a similar outcry and backlash as there was for the Hunkey Dorey campaign?

If it weren’t for feminism, the idea of gender stereotyping wouldn’t even exist in the first place.

That's probably very true, however, that doesn't mean they are interested in all aspects of it. Clearly they are not. Which is ok*.


*Terms & conditions apply

If, hypothetically, feminism only improved the lives of women (a position I strongly disagree with), does that mean it is not worth pursuing? Are women’s lives not worth improving? Or is feminism worthless because men are not the focus of it?

Answers: Of course not; of course they are; yes.

I'm an egalitarian. I believe we should strive to improve the lives of women (of course I do, I'm married for crying out loud!). I believe it's a goal worth perusing. But I do feel that it's a worthless goal if it's at the detriment to other people; if it lessens the lives of others; it's a worthless goal if it doesn't apply at every person equally.

I'm not saying feminists do, but I won't climb over someone else in the pursuit of improving someones life.

Feathers

Dolorous wrote: »

If, hypothetically, feminism only improved the lives of women (a position I strongly disagree with), does that mean it is not worth pursuing? Are women’s lives not worth improving? Or is feminism worthless because men are not the focus of it?

I'm curious — did you genuinely read this attitude into my post — That I only support things that favour men & everything else is worthless? People wonder why these threads go downhill so quickly, I think putting words in other people's mouths does a lot for that.

I don't think anything I said implied that women's live weren't worth improving. My point was if someone says "I'm a feminist" and believes that to mean "I think men and women should be treated equally", then they should be equally annoyed at men being discriminated against as women — do you not agree with that?

If they believe feminism to mean "advancing women's rights", I don't think it's hypocritical to react differently — it's people looking out for themselves, which is fine within reason. But I've yet to hear the second definition be used in place of the first.

JamJamJamJam

iptba wrote: »

Not sure what the point is about single adverts? It's not as if many groups have just complained in some way (officially, or informally) about a single ad or item - the sort of individuals or groups that complain (officially, or informally) will usually do this about more than one item - by any measure (that comes to mind), there is a lack of balance.

Also, feminism isn't restricted to women's organisations. There is a lot of other people involved in "gender activities" e.g. lecturers, researchers, equality groups, etc. And their output and emphasis tends to be unbalanced.

Sorry, it's probably phrased badly. The writer of the letter to the editor calls for complaints about this particular ad, in line with complaints about similar ads containing females. However, the complaints about adverts containing women are in a slightly different context, because of the far higher ratio of sexual to non-sexual ads. By single ads I mean, more, selected ads. I mean they can't control all advertisments effectively to contain an appropriate range of female portrayal overall. They can only identify individual ads in order to highlight the limited number of roles given to females in adverts. But this tends to come across as though they oppose any advert that places females in a sexual role, which most feminists will agree is unfair. I'm sure there would be more complaints about male objectification if males received the same level of sexualisation as females.

Oh, and yeah in place of 'organisations' in my post it should probably read 'feminist individuals or organisations'. Meh.

JamJamJamJam

Feathers wrote: »

My point was if someone says "I'm a feminist" and believes that to mean "I think men and women should be treated equally", then they should be equally annoyed at men being discriminated against as women — do you not agree with that?

If they believe feminism to mean "advancing women's rights", I don't think it's hypocritical to react differently — it's people looking out for themselves, which is fine within reason. But I've yet to hear the second definition be used in place of the first.

I wonder if feminism was defined just as 'Ending discrimination towards women', rather than 'Promoting equality between men and women', would they escape the suggestion of hypocrisy in not speaking about issues relating more to discrimination towards men. Perhaps that's how it should be defined...

Feathers

JamJamJamJam wrote: »

I wonder if feminism was defined just as 'Ending discrimination towards women', rather than 'Promoting equality between men and women', would they escape the suggestion of hypocrisy in not speaking about issues relating more to discrimination towards men. Perhaps that's how it should be defined...

I think it's more accurate definitely and would remove objections around hypocrisy, but I think it may be too narrow a definition. For example, Ivana and her prisons:

Ivana Bacik wrote:

Women are a particularly vulnerable prison population and there is a strong case for abolishing prisons for them and replacing them with small custodial units for just a small number of people who have committed crimes of violence

I don't think the above doesn't fall under feminism. And this isn't ending discrimination against women, it's increasing discrimination against women — asking for women to be given more lenient sentencing because of their sex. Whatever argument you can put forward for quotas in the Dáil, it doesn't apply here.

iptba

JamJamJamJam wrote: »

I'm sure there would be more complaints about male objectification if males received the same level of sexualisation as females.

If you're talking about women's organisations, and other feminist individuals and organisations, I'm not sure we can be sure about much in terms of them speaking out when men are losing out in some way.

The Corinthian

JamJamJamJam wrote: »

I wonder if feminism was defined just as 'Ending discrimination towards women', rather than 'Promoting equality between men and women', would they escape the suggestion of hypocrisy in not speaking about issues relating more to discrimination towards men. Perhaps that's how it should be defined...

Yes, but that would be an admission that many could not bring themselves to make, IMHO. It would also strongly damage their present domination of equality bodys in most Western nations.

iptba

yawha wrote: »

How can women even know for sure that this even offends men in the first place? There are entirely different contexts behind how both genders perceive the world, and what offends and hurts them, and what is damaging towards how they are treated and expected to behave as a result of how society treats both differently, in sometimes subtle, and sometimes dramatic ways, from the time they are born.

This would seem to suggest one might need gender balance in equality bodies and equality work. This doesn't seem to be the norm and sometimes it may be all-female (e.g. I remember seeing that was the case with the (gender?) equality unit in the Dept of Education).

VinLieger

Dolorous wrote: »

Feminists are against advertisements objectifying men/ depicting them as buffoons, because feminists believe gender stereotyping is detrimental to both genders! If it weren’t for feminism, the idea of gender stereotyping wouldn’t even exist in the first place.

That is absolute bull****, feminists are not for equality among men and women. They are for "equality" but only as long as women are MORE equal than men.
Where was the feminist outrage at the donedeal advert? If you reversed the roles of that ad they would have been up in arms and burning cars in the streets.

Dolorous wrote: »

If, hypothetically, feminism only improved the lives of women (a position I strongly disagree with), does that mean it is not worth pursuing? Are women’s lives not worth improving? Or is feminism worthless because men are not the focus of it?

Feminism does only improve the lives of women, i have never come across or heard of one feminist intiative that doesnt put women first without a care about how it affects men.
Yet it is of course worth pursueing but they cannot keep claiming to be for equality when they blatantly are only out for themselves, either they admit to being a womens lobby group without a care for anything else OR they take up the mantle they love to claim, of being for equality, and fight for mens rights as well as women..... but they will never do this.

JamJamJamJam

iptba wrote: »

If you're talking about women's organisations, and other feminist individuals and organisations, I'm not sure we can be sure about much in terms of them speaking out when men are losing out in some way.

No, I mean in general more complaints would be made. And they would most likely come from men (directly affected). The idea of it happening seems worlds away!

iptba

I wasn't simply trying to be awkward when I said:

Also, feminism isn't restricted to women's organisations. There is a lot of other people involved in "gender activities" e.g. lecturers, researchers, equality groups, etc. And their output and emphasis tends to be unbalanced.

It's one thing to say a women's organisation should only be expected to complain about any negative portrayal of women; I believe it is different if people are claiming to be representing in equality.

JamJamJamJam wrote: »

No, I mean in general more complaints would be made. And they would most likely come from men (directly affected).

But if equality bodies or researchers (or specifically the parts dealing with gender) are all-female or there is only one person in that position e.g. a gender equality officer who is female, then one shouldn't expect much to happen? As I pointed out above, this would suggest the need for gender balance in the field e.g. if there is a position of "gender equality officer", one needs two individuals, a man and woman.

Scanlas The 2nd

byrned17 wrote: »

Bad Panda wrote: »

Seriously, if you can't grasp the point I'm making....

No need for the condescending tone! Your point was that you dislike double standards. Me too. So why don't you go out http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/morgan-freeman-to-marry-step-granddluuiaughter-edena-miles/1/171428.htmland protest about those ads that you find offensivehpnbnbgh? That is your right. But it isn't a feminist's job to complain on your behalfjjg, is it?

Feminists are supposed to seek equality of gender, yet they blatantly ignore cases where women are treated better time and time again.

Feminists for the most part say they are interested in equality but their actions show what they are really interested in is improving women's circumstances even at the expense of equality.

yawha

Is the whole "they-claim-to-be-for-equality-but-really-only-want-to-address-inequalities-affecting-women" argument not just hugely pedantic?

If anything, it just seems like something that might be a little bit annoying rather than discrediting the movements as a whole.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And at this stage men are increasingly asked to sacrifice rights to improve women's lives, far beyond anything that is even vaguely equitable.

Which rights?

donfers

yawha wrote: »

Is the whole "they-claim-to-be-for-equality-but-really-only-want-to-address-inequalities-affecting-women" argument not just hugely pedantic?

If anything, it just seems like something that might be a little bit annoying rather than discrediting the movements as a whole.

pedantic - i think not


it exposes their whole equality push as a load of bs and shows their political ideology to be built on a giant inherent hypocrasy - hardly pedantic although I am sure they will dismiss it as such further strengthening claims that they lack integrity and are short-sighted and mired in self-interest

JamJamJamJam

iptba wrote: »

But if equality bodies or researchers (or specifically the parts dealing with gender) are all-female or there is only one person in that position e.g. a gender equality officer who is female, then one shouldn't expect much to happen? As I pointed out above, this would suggest the need for gender balance in the field e.g. if there is a position of "gender equality officer", one needs two individuals, a man and woman.

I meant more that complaints from the entire pool would more likely be from men. Someone in a role such as gender equality officer is a bit different because they're seeking the problems. I don't think there needs to be a male and a female presence in that field; I think a male or female in that kind of role should be just as capable. In practice, I'd guess female concerns are addressed more often, but I reckon that just mirrors the fact that women's rights are often given more attention than men's. It wouldn't surprise me if a male responsible for gender equality only addressed women's rights.

yawha wrote: »

Is the whole "they-claim-to-be-for-equality-but-really-only-want-to-address-inequalities-affecting-women" argument not just hugely pedantic?

If anything, it just seems like something that might be a little bit annoying rather than discrediting the movements as a whole.

I think it's pretty relevant to the question of whether feminism is fair. It's not exactly pivotal to the question, but it relates to it.

iptba

yawha wrote: »

Is the whole "they-claim-to-be-for-equality-but-really-only-want-to-address-inequalities-affecting-women" argument not just hugely pedantic?

One reason I think it's important is if it's true that a man's rights movement/similar need to highlight and fight injustices/problems that affect men, then this message needs to get out there so that such a movement can build up (and have support to build up).

And also, people need to recognise that simply having a single gender expert/worker dealing with gender issues may not be sufficient if they are a feminist (and similarly if there is a group of individuals, but they're all feminists).

iptba

JamJamJamJam wrote: »

In practice, I'd guess female concerns are addressed more often, but I reckon that just mirrors the fact that women's rights are often given more attention than men's. It wouldn't surprise me if a male responsible for gender equality only addressed women's rights.

If the suggestion was that women wouldn't be so good at spotting things that annoy men, the idea was that the male half of the team would concentrate on addressing men's rights, to give balance.

But I agree in practice because of the current climate and education people receive what you suggest might happen, which is contributing to the imbalance in the area: not alone are women concentrating on spotting injustices against women, but plenty of men (probably the majority) are too.

The Corinthian

yawha wrote: »

If anything, it just seems like something that might be a little bit annoying rather than discrediting the movements as a whole.

So exposing as false a fundamental claim of feminism is 'annoying'? Grand so, it should be no problem to own up to it.

Which rights?

A simple example would relate to the proposed quotas for female candidates; as with any positive discrimination, this by definition means discriminating against another group - in this case men.

A more complex example would be the civil partnership bill - heavily promoted by Irish feminist groups and politicians (Bacik being a case in point) and more specifically the automatic nature of it. On the surface it contains no bias, but given that in Ireland divorce means that men end up being screwed 99% of the time introducing 'palimony' into such a biased system has meant that the option not to get married and be subject to a bigoted family law system is no longer an option or right. Sure, you can (in theory) sign an contract to opt out of this, but if you read the text of the law, this is by no means absolute and may be overturned at the discretion of the aforementioned biased family court system.

Would you like more examples?

JamJamJamJam

iptba wrote: »

If the suggestion was that women wouldn't be so good at spotting things that annoy men, the idea was that the male half of the team would concentrate on addressing men's rights, to give balance.

But I agree in practice because of the current climate and education people receive what you suggest might happen, which is contributing to the imbalance in the area: not alone are women concentrating on spotting injustices against women, but plenty of men (probably the majority) are too.

I actually just e-mailed the UCC Equality Officer asking what campaigns they've run for men's rights and for women's rights throughout the year/plan for next year. Probably won't get a reply since it's summer, but I am curious now.

Feathers

yawha wrote: »

Is the whole "they-claim-to-be-for-equality-but-really-only-want-to-address-inequalities-affecting-women" argument not just hugely pedantic?

Isn't that the entire topic of this thread?

VinLieger

Feathers wrote: »

Isn't that the entire topic of this thread?

Exactly this is the main problem with feminism as a movement today and exactly why it isnt fair anymore, its a radicalised version of what it originally set out to be

yawha

The Corinthian wrote: »

A simple example would relate to the proposed quotas for female candidates; as with any positive discrimination, this by definition means discriminating against another group - in this case men.

No right is really being removed here, getting elected is just made slightly more difficult, and aspiring politicians are a tiny part of the male population. So while I wholly disagree with quotas, I also disagree that they are hugely impacting on the male population as a whole or a huge infringement on rights.

The Corinthian wrote: »

A more complex example would be the civil partnership bill - heavily promoted by Irish feminist groups and politicians (Bacik being a case in point) and more specifically the automatic nature of it. On the surface it contains no bias, but given that in Ireland divorce means that men end up being screwed 99% of the time introducing 'palimony' into such a biased system has meant that the option not to get married and be subject to a bigoted family law system is no longer an option or right. Sure, you can (in theory) sign an contract to opt out of this, but if you read the text of the law, this is by no means absolute and may be overturned at the discretion of the aforementioned biased family court system.

Hmmm, interesting, wasn't aware of the cohabitants aspect of that bill. Gotta say, I disagree strongly with it, and am actually shocked. Nanny statism doesn't even begin to describe it.

However, I would conjecture that feminists probably didn't support the bill in order to ensure women were in more of a position to exploit men at the end of relationships, and would err on the side of this being a terrible, nanny state law with more severe implications for men given the family law bias. Not knowing the facts, I will concede the point though.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Would you like more examples?

Yes I would.

yawha

Feathers wrote: »

Isn't that the entire topic of this thread?

Well, just because they don't campaign for men's rights doesn't make them unfair.

And if they don't campaign for men's rights while claiming to campaign for equality between the sexes, then, depending on your interpretation of "campaign for equality", they might be a little hypocritical, but that doesn't make any of the campaigning for women they do unfair. Some hypocrisy re: their stated goal doesn't imply that any of the work they do is unfair.

If they were to campaign for the reduction of, or with the intent to reduce men's rights, then yes, feminism would be unfair. I am, as of now, unconvinced that this is the case.

iptba

The whole tone of the discussion of the Cohabitees part of the Civil Partnership and Cohabitees bill was people (who would virtually always be women) should have a right to be financially supported or recompensed if such a relationship broke up and they had been financially dependent. But as The Corinthian points out, such rights are at the expense of other people, in this case it would almost always be men who would have to foot the bill - the way it was presented largely ignored that part, almost as if the money would magically appear from somewhere. So I think it's a good example of how rights for women are often closely associated with a loss of rights or freedoms for men, but this isn't always recognised or clearly stated. I never studied politics formally but I remember hearing that if one person gains a right to something, it means somebody else has lost a right e.g. not to do something if they wanted to (or something along those lines).

The cohabitees legislation was also interesting in how it went ahead with so little debate about all aspects of it. Most countries have opt-in civil partnership; Ireland used opt-out, which is pretty impractical i.e. few unmarried men in a relationship would go with their partner and get separate independent legal advice so that both people would agree to opt out - it would be very likely be the kiss of death to the relationship: I'm not sure anybody made the point about the practicalities except on discussions on boards.

Proviso: I don't claim to know every piece of media coverage but I was following a few discussions and media coverage was being highlighted.

Zulu

yawha wrote: »

Is the whole "they-claim-to-be-for-equality-but-really-only-want-to-address-inequalities-affecting-women" argument not just hugely pedantic?

It's difficult to work out what's "fair" without being pedantic.

This might surprise you (I can't say it surprises me), but, sadly, I am still awaiting the support of any "feminists" for my complaint btw.. Frankly not even one has notified me to say they've also complained.

Feathers

yawha wrote: »

Feathers wrote: »

Isn't that the entire topic of this thread?

Well, just because they don't campaign for men's rights doesn't make them unfair.

And if they don't campaign for men's rights while claiming to campaign for equality between the sexes, then, depending on your interpretation of "campaign for equality", they might be a little hypocritical, but that doesn't make any of the campaigning for women they do unfair. Some hypocrisy re: their stated goal doesn't imply that any of the work they do is unfair.

If they were to campaign for the reduction of, or with the intent to reduce men's rights, then yes, feminism would be unfair. I am, as of now, unconvinced that this is the case.

If the parents of two children always gave out to the older child for doing something wrong, but never scolded the younger child: in isolation the treatment of the older is fair, they did something wrong and were disciplined. Would you say though that the two children are treated fairly?

How you define fair/unfair and as you say 'campaign for equality' will all define the above of course. Though keep in mind that 'men's rights' includes the broad right to be treated equally regardless of sex, so campaigning for more lenient sentencing and quotas in the Dáil are affecting men's rights.

Though from the OP:

Dolorous wrote: »

I've often heard it said that feminists are only out for themselves, couldn't care less about equality and don't want to know about men's rights. Would this be a popular perception, and if so how did you arrive at this conclusion? I'm genuinely curious about how men in Ireland feel about it today

Your last post seems to agree that we arrived at this perception because it's true? If that's the case fine, close thread. I've never objected to the idea of women's lobby groups on principle, though would prefer if they're recognised as such (within western/Irish politics) - a pressure group representing their members.

The Corinthian

yawha wrote: »

No right is really being removed here, getting elected is just made slightly more difficult, and aspiring politicians are a tiny part of the male population. So while I wholly disagree with quotas, I also disagree that they are hugely impacting on the male population as a whole or a huge infringement on rights.

Women and men are presently treated equally in politics, if women are at a disadvantage presently it is down to physiological and, in particular, social causes - not because they are treated differently in the selection process. Such quotas mean that men lose the right to be treated equally anymore.

However, I would conjecture that feminists probably didn't support the bill in order to ensure women were in more of a position to exploit men at the end of relationships, and would err on the side of this being a terrible, nanny state law with more severe implications for men given the family law bias.

You may conjecture all you want, however the facts are that Feminists did support the bill and I mentioned Bacik as an example of this as she publicly supported the 'opt-out' nature of the bill.

Yes I would.

I could go on for ages. Some male rights had to be sacrificed (e.g. congeal rights) in the interests of equality. This is not to say that these rights should not have been sacrificed, only that this trade off does occur, regardless of whether it is warranted or not.

And as it is an ongoing process, others are presently being proposed that will further erode men's rights in favour of women. For example, the proposed 'reform' of guardianship in Ireland appears to be on the surface a positive move for men, in that it will be afforded automatically to unmarried fathers.

Yet, if you read the text of the proposals, it also goes on to demote the right of a guardian to a consultative one, instead deferring to the custodial parent (the mother 90% of the time) for actual authority where it comes to decisions relating to the religious and educational upbringing of a child - thus de facto affording women greater rights in respects to their children.

Should this new 'reform' come in, it will result in non-custodial father's (both married and unmarried) losing even the fig-leaf of rights previously afforded by guardianship over the upbringing of their own children.

Yet at this stage, it's probably time you begin to respond to some of the points made to you that you appear to be fastidiously avoiding. For example, in response to your point about the "annoyance" of people pointing out the fallacy of Feminism's commitment to equality, I questioned if exposing as a lie something that has long been a core claim of Feminism can truly be be dismissed as a simple "annoyance" or that if it is so trivial, Feminism should have no problem owning up to it.

Care to address that?

Zulu

Or where I asked:
don't they care about these people? Don't they care that these people are being objectified and debased?? Or is it a case that they just don't care enough? ...why aren't they offended themselves?
(with respect to the objectification of humans in society)

The silence from "Feminists", in general, with respect to these questions is part of the reason why I have issues with the "cause".

The Corinthian

The question being posed in this discussion is simply 'is Feminism fair?'

To be 'fair' requires a large degree of balance, compromise and objectivity and it is clear that Feminism fails dismally on all counts. You cannot claim balance, compromise and objectivity if you only represent one side in any dispute, yet this is precisely what Feminism does; it represents one gender and not the other and makes no pretense at this fact, relying instead on the argument that simply because it is not representing the interests of the other gender that does not necessarily imply it is acting against it.

Which given the trade off that frequently occurs with rights (for one to gain rights, another must often sacrifice them) is a nonsense. It's like going to court and expecting the other party's legal team to be 'fair' - that's not their job, their job is to represent the interests of their client as much as possible, not to sacrifice their client's interests in the pursuit of 'fairness'. Neither is it the job of a trade union to be 'fair' in industrial relations.

And this is ultimately what Feminism does, despite claims to the contrary. Occasionally, Feminism will support issues beyond that scope (as does the trade union movement), however at no point will Feminism (or trade unions) ever support any policy that will act against the interests of who they represent.

A classic example of this is Feminist support of paternity leave. On the surface it supports male rights, but in reality it is only supporting fathers' right to help mothers with the burden of child care - if unmarried, that father may have paternity leave to do so, but will legally be on a par with a hired babysitter; indeed lower, as the babysitter gets paid.

So no, Feminism is not 'fair'. The arguments have been pretty clearly put forward here that it is not remotely so and looking over this thread, the only arguments in favour of Feminism being 'fair' have been the personal opinions of a few of Feminism's apologists, without any rational, let alone evidence, to given back this up.

VinLieger

yawha wrote: »

Yes I would.

How about the complete one sided view the judicial system takes when it comes to divorce and or seperation where over 99% of the time women get the house? http://blog.divorce-online.co.uk/?p=1386
That study also states that in 100% of the cases observed it is the husband who had to pay maintenance on top of losing the house.
It doesnt state the facts for custody but most of us on here are well aware of the issues fathers have when it comes to seperation and custody in this country, basically the courts dont think children need a father

Chimpokomon

The Corinthian wrote: »

You cannot claim balance, compromise and objectivity if you only represent one side in any dispute, yet this is precisely what Feminism does; it represents one gender and not the other and makes no pretense at this fact, relying instead on the argument that simply because it is not representing the interests of the other gender that does not necessarily imply it is acting against it.

Presumably you have the same issue with gay rights groups, racial equality groups etc? They only represent one side of things too.

VinLieger

Chimpokomon wrote: »

Presumably you have the same issue with gay rights groups, racial equality groups etc? They only represent one side of things too.

However they dont make the singular claim to be "for equality" that feminists do and then only support female causes.
Those groups ask for and seek equal rights for their own specific groups and regularly say that.

The Corinthian

Chimpokomon wrote: »

Presumably you have the same issue with gay rights groups, racial equality groups etc? They only represent one side of things too.

Is this an attempt to personalize the discussion? TC is against gays and other races? Nice try.

If you care to go back to my first post in this thread, I pointed out that the aims of equality and the interests of a specific group are aligned as long as that group is clearly disadvantaged in terms of rights.

But this alignment only lasts so long as there is a clear disadvantage for that group, when that group is no longer disadvantaged then the aim to represent that group remains, regardless of whether to do so would also serve equality or not.

The problem is that in Western society today (not fifty years ago and not in Saudi Arabia, which is the usual straw man), that no clear disadvantage exists for women anymore. In reality and on balance, men probably suffer greater disadvantage (certainly legally) and many of those remaining disadvantages are questionable or caused by some of the traditional advantages women have retained.

This of course does not mean that any group that is partisan should be abolished; gays and minority groups need representation because there are clear rights gaps there and they need representation. Everyone does.

But if they were no longer disadvantaged anymore but claimed that they're only perusing equality, then I would be just as critical of them as of Feminism.

In short, a partisan movement loses the right to claim that they're for equality once they reach equality. Women essentially have and in some cases surpassed it.

The Corinthian

VinLieger wrote: »

However they dont make the singular claim to be "for equality" that feminists do and then only support female causes.
Those groups ask for and seek equal rights for their own specific groups and regularly say that.

Indeed. How is seeking to abolish or limit custodial sentences for one gender about equality? The same punishment for the same crime is equality, lesser punishment for the same crime is superiority.

BarackPyjama

Most women I know in Ireland are highly privileged and have exceptional life opportunities. I really don't understand why a feminist movement is necessary in this country. Are we, men, really better off? I don't see it. Anywhere.

Dolbert

Follow-up blog post guys -would you say this is a fair summary? Thanks for everyone's input so far!

http://thefeminerds.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/are-feminists-selfish/

• Feminists claim to seek equality but if they were truly seeking equality, they would also advocate for the rights of men such as in the area of Family law and paternal rights in particular. Feminists only seem to be in it for themselves rather than for true gender equality. This alleged hypocrisy discredits the movement in their eyes.
• They have no problem with feminists as long as they are honest about their seeking ‘advantage’ rather than ‘equality’.
• The example of sexist advertising was raised repeatedly: why do feminists object to ads which are offensive to women but not to men? They see this as feminists having double standards.
• They believe that Irish women have equality and there is thus no real need for feminism in Ireland. They do however recognise that the oppression of women in certain other countries is totally unjust and unacceptable.
• They resent ‘selective feminism’ and witness it regularly.
• Extremist or misandrist feminists do little to help their perceptions of feminism. They often feel that all the world’s ills are blamed on men and that men are told ‘they have it easy’ when in reality, they have problems too.

When we asked why men don’t appear to advocate on their own behalf, here is a rough summary of the reasons they gave:

• Men don’t see themselves as a group or have a sense of being a ‘community’
• They would be seen as whinges and seeking help would portray them as weak
• Lack of awareness and a sense of resignation
• Women’s rights movements often receive financial and moral support from politicians but they don’t believe that men’s rights would receive political support
• Feminists would react strongly and with hostility
• Men who raise issues or complain about inequality or discrimination or speak openly about domestic abuse are met with:
  a) Get over it/grow a pair.
  b) hahahaha
  c) Sure aren’t you bigger than her
  d) You must hate women

Zulu

With respect to this point: The example of sexist advertising was raised repeatedly: why do feminists object to ads which are offensive to women but not to men? They see this as feminists having double standards.

I'd be happier to see it phrased as: The example of sexist advertising was raised repeatedly: why aren't feminists offended by the treatment of men in advertising? Do they simply not care about boys & men? Or do they believe that women are of higher value to society?

The Corinthian

Dolorous wrote: »

Follow-up blog post guys -would you say this is a fair summary? Thanks for everyone's input so far!

http://thefeminerds.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/are-feminists-selfish/

You appear to have gleaned a very selective synopsis of the discussion. For example, you repeatedly point out how men feel Feminism should be addressing men's rights too if it claims to represent equality, yet the point that despite Feminism's opposition to Patriarchy it has only sought to eliminate those patriarchal influences that disadvantage women, it has fastidiously avoided those that advantaged them as a demonstration of this selective 'equality' is ignored.

You appear, as such, to be ignoring evidence or argument and concentrate on these views being simply emotive; words where men "resent" or "see" or "feel" are used repeatedly to almost underline that these views are backed up by nothing, which is patently untrue.

As things stand, all you are saying is men perceive Feminism in a negative fashion and only glibly explain why and instead seem to place the entire culpability on men's own inaction. Anyone who would read your synopsis alone would quickly conclude that such men are mistaken and architects of their own problems.

Furthermore, you've not been entirely neutral in this discussion and have posted on a few occasions, yet you have ignored all responses to your posts. Is there a reason for this?