A different form of sexism

pablomakaveli

So ive been reading through the thread on prostitution and started thinking about this attitude that female prostitutes need to be protected.

It seems there is an attitude that if a woman is a prostitute/pornstar etc that she has been tricked or taken advantage of. Now while this may seem sort of noble on the surface i find it shows that these people think a woman is incapable of thinking for herself, that she needs to be protected from the big bad world.

Its not delibirate sexism but it does seem to be sexism nonetheless. I mean these people never seem concerned with protecting male prostitutes or pornstars.

Without starting a debate on the sex industry does anyone else think this attitude may be more damaging to equal rights for men and women. Am i right in thinking this is a form of sexism?

Morag

It is and it is all over the turn off the red light camp gain of which Ruhuma is the root and that was formed by the order of nuns who ran the Magdalene laundries so the philosophy of them being deluded, wayward women who are sexworkers and need to be saved is perpetuated through out the current discussion and how they slant their services.

18AD

Yes.

Was just reading this yesterday: http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2012/jul/26/india-sex-workers-female-empowerment
Edit: This also: http://jacobinmag.com/2012/08/happy-hookers/

There is clearly an issue around people being forced into the work which needs to be looked at and also of people in unstable mental states being coerced into such activity.

I think the attitude you mention though is interesting. That a woman would only have to be in an unhealthy state of mind to engage in such activity. Not only is it sexist from the perspective you mention but it also, in and of itself, makes little to no sense to me.

I guess that we're in agreement won't deliver much discussion!

RDM_83 again

Logically following from your position in a context where the sale of sex is illegal/semi-legal the prostitute should be facing a higher degree of legal censure than the punter similar to the situation of drug dealer vs drug possessor.
I mean in any other case where the provider who makes a significant financial benefit from the illegal service sets out appealing advertisements of the service to entice users the provider would face much a much harder time.

Its not delibirate sexism but it does seem to be sexism nonetheless. I mean these people never seem concerned with protecting male prostitutes or pornstars.

There's a fairly high degree of this attitude across the board, look at the portrayal of female sex tourists going to the Caribbean etc compared to Males going to Thailand or in an example closer to home the way female targeted strip shows are perceived. Or even on this site, I mean in the Ladies Lounge its a "who makes you drool" while on the male equivalent forum its "Easy on the Eye" the formers a much more objectifying title.
Personally my main issue is the hypocrisy that female sexuality must be judged the on the same level as male e.g the female Slut/ the male Player being unacceptable while at the same time aspects of male behaviour that are considered negatively are judged "safer" or "more complex" when committed by woman two easy examples being the Cougar idea vs the creepy older man or the treatment of female sex offenders (or any of the examples mentioned previously).

A lazy comparison I would make is that off heroin addicts, some users with stable backgrounds and attitudes who are financially ok have long uneventful lives (not underestimating heroins harms even to these people though), their may be a lot of these people but the focus is rightly on those people that are damaged vulnerable and at risk.

The Corinthian

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Its not delibirate sexism but it does seem to be sexism nonetheless.

Is sexism, or any other kind of bias or prejudice ever 'deliberate'? Sure, we can come out with a sexist line to wind up a friend on purpose, only because you know it will wind them up, but you don't actually mean it. But if you really are sexist, do you even realize you are?

I mean these people never seem concerned with protecting male prostitutes or pornstars.

There's two groups that are principally interested in opposing the sex industry (be it prostitution, pornography, stripping, or whatever):

Religious groups. Christian typically, but it depends on where they're based. These tend to still believe is more patriarchal double standards, which argue that men seek sex, while women must be tricked into it.

Additionally, male prostitutes will tend to be overwhelmingly servicing the gay market, so I doubt if religious groups have much sympathy for such dirty, filthy sodomites.

Feminist groups. Feminism seems to be split on this issue, but those who oppose it tend to see it as female exploitation by men and classify all sex for money to be rape. Men in prostitution are an afterthought, because they're really only interested in forwarding he interests of women, so will only pay lip service to men in the sex industry or dismiss them altogether because they make up a minority of the industry.

This has always interested me. If, say, a (perhaps "extremist") feminism group are so fervently against prostitution that they won't entertain arguments regarding its legalisation, are they not, in fact, being sexist? Is it not self-defeating, on a deeply ironic level?

They argue that women should not have the option of becoming a prostitute available to them, and by arguing for the denial of this right — if you believe freedom to choose a lifestyle is a right — they're placing limits on what a woman is allowed to do. It reminds me of affirmative action, in many respects, but in a more blatant and perhaps extreme form; trying to defend women to the point of denying women their own rights.

It's deeply ironic.

The Corinthian

gvn wrote: »

This has always interested me. If, say, a (perhaps "extremist") feminism group are so fervently against prostitution that they won't entertain arguments regarding its legalisation, are they not, in fact, being sexist? Is it not self-defeating, on a deeply ironic level?

Not all Feminism has this position - it does appear to be split on it somewhat.

I'm actually not that pushed on the topic, ether way. My main opinion is that most of the 'studies' on it tend to be little more than propaganda pieces by interested lobby groups and what few independent studies that are out there tend not to come out strongly in favour or against legalization of prostitution. I'd be 'weakly' in favour myself.

But, as one of the other threads here on the subject shows, some people are very passionately opposed to the legalization of prostitution. And when I say passionately, I mean irrationally, belligerently and, frankly, a little insanely.

It does piss me off sometimes when it becomes clear that some of these people really wouldn't care about the issue except that it's women who allegedly suffer.

Chuck Stone

When you think about it - how different are the risks a sex worker takes to those of, say, a logger, a miner or a war correspondent?

People do risky things to make money so why is it that sex work is so taboo?

limklad

I do agree with OP there is sexual discrimination against males with regards to prostitution. It is discrimination not just from Feminism groups but from males too. I do not believe it is a different form of sexism. It is the same form but people will not admit it because they will always believe that women are always the victims and males are always the abusers.

If a male get hurts or abused by a female he probably done something to deserve it.
Males do not need protecting and deserve what the get for been weak.
Males are the only one who abuses.
All sexual contact by males is rape.

These are common quotes I hear from feminism and other males. yet the last two are from mainly extreme feminism groups.

Sexual Inequality goes beyond that, it is inherent in Irish Law and Courts, religions and society (religious or not). For example
This woman who face charges of incest, sexual assault and wilful neglect deserves to have the same punishment as a man for abuses on her children but she got off very very lightly compare to the damage she did to her children. Her children have to live with the consequences of her varied abuses that most of us cannot understand, never mind comprehend in what her children have to live with due to neglect and never got what most families have a stable loved home.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0121/112976-roscommon/
It seems abuse from a non-loving mother who sexual abuses her son and neglect to properly feed, care for clothes and send her multiple kids to school properly is not as bad a one father who rape his daughter. Yet society declare that the child is better off with an abusive mother than with an ok or brilliant father who is denied access to his children. The emotional trauma upon other abuse and neglect the kids have endured and have to live with those consequences that is not their fault for the rest of their lives. The State care less for them and it shows in our Laws and lack of resources even through the boom times of the celtic tiger. The State continues to fail children of abusive mothers with poor laws and consequences for their shameful acts. This sends the wrong signal for children especially teenagers of abusive mothers that the state do not care for them society in general do not care for them.

Males are punish more than females for the same types offences such as child abuse and neglect and assaults on other adults. Males are more likely than females to be prosecuted for the above offences because in the minds of the Police and the State, that the male is more guilty than females. Only extreme cases for women who are prosecuted and that with a big fight from the victims and victims families not to let it lie and die.

I witness a group of women beat a young teenager boy at night because the boy rejected the sexual advances of a drunk woman. He just said "NO WAY". The Police watched the women had their fill of punches and one fat women ran from a distance across the road at him and floored him to the ground and broke his arm. She the other women were not arrested for assault causing bodily harm. Guess, what they arrested the teenage boy for breach of the peace. He did not fight back. He put up his arms to try to reflect their punches away with palms out in front in a non threatening manner. He now have a record for refusing to have sex while the abusive women gets away scott free.

Here a boy say no to a girl for sex and get assaulted and people especially females find it funny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKzy7Cxzx10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4ymW8rF9HM

I have seen a man publicly ridicule with loud shouting and abuse in a pub one night by a number of females over a similar issue with an issue with a protection of young barely teenage boys from their aggressive mother who drinks heavily and abuses her boys. One I have known as a child of a very natural quite boy, the mother claims is too timid and she want to toughen him up. He refuses to steal for her and gets punished for refusing to steal. The other son played hurling for the local club and is good at it, but problems at home force him to emigrate to the US when he was 18 where a relative (most assume the father who was a US citizen) brought him to come over to get away from the abuse. The same mother encourage her daughters to publicly ridicule and beat their brothers even in public. That was in the late 80's. The younger son committed suicide in his late teens. Today females are far more aggressive in public and assertive in open society and males are less likely to defend themselves because then they are accused as causing the breach of the peace and more likely arrested than females for assaults.

There been too many stories of mothers who aggressively defend their husbands who sexual abuses his daughter/s. and the denails and attacks from her damages the abused daughter lives even more.

Males get a raw deal when it comes to separations when kids are involve. Irish Law and courts and society favours women to look after children
Society members often thinks males at home looking after children is strange when the woman is work and the bread winner and thinks he is weak and deserves to be threaten badly with abuse because she wears the pants therefore the boss.

Here a female teacher beat a her male student and the laughter of the other kids is highly noticeable in the background is loud female kids laughing.

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

Kids grow up thinking abuse from females is ok as long it towards the males. I remember as a kid in the 80's an old woman roar at a man to beat his wife because she consider was disobedient and had different views to the old woman and her husband. All she wanted was equal rights and true fairness and respect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ8CiHFqhF8

Here is a set-up by a ABC news to test females and public reaction when abuse happen when reverse roles when a woman is beating a man in public.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks

So after things I mentioned above, If you want male prostitutes who are manipulated and sexually taken advantage by randy women to have the same protection under law as female prostitutes, then you probably have to leave this country with embarrassment probably Antarctica. The people (both equally males and females) will laugh at you and think you are a misguided individual and probably need to go to see a shrink.

I am fully in favour in equal rights and same punishments without regardless of sex, age or race or status in Irish Law and Courts. But that is dream that will never come to reality on my part and children will be the real victims and have to live with the consequences of our inactions and denials that the woman is always right and can do no wrong and that the man is always at fault and should be punished.

Look how long it took females groups to get politicians to admit domestic abuse from husbands should be a criminal offence and to get the Gardai to investigate them. It took a very very long time. I very doubt that more female wife abuser will be charge with domestic abuse. In that contexts and stories I mentioned above and videos, you are not likely to get any protection for male prostitutes who are sexual abused by females.

Statistics gathers is skewed and is flawed from an early stage due to people lying and miss-interpretation and actions. There are too many flaws and interpretations due to skewed view when looking at data. I look at data and looks for faults. I look for the initial reasons for collecting the data to check for skewed errors in logic for collecting or omissions of data collection that would effect the data collected. If you look at the data collected for sexual encounters, Women are knowingly lie how many sexual partners she has. She downplays the number to save public embarrassment. Quite frankly it no other people business as long it is not rape. But data collected from her may have disastrous consequences if use especially when it comes to rape.

This is a view from a Canadian who country is far more liberal than here
over many decades and her analysis of their gender inequality legislations and in the courts (Judges).

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

She feel the system is unfairly bias towards females, not males, which makes male prostitutes need for protection far down the arse of the barrel of problematic list that needs to be resolved.

It is the same here in Ireland, we have the same gender inequality intertwined in our law and Justice system and in the fabric of our society. Male prostitutes who are sexual abuse by randy women are less likely to be punished than women who rape young boys or assaults men in the balls who refuse to have sex with them.

T runner

Morag wrote: »

It is and it is all over the turn off the red light camp gain of which Ruhuma is the root and that was formed by the order of nuns who ran the Magdalene laundries so the philosophy of them being deluded, wayward women who are sexworkers and need to be saved is perpetuated through out the current discussion and how they slant their services.

Nonsense. Can you substantiate any of this? I see from social media campaigns that the "turn off the red light" campaign is being promoted by the Immigrant Council of Ireland.

clairefontaine

pablomakaveli wrote: »

So ive been reading through the thread on prostitution and started thinking about this attitude that female prostitutes need to be protected.

It seems there is an attitude that if a woman is a prostitute/pornstar etc that she has been tricked or taken advantage of. Now while this may seem sort of noble on the surface i find it shows that these people think a woman is incapable of thinking for herself, that she needs to be protected from the big bad world.

Its not delibirate sexism but it does seem to be sexism nonetheless. I mean these people never seem concerned with protecting male prostitutes or pornstars.

Without starting a debate on the sex industry does anyone else think this attitude may be more damaging to equal rights for men and women. Am i right in thinking this is a form of sexism?

Yes there is that attitude. I would also have that attitude too, particularly to run away girls or rent boys.

But I would also have it towards the slave labour migrant workers in Dubai and other parts of the world.

Yes I believe all these people are vulnerable and get manipulated.

Is that a patronising stance? Maybe it is. I don't know, but it is what I believe.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yes I believe all these people are vulnerable and get manipulated.

Is that a patronising stance? Maybe it is. I don't know, but it is what I believe.

I wouldn't be so worried about it being patronizing as it being irrational.

The question is why do you believe that all these people are vulnerable and get manipulated? Or how are those who are in Dubai relevant to those in a Western nation, where attitudes and law are drastically different? Or if there are some, most or even all who are vulnerable and get manipulated, why is prohibition the best way to deal with the issue?

The thing that I find most disturbing about this topic is actually how such views are often held almost like articles of faith, backed up by often transparently biased and manipulated 'academic' reports that invariably are not taken seriously by anyone other than others who share the same articles of faith. It's become an ideological, almost religious (literally so for some), crusade rather than a genuine attempt to manage a social phenomenon.

Whenever one finds that they 'believe' in something without really being able to articulate why or relying upon only the evidence that supports this belief, should warning bells be ringing in the mind of any rational human being?

clairefontaine

The OP did not specify western women so I assumed this was a global position.

Nonetheless, there are weaker, poorer, more uneducated people, including children who do need protection from the big bad world. That is why we have legislation.

OP asked if it was a sexist position. Well it might be in some cases and not in others. Hard to say.

I'm just saying where I am coming from when I have the attitude that these people need protection.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

The OP did not specify western women so I assumed this was a global position.

They did, although you may not have been aware of it, as they were citing another thread discussing the moves to criminalize the clients of prostitution in Ireland.

Nonetheless, there are weaker, poorer, more uneducated people, including children who do need protection from the big bad world. That is why we have legislation.

Actually legislation is not simply for the weaker, poorer, more uneducated people, including children who do need protection from the big bad world - it's for the benefit of everyone. Many have lost sight of this nowadays.

OP asked if it was a sexist position. Well it might be in some cases and not in others. Hard to say.

It is and for the reason I cited above - where support for such legislation, as above, is coming from; both demonstrably sexist groups.

I'm just saying where I am coming from when I have the attitude that these people need protection.

Totally agree; just as everyone needs protection. The question is what type of protection and who; and this is the bone of contention.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

They did, although you may not have been aware of it, as they were citing another thread discussing the moves to criminalize the clients of prostitution in Ireland.

Actually legislation is not simply for the weaker, poorer, more uneducated people, including children who do need protection from the big bad world - it's for the benefit of everyone. Many have lost sight of this nowadays.

It is and for the reason I cited above - where support for such legislation, as above, is coming from; both demonstrably sexist groups.

Totally agree; just as everyone needs protection. The question is what type of protection and who; and this is the bone of contention.

Ok well if the legislation is only around patroning female prositututes than yes it is sexist, because rent boys need protection too. But if it's also protecting rent boys, than I think that is fair enough. And they should be protected.

Of course the underside of this is the very hard to cite and document the classicism in the Irish judiciary. But I guess that falls out the sexist cataogory and into something else.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Ok well if the legislation is only around patroning female prositututes than yes it is sexist, because rent boys need protection too. But if it's also protecting rent boys, than I think that is fair enough. And they should be protected.

Yes, but that does not mean that the law is not also sexist because the group it principally benefits is principally of one gender.

For example, the 'automatic' nature of the cohabitation act's rights for assets and maintenance from a partner are also on the surface gender neutral, until you look at family law and realize that those who will benefit are overwhelmingly of one gender.

Just because something is gender neutral on the surface, doesn't mean it is in practice.

Of course the underside of this is the very hard to cite and document the classicism in the Irish judiciary. But I guess that falls out the sexist cataogory and into something else.

Presently this has little to do with the Irish judiciary - it's still in the realm of lobby groups and their agendas.

clairefontaine

Well, it's no secret there have historically been gaps between de jure and defacto laws, but de jure is a start isn't it?

I don't really know in practise, de facto, how much prosecution would actually take place against people, probably men, soliciting prositutes either male or female, except as the state purse starts to shrink and tighten they need more revenue so will look for more and more things to criminalise.

Saying that criminalisation costs money, it means more judges, more legal aid, more enforcements costs.

So this may all come to nothing in the end, but to re iterate my answer to the OP, it is sexist if it only protects female prostitutes and not rent boys, both need protection.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Well, it's no secret there have historically been gaps between de jure and defacto laws, but de jure is a start isn't it?

I completely agree, but if we were to look at the case for introducing quotas in politics/business, I would imagine that those laws to address would be those that force women into sacrificing their careers for their family, not laws that leave the status quo and allow women to do both.

Reform the law, but don't do so unjustly.

I don't really know in practise, de facto, how much prosecution would actually take place against people, probably men, soliciting prositutes either male or female, except as the state purse starts to shrink and tighten they need more revenue so will look for more and more things to criminalise.

If the Swedish example is anything to go by, very, very few will get anything other than a fine, but that's not really the point - the point is if it makes sense in the first place and this is quite questionable and there appears to be very little actual debate on the subject - apparently, the recent Dail committee set up to discuss this refused to allow Irish sex workers representation.

Saying that criminalisation costs money, it means more judges, more legal aid, more enforcements costs.

Actually, I think those would be the least of the potential problems.

So this may all come to nothing in the end, but to re iterate my answer to the OP, it is sexist if it only protects female prostitutes and not rent boys, both need protection.

But is that protection better served by regulation, prohibition or something else again?

clairefontaine

I guess their thinking is if they cut off the money supply, which comes from the person looking for services, then they will eventually corrode the business.

I'm not really sure how this works with other illegal things, like if you buy drugs or under the table cigarettes and booze, if it's the supplier or the consumer or both who get fined and or prosecuted.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

I guess their thinking is if they cut off the money supply, which comes from the person looking for services, then they will eventually corrode the business.

That was the idea behind the Volstead act too, and that didn't work out so well.

My problem with the whole idea of the criminalization of clients is that there's practically no objective debate on the subject or the subject of prostitution in general. You keep on seeing 'reports' being published, strongly against the trade, which on closer examination use very flawed methodology and the authors (if you do a quick Goggle on them) invariably are linked to feminist or religious pressure groups with an ideological stance against prostitution. That it is almost always framed to exclude male prostitution or the repeated dismissal by such groups or reports of organizations that represent sex workers (and the rights they're actually seeking) further adds to my scepticism of such sources as being ideologically rather than scientifically motivated.

Objective reports are hard to come by. When this debate started in another thread, I found it very difficult to find any that did not trace back to some interested party or other. One I did find (associated with the German Bundespolizei), largely concluded that trafficking did increase somewhat (due to demand increase outstripping supply) but that overall regulation also significantly improved the conditions and safety of sex workers.

That's why I'd consider myself 'weakly' against decriminalization, because the positive of decriminalization may not merit the negative. Or not, because as I said, it's very difficult to get unbiased studies to compare this against.

However, the criminalization of clients I certainly would oppose. It targets men overwhelmingly, which is not a surprising response by religious (as men are filthy sinners) or feminist (as men are not women) groups behind such demands. Many of these men go to prostitutes out of loneliness, disability or many other reasons (as attested by Dr Derek Freedman to the committee reviewing this) - it turns out there are men who are also 'vulnerable', who would be turned into criminals - a clear case of failing to give "protection from the big bad world" to those we are supposed to give it to. That is why we have legislation - remember?

And for what? To drive it further underground (all that's happened in Sweden is that it's no longer visible), potentially making it even more dangerous for both client and sex worker?

And what of the sex worker? It is unbelievably arrogant to believe that none of them choose to work in that industry; sure, they might be forced into it by economic circumstances, but what if they can't? Where will they earn their money? Or should we criminalize every occupation that is dangerous or unpleasant - or just those occupations dominated by women? Another hint at the sexist nature of this plan.

There seems to be far too much social legislation being driven by ideologically motivated lobby groups and ideologues nowadays - just as the Volstead act once was. That's not a healthy situation for any democracy.

clairefontaine

I think if you were going to do that and make it legal, then you would also need to loosen up gun control so that service providers could have means of self defence on the job and against their bosses who may force them to consent even in situations where they don't want to.

You have obviously given this a lot of thought, way more than I have, as I haven't researched into studies, but I have seen young prostitutes and rent boys around bus stations and run aways and drug addicts, and they seem lost and vulnerable to me and a very sad life.

I get what you are saying about pushing things underground, many prohibitions have back fired but then so has regulation too, so I don't really have an answer for you there. I can also see your points about why men would use prostitutes or rent boys. Though I find the idea of strolling around public toilets in a public park pursuing 16 year olds utterly reprehensible and that is something I don't think I can really accept as ok.

But to again address the OP and also address your concerns, I don't think its a political malignancy to acknowledge vulnerabilities belonging to men or women by labelling them sexist in either direction. Obviously many disagree with that stance, that is my personal aberration. I still offer my seat to the elderly and don't fear being called an ageist or pregnant women without being yelled at that it's not a disability, so maybe I am not the right kind of person to answer the question. We all have our vulnerabilities.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

I think if you were going to do that and make it legal, then you would also need to loosen up gun control so that service providers could have means of self defence on the job and against their bosses who may force them to consent even in situations where they don't want to.

I'm not convinced that legalization is the answer either. More correctly, that would have been my position before I read up a bit more on the subject and what that succeeded in doing is convincing me that it's too complex a subject for me to make a call on it; unless I really wanted to become a (more than Internet debating) expert on it.

I get what you mean about street prostitution, and while I'd like to say this is a result of criminalization, the reality is that I've seen it in countries where it's legal and regulated. In such countries brothels do appear to have significantly better conditions and, I've certainly seen prostitutes on flights from eastern Europe travelling to cities like Frankfurt, Vienna or Zurich who are very definitely not being trafficked. Yet, I believe, even in regulated environments there are still problems.

Then again, one thing that many people tend to forget is that there are a lot of jobs that are unpleasant or dangerous in the World. Few grow up with the intention of becoming sewage workers or bin-men, or consider them 'pleasant'. And a career as a miner or soldier is significantly more dangerous than prostitution.

What pisses me off is no one seems to care unless the job has something to do with sex or is principally a female occupation. And that's why this topic is sexist, because it wouldn't even be a topic if it was men mainly doing this - no one would frankly care.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then again, one thing that many people tend to forget is that there are a lot of jobs that are unpleasant or dangerous in the World. Few grow up with the intention of becoming sewage workers or bin-men, or consider them 'pleasant'. And a career as a miner or soldier is significantly more dangerous than prostitution.

What pisses me off is no one seems to care unless the job has something to do with sex or is principally a female occupation. And that's why this topic is sexist, because it wouldn't even be a topic if it was men mainly doing this - no one would frankly care.

This is historical and tied up with class hierarchies. I will venture somewhat off topic for a minute. My sense is that all sorts of "honourable" attributes were and are tied into both a work ethic and the military to get young capable men to make a lot of money for old rich men, and inso doing risk their lives and their health and I personally call cobblers on that. It's preserving an old serfdom.

However, prostitution transcends this because it's around women and sex and that has never been "honourable" but strictly moralised and controlled and pretty damned dirty. There is no "honor" in sex for women, other than withholding it. Historically too, and I'd have to dig out the books for this, Europe has turned an ambivalent eye on it, in order to keep the sewer out of the palace. I believe Aquinas came out with some statement about prostitutes being necessary so men don't go around raping the nice women. So prostitution also has it's roots in a type of misandry too along side a judgement on women.

And to go back off topic for a minute, this is why I find both feminism and masculinism suspicious and myopic, [not to mention ideologically continuing an intellectual gender apartheid] because you cannot exclude one gender class and race from the bigger pictures nevermind each other.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

And to go back off topic for a minute, this is why I find both feminism and masculinism suspicious and myopic, [not to mention ideologically continuing an intellectual gender apartheid] because you cannot exclude one gender class and race from the bigger pictures nevermind each other.

I'd completely agree there and add that masculinism is largely a reaction to feminisms increasing influence within society - when you have a movement that seeks to represent the rights and interests of only one gender, often at the detriment of the other, it is inevitable that the other gender will eventually defend itself.

After all, we want to move away from being a patriarchy, but we don't want to instead become a matriarchy either, do we?

Personally I see masculinism as a temporary thing. But unfortunately a necessary one because at this stage a counterbalance is necessary to feminisms influence today. Given time, my hope is that opposition between the two will eventually see people on both sides abandon their partisan movements and seek a third, inclusive, one.

But for now you need that opposition, otherwise there's absolutely no incentive whatsoever for one to choose compromise.

clairefontaine

What?

That's like the KKK saying they need to stick around to balance the Al Sharpton's black radicals.

No you don't it just creates more apartheid.

And it's not just about rights -it's about dignity too but these equality fanatics seem to like to lower the bar, not raise it.These equality fanatics completely lose perspective.

Also I don't like women activists who claim to speak for me, and I'm sure there are men who don't want male activists speaking for them.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

That's like the KKK saying they need to stick around to balance the Al Sharpton's black radicals.

No, you seem to be under the false belief that masculinism can be equated to the KKK or that it is only radical feminists who propose misandrist policies.

While you'll find a lot of misogyny in many masculinist groups, it's frankly no more than the level misandry you find in feminist groups nowadays - judging all masculinism on the basis of a few idiot sound-bytes on the Internet would be exactly the same as judging feminism on the same type of sound-bytes you'll often find on the same Internet.

And many of the 'radical' policies proposed by feminism are no longer simply being put forward by 'radical' feminists - the abolition of custodial sentences for women (a horrifically offensive and sexist idea) has been happily promoted by 'mainstream' feminists, not members of SCUM.

And it's not just about rights -it's about dignity too but these equality fanatics seem to like to lower the bar, not raise it.These equality fanatics completely lose perspective.

But these 'equality fanatics' are speaking from a position where there is absolutely no interest in government to do anything about even the most basic of human rights for men (such as father's rights), while resources are constantly being diverted in favour of human rights for women.

Also I don't like women activists who claim to speak for me, and I'm sure there are men who don't want male activists speaking for them.

Perhaps not, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation which is that men's rights are not even on the agenda, let alone being effectively addressed, as with women's rights. In such an environment, a backlash is inevitable and, as I said, probably necessary because otherwise things are going to get worse for men, not better.

clairefontaine

I don't judge feminism on a few clips from the internet. For one thing, I have been around since before the internet and I do read three dimensional literature and was educated. I have seen, heard and read enough to make a judgement call. Many would disagree, but that is how I see it.

Example: I don't appreciate girls being told they have to be lesbians to be free. I don't appreciate Gloria Steinem saying women need abortions more than they need smear tests. I really want no part of it.

I've also heard feminists say you know we will have reached equality when there are many women on death row as there are men.

Or even your example of custodial sentences. Why is this even a gender issue? Shouldn't prison reform be looked at anyway? We know it doesn't work, bringing gender into is a divisive distraction.

Would you like to see boys told they have to be gay to be free from the women who are oppressing them?

Are you suggesting that one of the concerns of the masculinist is that men will be targeted for patroning prostitutes? That the law of punishing the person doing the hiring is a sexist law since it's men who do the hiring? Well isn't that premise sexist itself, presuming that it's men doing the hiring? It probably is men doing the hiring but you can't complain about sexism and practise it yourself in your ideology. Also your examples of the lonely and the disabled man who seek out the prostitute, well this I can imagine easily, but what about the disabled and the lonely women, do they seek them out too or is there just not a service available or do we just not know about it?

I can't see how masculinism wont also go down the same divisive sinister road. So no thank you.

If you tie yourself to one ideology you are onto a losing game.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

I don't judge feminism on a few clips from the internet. For one thing, I have been around since before the internet and I do read three dimensional literature and was educated. I have seen, heard and read enough to make a judgement call. Many would disagree, but that is how I see it.

As do I, which is why I am questioning your assessment of masculism as being akin to the KKK any more than feminism is? If you're so well read, is Warren Farrell a misogynist, as he has been painted by many feminists? Or that many of the 'rights' now being demanded by feminism are in any way just, especially in light of the, frankly, basic rights of men that are still being ignored?

If so, I'd have to question how well read you really are.

Or even your example of custodial sentences. Why is this even a gender issue? Shouldn't prison reform be looked at anyway? We know it doesn't work, bringing gender into is a divisive distraction.

I agree, but the problem is it is being sold as a gender issue, and what's worse it's not being sold by fringe, extremist feminists, but by the 'mainstream' ones who are part of our government.

Faced with a situation where what was once considered extremist misandry is now becoming not only 'mainstream' but supported by the organs of the state, what exactly would you suggest that men - or women - do to deal with this?

The answer, unfortunately, men seeking to represent ourselves - it's clear that feminism does not - so would you prefer we stay silent for fear of being labelled misogynists?

Would you like to see boys told they have to be gay to be free from the women who are oppressing them?

The frightening thing is that something like that is increasingly happening.

Faced with a system that actively discriminates against us in family law, men are just avoiding going into that situation. In Ireland, we're no longer able to do this by not marrying - as even being in a relationship long enough makes you subject to those same discriminatory policies.

As a man, living in Ireland, avoiding any serious relationship and getting a vasectomy - or simply becoming celibate - is your only option if you want to avoid the life-destroying consequences that can take place when a relationship ends.

You can hardly deny that the number of men expressing such views have been increasing in recent years. Do you think it comes out of nowhere?

I can't see how masculinism wont also go down the same divisive sinister road. So no thank you.

If you tie yourself to one ideology you are onto a losing game.

So what do you suggest? What is the alternative? Do you seriously think that feminism has any intention of not being gender-partisan? Or that a gender-neutral movement will magically come out of nowhere?

It hasn't, it won't and now things have gotten to the point that it cannot be ignored any more. And it's likely going to get a lot uglier before we do finally cop onto ourselves and work together - regrettable, but at this stage it appears inevitable.

clairefontaine

The only thing you can do is take things up with your legislators, who are men I believe, but this will all depend on how much state interference you want in solving your problems.

Good luck with it all.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

The only thing you can do is take things up with your legislators, who are men I believe, but this will all depend on how much state interference you want in solving your problems.

Who is to take things up with the legislators then? That's why I asked you what do you suggest?

You've stated that you find "both feminism and masculinism suspicious and myopic", yet as I've pointed out, where it comes to lobby-groups, government equality bodies and those legislators who have any interest in the subject, they are all gynocentric - regardless of their gender.

If you can suggest a viable alternative for dealing with this sexism than a masculinist counterbalance, I'm all ears - but telling me "good luck with it" and doing a runner on the discussion just demonstrates that you cannot.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Who is to take things up with the legislators then? That's why I asked you what do you suggest?

You've stated that you find "both feminism and masculinism suspicious and myopic", yet as I've pointed out, where it comes to lobby-groups, government equality bodies and those legislators who have any interest in the subject, they are all gynocentric - regardless of their gender.

If you can suggest a viable alternative for dealing with this sexism than a masculinist counterbalance, I'm all ears - but telling me "good luck with it" and doing a runner on the discussion just demonstrates that you cannot.

A lot of where one stands with this stuff will depend on where one stands with the role of the state in the first place [that is once one figures out the difference between what is oppression and what is just unfortunate] and how much state inference you want in these things.

It will of course also depend on the characteristics of your government, how slow or fast they are to change things, the structures themselves, the functionality of the judiciary [not to mention those who legislate from the bench].

I don't know what they are lobbying in there for women or for men, but if you really do see injustices than take it up with your legislators, and by that I mean YOU do it, issue by issue, rather than taking another partiality splinter group which reinforces more apartheid.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

A lot of where one stands with this stuff will depend on where one stands with the role of the state in the first place [that is once one figures out the difference between what is oppression and what is just unfortunate] and how much state inference you want in these things.

Where one stands and the actual reality are two different things, and unfortunately we must live in the latter World.

I don't know what they are lobbying in there for women or for men, but if you really do see injustices than take it up with your legislators, and by that I mean YOU do it, issue by issue, rather than taking another partiality splinter group which reinforces more apartheid.

There is a limit to what an individual can do, especially where the cards are already stacked against them. You may see organizing as simply creating a splinter group, but what else would you suggest - join with feminism which is often positively hostile twoards many men's rights? Or what? All ears.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Where one stands and the actual reality are two different things, and unfortunately we must live in the latter World.

There is a limit to what an individual can do, especially where the cards are already stacked against them. You may see organizing as simply creating a splinter group, but what else would you suggest - join with feminism which is often positively hostile twoards many men's rights? Or what? All ears.

You could always work from the inside as a double agent. :pac:

Seriously though, once you start thinking that individuals don't have the means to change what they don't like, even if just a little bit, then you are building barriers in your own head. There was an article in psychology today about this in relation to women a couple of months ago, but I have forgotten the title and can't find it now. I will see if I can try to find it again. It's worth looking at.

Feminism or women's rights activists have been working on things for over a century. Things take time,sometimes longer than a few lifetimes. And those are in countries that are open to change and reform, nevermind a country that introduced divorce fairly recently.

But again, I'm an abberation and look at things more issue based. The right to vote for example was obscured by making it a gender issue, when in fact it was also a class, race and property issue. On top of that, being generally nervous about adopting blanket ideologies, whichever ones they may be.

And Im not a particular fan of post 1960s feminism so I would hardly be one of masculinism either.

You haven't been specific about what discriminatory laws you want to see changed, given the topic of this thread, do you mean to say the right not to get fined if you solicit a prostitute because are mostly men who would be vulnerable to this punishment? Can you not see how that could be argued to also be a misandrist angle?

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

But again, I'm an abberation and look at things more issue based. The right to vote for example was obscured by making it a gender issue, when in fact it was also a class, race and property issue. On top of that, being generally nervous about adopting blanket ideologies, whichever ones they may be.

I'd agree with you. Ideally, there would be no feminism or mascalism and people would pursue gender equality in neutral terms, finding compromise between the rights and responsibilities of both genders.

But unfortunately we don't live in that World; we live in a World where feminism pursues a gynocentric agenda, irrespective of the principle of equality and there is presently no counterbalance to this. Neither will one magically appear as there is no incentive for one to do so.

In this context, one is simply left with the option of an adversarial system, each representing their constituency, in the hope that eventually both will decide that neither can win and instead opt for that third path - that aforementioned incentive.

As I asked, if you think there is a viable alternative to this, I'm all ears.

You haven't been specific about what discriminatory laws you want to see changed, given the topic of this thread, do you mean to say the right not to get fined if you solicit a prostitute because are mostly men who would be vulnerable to this punishment? Can you not see how that could be argued to also be a misandrist angle?

Of course I can see that, just as the cohabitation act is ultimately misandrist in light of the current bias against men in family law. For me, it's just another in a long list of examples of how men are de facto targeted so that "vulnerable women" (and not 'people', as they are described on sites supporting this initiative) may be protected.

However, I also believe there are far more fundamental issues out there, such as in family law - not only fathers rights but also the entire institution of marriage that essentially puts men in lifelong indentured servitude through divorce. Or the de jure inequalities in law, that will charge a 30-year old woman with sexual abuse for having sex with a 12-year old boy, but switch the genders and the charge become the far more serious charge of rape. Or even laws that specifically give more lenient sentences for the same crime if the person convicted is a woman. Or how biology should be ignored where it comes to women's rights, yet biology is used to deny men rights.

And this list is not getting shorter, it's getting longer as new laws - billed to protect "vulnerable women" or women's rights are introduced that penalize men rather than deal with the reason for the perceived inequality in the first place - the quotas are an excellent example of this because pretty much everyone agrees that female representation in politics or business is principally down to patriarchal roles in the family. Yet, rather than address this root cause, and potentially remove the present monopoly of rights to childcare that women presently enjoy, another approach is chosen so women may have both.

Feminism stopped being about 'equality' a while ago, and became about 'choice'. For women. That is the problem.

The proposed prostitution initiative is frankly a minor issue for me, as it does not affect me, nor that many men - I'd have more objection to it on the basis that it'll likely make things worse. But it comes on the back of so many other issues and is underlining how men are actually losing more and more rights and not even in the interests of equality any more.

clairefontaine

There's a lot to talk about in what you posted.

I assume you are talking about an Irish context here.

Marriage and cohabitation. Let's start with that one. No one is forced to get married, that is a choice and unlike women once upon a time, men are not dependant on marriage for livlihood. It's hard for me to take that seriously as a point of oppression. Now with gay marriage issue, when I hear of so many men wanting to get married, I thought it might be the apocolypse. :)The broader question might be, though radical, why is there marriage in the first place? What place does the state have in relationship?

Cohabitation bill. Yes it's a crock of ****. Again, more state interference that cherry picks marriage and very obviously financially motivated. If it weren't you would see the rights of marriage universally applied, as in spousal visa rights, etc. But you don't -it's basically about palimony.


Quotas. Again the state interfering with the democratic process. What's next, traveller quotas, disability quotas, gay quotas, ethnic minority quotas? How this is even a viable option put on the table is beyond me. More evidence of a bunch of communists running things inside government.

Rape laws and minors. Agree with you there, blatant discrimination. Must be changed.

Sentencing and leniency. Well I have to say, I think this is very class based. Look at the pedo and rapist charges over all, very light. I think probably a connected man will get far lighter sentence than a man with the wrong address. You'd have to cross correlate your sentencing analysis with class in Ireland. Just as you would with class and race in the US.

Family law and children. This is complicated. You mention father's rights. I've heard alot about this. But...if you read the LL on the maternity thread, if you look at the Children's Rights referendum, and the new reporting laws that mandate people snitch on their neighbours, it sort of smacks to me that no one has particularly more rights over their children than the Irish state does. It even sometimes appears to me, that mothers are seen as babysitters for the state with the current government. I've heard arguments for the abolition of family court altogether, mostly from American libertarians, and there is some sense in them, but I don't know. Because we can't actually access the facts of cases I can't make a call on that, it's all hearsay. You could argue about the problem of enforcement, but that is an overall problem with Irish courts too isn't it?

And another thing, the risk of being hoisted on your own petard. Take car insurance. So, the result was not that men get their rates lowered, but that women get their rates increased. Now, in so many cases with stay at home mothers and fathers with daughter, guess who is paying more for car insurance? So men are probably now more out of pocket than they were. Same as feminism, the blah blah blah about equality can end up in a situation, where the bar on dignity is lowered and everyone loses out.

Overall though, change is hard here with the status quo in Ireland and making any adjustments is like climbing a mountain made of ice and that is for anyone who is outside their cozy little circle of the fascists and communists currently in government. I would tackle it from a state interference point of view, rather than more gender apartheid.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

I assume you are talking about an Irish context here.

Naturally, although you'll find similar issues in many other nations.

Marriage and cohabitation. Let's start with that one. No one is forced to get married, that is a choice and unlike women once upon a time, men are not dependant on marriage for livlihood. It's hard for me to take that seriously as a point of oppression.

I never said anyone was forced to get married, although with the cohabitation bill, that's effectively what happens on a financial level. I was pointing out an area of blatant inequality that exists when you do.

Sentencing and leniency. Well I have to say, I think this is very class based. Look at the pedo and rapist charges over all, very light. I think probably a connected man will get far lighter sentence than a man with the wrong address. You'd have to cross correlate your sentencing analysis with class in Ireland. Just as you would with class and race in the US.

I think you misunderstood my point. I meant that laws exist that literally give different sentencing guidelines, for the same crime, based on gender.

For example, in this past case, the convicted party got 7 years because that was the maximum allowed for a woman. Had it been a man, it would have been a life sentence.

Family law and children. This is complicated. You mention father's rights. I've heard alot about this. But...if you read the LL on the maternity thread, if you look at the Children's Rights referendum, and the new reporting laws that mandate people snitch on their neighbours, it sort of smacks to me that no one has particularly more rights over their children than the Irish state does. It even sometimes appears to me, that mothers are seen as babysitters for the state with the current government. I've heard arguments for the abolition of family court altogether, mostly from American libertarians, and there is some sense in them, but I don't know. Because we can't actually access the facts of cases I can't make a call on that, it's all hearsay. You could argue about the problem of enforcement, but that is an overall problem with Irish courts too isn't it?

I don't follow - you're a bit all over the place here.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

And another thing, the risk of being hoisted on your own petard. Take car insurance. So, the result was not that men get their rates lowered, but that women get their rates increased. Now, in so many cases with stay at home mothers and fathers with daughter, guess who is paying more for car insurance? So men are probably now more out of pocket than they were. Same as feminism, the blah blah blah about equality can end up in a situation, where the bar on dignity is lowered and everyone loses out.

I'm not familiar with Irish car insurance, however my experience of insurance in general is that it tends not to go down. If it increased for both, then I suspect the insurance companies chanced their arms at an across the board increase and got away with it.

Overall though, change is hard here with the status quo in Ireland and making any adjustments is like climbing a mountain made of ice and that is for anyone who is outside their cozy little circle of the fascists and communists currently in government. I would tackle it from a state interference point of view, rather than more gender apartheid.

That's an interesting angle, as much of the problem does seem to trace back to lobby-group backed social policies which are then enacted by the government.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you misunderstood my point. I meant that laws exist that literally give different sentencing guidelines, for the same crime, based on gender.

For example, in this past case, the convicted party got 7 years because that was the maximum allowed for a woman. Had it been a man, it would have been a life sentence.

.

I am familiar with that case. I have also seen sex offender sentencing be all over the place, there was a recent one that made headlines because a father got a suspended sentence for life long raping of his daughter.

I have no idea what the maximum sentence is for fathers or men but saying that, it looks to me like this area really needs an entire overhaul.

The problem in my opinion of framing it as an inequality issue, is you risk the maximum sentence being 7 years for men too. You have equality, but that does not mean you have suitable justice. So you have to decide if your issue is with the discrimination or with the sentencing itself.

If your problem is with the sentencing of this woman, yes the law is discriminatory, but wouldn't it be far more productive to overhaul all of the sentencing and get it done in one framework? That way you can bring about more suitable sentencing for both men and women? I would have a problem in general with Irish sentencing of sex offenders.

Car insurance was changed because of an EU directive. So you have equality but you have more families out of pocket now. And you risk precedent because younger drivers can cry age discrimination, so that will elevate the cost for everyone too. You could also argue this is the government sticking its fingers into small business again.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

The problem in my opinion of framing it as an inequality issue, is you risk the maximum sentence being 7 years for men too. You have equality, but that does not mean you have suitable justice. So you have to decide if your issue is with the discrimination or with the sentencing itself.

I think this point is a bit of a red herring. Such discriminatory laws are throwbacks of the belief that women were weaker, less in control of their actions and irrational. Correcting such a law would mean removing such a prejudice and thus naturally it would not mean that women would enjoy a 'reduced' consequence, but suffer the same consequence of men. If you can cite any public argument to the contrary that's been made, feel free, but I think you won't find any.

If your problem is with the sentencing of this woman, yes the law is discriminatory, but wouldn't it be far more productive to overhaul all of the sentencing and get it done in one framework? That way you can bring about more suitable sentencing for both men and women?

If a complete overhall can be brought about, then by all means, but if not I would consider such sexist laws to be of a higher priority than many others.

Car insurance was changed because of an EU directive. So you have equality but you have more families out of pocket now.

There's a price to equality. Women's jobs are protected when they get pregnant, for example, and there's a cost to this to business which then gets passed on inevitably to the consumer. Should this protection be removed so that the consumer is not burdened?

You could also argue this is the government sticking its fingers into small business again.

Indeed you could, so would you feel that the government should not stick it's fingers into employment law in the case of pregnant women, as I mentioned above?

clairefontaine

I don't feel it is a red herring. Sex assault laws need to be overhauled, top to bottom, left to right.

My point was really about curing one injustice can lead to creating another one, if you are not careful.

Do you know what the max sentencing is for a man? I have no idea. You haven't shown me the discrimination. I believe you but I don't know what the max is, I just see sex offenders getting off lightly regularly.

When women get maternity leave in Ireland , is it the state covering the cost of leave in Ireland or is it the business?

In the US women don't get paid maternity leave by law. Some business may offer it, but they are not obliged to. But if they want to have more choices about whom they can hire and be more competitive with whom they employ, it might be better for them to offer it, otherwise they wont attract the same amount of candidates to choose from. Sometimes women use their vacation time and or sick leave. Some say this is not fair either especially as creches wont take babies that young. What do you do? I don't know. Hire an illegal alien nanny or a J1 visa student I guess, like many do. But maternity leave is not so much about equality and is tied up with other forces. Professional equality was about getting hired, promotions, etc. Maternity leave is another story, there is an interest in general in keeping women in the workforce isn't there? Unless you want to go back to the old fashioned days of men being the breadwinner, and only having half the talent contributing to things.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

I don't feel it is a red herring. Sex assault laws need to be overhauled, top to bottom, left to right.

My point was really about curing one injustice can lead to creating another one, if you are not careful.

I understand, and you suggested that the sentience for both could end up reduced to the lower one and I explained why it would not.

So yes, I think what you've put forward is a bit of a red herring - more correctly FUD. If you disagree, feel free to rebut my argument in my previous post.

Do you know what the max sentencing is for a man? I have no idea.You haven't shown me the discrimination. I believe you but I don't know what the max is, I just see sex offenders getting off lightly regularly.

As I said, in the case I cited the maximum for a man would be life imprisonment - it's in the article I posted.

When women get maternity leave in Ireland , is it the state covering the cost of leave in Ireland or is it the business?

The business, however the point I was making is that she is essentially protected by law from losing her job, during the pregnancy and for a period after, which a company may want to do anyway because she may no longer be as committed to her role as before. I believe similar protections exist in the US.

Should the state not protect her job? Should they keep out of it because there's a cost to business and the consumer? Or because it's not the state's business in the first place?

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

As I said, in the case I cited the maximum for a man would be life imprisonment - it's in the article I posted

Ok that is somewhat ridiculous and should be changed.

Is it possible that it is a hangover from the days where you could just lock women up in a lunatic asylum? That way she could be locked up without trial, jury or due process. There was a documentary on RTE on this, with astounding statistics.

The Corinthian wrote: »

The business, however the point I was making is that she is essentially protected by law from losing her job, during the pregnancy and for a period after, which a company may want to do anyway because she may no longer be as committed to her role as before. I believe similar protections exist in the US.

Should the state not protect her job? Should they keep out of it because there's a cost to business and the consumer? Or because it's not the state's business in the first place?

That's a tough one. I don't know. And I don't know if that should be under business regulation or contract law or dependant on unions.

You can fire someone once they demonstrate that they have lost interest or commitment in their job, but you can't really fire someone on speculation, that would go for anyone pregnant or not. You can but you'd be on fire for a potential lawsuit [unfair dismissal.]

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Ok that is somewhat ridiculous and should be changed.

Only somewhat?

Is it possible that it is a hangover from the days where you could just lock women up in a lunatic asylum? That way she could be locked up without trial, jury or due process. There was a documentary on RTE on this, with astounding statistics.

It is precisely a hangover of patriarchy.

Prior to the mid, or even late, twentieth century, women were essentially classified as somewhere between children and men. The prejudice was that women were weaker, irrational and incapable of fully controlling their emotions, and thus unstable.

Of course, on the flip side this gave women certain advantages. Being irrational by nature meant that they were not fully responsible for their actions; women were far less likely to suffer the death penalty, for example, for acts of murder (the exception being infanticide as this went against another sexist prejudice) than men and more likely to be declared insane than compos mentis.

This prejudice persists today and is best exemplified by the Lorena Bobbitt where after her mutilation of her husband successfully was able to plea of insanity, to avoid incarceration. To this day, pleas of temporary insanity and marital coercion are significantly more likely to be made by women than men, in court.

Ironically, this doesn't exactly help women's equality, as it still frames women as not in full mental control of themselves. Yet the women's rights movement has made little or no attempt to change this perception, and (as in the Bobbitt case) will often reinforce it by publicly citing marital coercion or abuse, leading to a loss of control, as a justification for such actions.

You'll find that many of such 'advantageous' prejudices have been left untouched by feminism, btw. There's never been a campaign to challenge the old "women and children first" principle, or that women are the natural primary child carers, for example. All of which ironically ends up harming women's equality to men when seeking traditional male roles.

That's a tough one. I don't know. And I don't know if that should be under business regulation or contract law or dependant on unions.

You can fire someone once they demonstrate that they have lost interest or commitment in their job, but you can't really fire someone on speculation, that would go for anyone pregnant or not. You can but you'd be on fire for a potential lawsuit [unfair dismissal.]

Unfair dismissal depends on what criteria the law (and thus the government) considers to be unfair for dismissal though - still the government sticking their nose into private business.

Personally, I'd have a Keynesian approach to government involvement and thus would favour some legislation. Given this, there's a difference between necessary legislation to protect people and a 'nanny state'.

clairefontaine

The mad or bad debate rages on and with plenty of criticism from all sorts of activists and gender critics of the dsm, and justifiable so. Saying that, I see what you are saying, but at the same time I cant see how it was of benefit to be able to be locked up without a trial and jury on grounds of insanity with such liberty. Saying that there was a fascinating radio documentary on BBC radio called "A Woman's Right To Be Evil" which explores these prejudices and the outcome of them is that women get less rehabilitative resources because of them.

It certainly does bear looking at and is somewhat fascinating when you start looking at the criticisms from all sorts of activists, not just gender activists, around criminality and the dsm. Makes for some tough thinking.

With new attentions to "neuro diversity" nearly anyone is off the hook. My brain made me do it. Adam Lanza, first thing people felt was he is nuts. Maybe he was maybe he wasn't. I don't honestly know and I doubt anyone else knows either. Would he have gotten the chair had he survived? Probably? Would a woman have? My guess there is also probably. Personally I am up in the air with all of it.

Also, some of these things have changed. 'Im not sure if its due to feminism or just more evolution in mental health issues. The recent case in Cork of the man who committed murder suicide with his young daughter and was buried with her. There has been very little if any condemnation of this act and I'm guessing it's being chalked up to male depression after his wife decided to break up from the marriage.

You pointed out Lorena Bobbit. That case was the 1980s wasn't it? We are now in 2013. Things have changed. That is ONE case you pointed out. I could point out the OJ Simpson case to try to demonstrate that black males get off lightly or scott free for domestic violence, but hardly that is the case is it?

Women and Children First. I saw a documentary on Channel 4 about that ships that sink, it was around the time of the ship that sunk and the captain abandoned it. It said that the woman and children first protocol is a myth and not reality. People believe in it because of the Titanic story, but it was and is an exception, mostly to to British old fashioned "good form" but the reality is everyone for himself [or herself].

As far as regulation on what happens in business, I'd be of the as minimal as possible but not entirely. I'm sure that is as clear as mud, but that's as far as I get with it.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Saying that, I see what you are saying, but at the same time I cant see how it was of benefit to be able to be locked up without a trial and jury on grounds of insanity with such liberty.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather be imprisoned than hung (in the bad way).

Also, some of these things have changed. 'Im not sure if its due to feminism or just more evolution in mental health issues. The recent case in Cork of the man who committed murder suicide with his young daughter and was buried with her. There has been very little if any condemnation of this act and I'm guessing it's being chalked up to male depression after his wife decided to break up from the marriage.

I never suggested that men did not get judged as criminally insane - it's not like asylums were women-only, after all. Only that the prejudices about female mental instability were such that it made it a far easier defence for women.

The historical diagnosis of female hysteria is an interesting one to consider in this respect.

You pointed out Lorena Bobbit. That case was the 1980s wasn't it? We are now in 2013. Things have changed. That is ONE case you pointed out. I could point out the OJ Simpson case to try to demonstrate that black males get off lightly or scott free for domestic violence, but hardly that is the case is it?

It's not that unknown a phenomenon, in particular in domestic violence cases. As another example, a very similar and recent case, is also planning the same defence.

As to OJ Simpson, he was able to successfully leverage the jury's perception of racism in the LAPD, which while also an appeal to emotion, was not an insanity plea, which we're talking about.

However, there has been some change, although it has been at snail-space speed; the recent rejection of Vicky Pryce's 'marital coercion' defence, could be shown to be a sign of this.

Nonetheless, these prejudices have continued, along with the idea that women are always the victim, and modern feminism has if anything promoted them rather than sought to dispel them.

Women and Children First. I saw a documentary on Channel 4 about that ships that sink, it was around the time of the ship that sunk and the captain abandoned it. It said that the woman and children first protocol is a myth and not reality. People believe in it because of the Titanic story, but it was and is an exception, mostly to to British old fashioned "good form" but the reality is everyone for himself [or herself].

Not really true. While the HMS Titanic popularized it, and it was not part of maritime law, it wasn't exactly a myth either. One can hardly deny that it (not "children first" or "children and the weak first") is certainly included as a virtue in Western culture today.

It has it's roots in chivalry, which contends that a knight should protect the weak and European literature is full of tales exposing the virtues of knights who would brave danger or even die to protect a (virtuous) woman.

As far as regulation on what happens in business, I'd be of the as minimal as possible but not entirely. I'm sure that is as clear as mud, but that's as far as I get with it.

Fair enough, but that's a different discussion. My position would be that whether minimal or not, it should reflect gender equality.

clairefontaine

I'm losing track of the discussion here, so I want to back track a little.

Firstly, I'm not denying that there are injustices and there is discrimination.

What I am arguing is if a gender politico counterpart is the solution. The example I am going to use here is the boy crisis in the US. I'm not so sure if it is applicable to Ireland. Maybe it is, I'm not really sure and if it is, it does not exist to the same extent.

I believe the US has a boy crisis of massive and neglected proportions for a variety of complex reasons and manifested in different ways, the most obvious one being the hyper medicalisation of boys with prescription drugs [AHDH etc if I haven't already made it very obvious] down to the more subtle double bind messages that boys get as they grow into men. There has been a lot written about this, it's complicated and subtle, far too much for me to give it justice here, so cut me some slack on this medium.

As I said, this is an American crisis. Some would call it bull****, but I don't. I think it's very real. America is both far more patriarchal than Ireland as well has having more hyper feminism and more productive and effective feminism on top of having a culture and system open to reform and not scared of change or of trying something and failing. Because of this combination of a stronger patriarchy combined with the upshots of feminism, it has produced bi products of unforseen consequences which has led to detrimental effects on American boys, and this as far as I can see crosses both class and race boundaries. And these bi products affect everyone, fathers, mothers, and their female counterparts too. So to look at it in a vacuum and isolation, as feminism did, for me is limiting and not taking a bigger perspective.

So the reason I am using an American example is to illustrate the combination of older patriarchies with progressive feminism that hasn't truly been thought out or foreseen. It's a starker example than anything you could use in Ireland, because Ireland is murkier.

Now my concern with jump starting a masculinism movement, which has already started so my concern is pretty inert and insignificant, is that it is going to produce all sorts of other harmful unforseen consequences nas feminism did because it looked at things in isolation.

Take for example date rape. I am sure there are serial rapists who are cut and dried mysoginists. Sure. But I am also sure that if there weren't this ridiculous pressure on boys [product of patriarchy] and men to get laid so they can prove their manhood, there wouldn't be as much date rape. And then you have boys and men to be sensitive souls who cry at the movies with you [feminism] but that is girlish [and girls see it that way too deep down because the patriarchy has sent them that message as well] and the patriarchy has told them they have to spend their lives proving they aren't women. Now I'm writing about this very reductively here - I know and there are others who have written on this much better than I have. But my point is this is a collaborative life we are all leading, so let's look at it that way.

In Ireland, I think one way to start is to stop the gender apartheid in Irish schools.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

I'm losing track of the discussion here, so I want to back track a little.

Firstly, I'm not denying that there are injustices and there is discrimination.

I'm not suggesting you did; you only asked for examples, which is how we essentially lost track of the discussion.

So the reason I am using an American example is to illustrate the combination of older patriarchies with progressive feminism that hasn't truly been thought out or foreseen. It's a starker example than anything you could use in Ireland, because Ireland is murkier.

The US is culturally quite different to Europe in general. In some respects, much of Europe is very patriarchal and still steeped in old traditions, but from what I can make out, many of the patriarchal presumptions that still exist in the US are even more so and at this stage quite alien to us.

For example, the notion that a woman should change her professional surname, upon marrying, is a bit bizarre in most of Europe - some still do here, but it is certainly not seen as expected as it appears to be in the US. Even the idea of cohabitation or children outside of marriage seem far more acceptable here - one American woman of my acquaintance once explained to me that having children out of wedlock was just "something that n****rs do" there.

Simultaneously you can see some seriously misandrist attitudes amongst women's rights groups there.

For me, given these conflicting value systems, it's not surprising that the US is, as a result, very much the birthplace of 'cake-and-eat-it' post-feminism, whereby women should have a choice to follow both the traditional and modern models. However, overall I can't comment that much on the US, as it's limited and largely second hand. I can only comment on the European and, in particular, Irish situation.

Now my concern with jump starting a masculinism movement, which has already started so my concern is pretty inert and insignificant, is that it is going to produce all sorts of other harmful unforseen consequences nas feminism did because it looked at things in isolation.

Given your date-rape example, I don't see how masculinism would spark this. It seems clear that the problem is not the pressure caused by conflict between feminism and masculinism, but between feminism and traditional patriarchy.

Indeed, one of the goals of masculinism, is to deconstruct patriarchy from a male perspective, and with it men's role in society, much as feminism did once upon a time for women. Questioning the very notions of what is 'manly' and 'girlish' which actually continues to trap men in traditional roles and behaviours. Not only is this essential if men are going to evolve to meet the changing gender landscape, but it's pretty essential that we do this self-examination ourselves, just as women did.

So if this is your objection to masculinism, then I think it unfounded. Masculinism is not patriarchy 2.0, or if it is, is so removed from patriarchy as to be unrecognisable.

My own point with regards to masculinism as a 'counterbalance' really comes down largely to Realpolitik. In gender politics we presently have only one gender being represented, and this gender has absolutely no incentive to represent or even compromise. It's like a factory without a trade union; the management have no need to compromise until the workers organize and essentially force them to rethink their approach.

Nonetheless, in the case of gender equality, my hope would be that eventually we would both abandon partisan movements in time, in favour of an inclusive one - but that's just not going to happen as things stand.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

For example, the notion that a woman should change her professional surname, upon marrying, is a bit bizarre in most of Europe - some still do here, but it is certainly not seen as expected as it appears to be in the US. Even the idea of cohabitation or children outside of marriage seem far more acceptable here - one American woman of my acquaintance once explained to me that having children out of wedlock was just "something that n****rs do" there.

I never heard of the name changing expectation. Interesting.

That is not quite right about having kids out of wedlock. It might be perceived as practically not smart since you get a lot of privalege through employment if you are married, like health insurance benefits carry to your spouse, or health care decisions, plus legal protections for all parties in the family, or whatever benefits your jobs give you. Plus tax incentives, etc but it doesn't really have a stigma. But child abandonment would be seen as an underclass problem with certain constituencies and would be frowned upon.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Given your date-rape example, I don't see how masculinism would spark this. It seems clear that the problem is not the pressure caused by conflict between feminism and masculinism, but between feminism and traditional patriarchy.

Indeed, one of the goals of masculinism, is to deconstruct patriarchy from a male perspective, and with it men's role in society, much as feminism did once upon a time for women. Questioning the very notions of what is 'manly' and 'girlish' which actually continues to trap men in traditional roles and behaviours. Not only is this essential if men are going to evolve to meet the changing gender landscape, but it's pretty essential that we do this self-examination ourselves, just as women did.

So if this is your objection to masculinism, then I think it unfounded. Masculinism is not patriarchy 2.0, or if it is, is so removed from patriarchy as to be unrecognisable.

My own point with regards to masculinism as a 'counterbalance' really comes down largely to Realpolitik. In gender politics we presently have only one gender being represented, and this gender has absolutely no incentive to represent or even compromise. It's like a factory without a trade union; the management have no need to compromise until the workers organize and essentially force them to rethink their approach.

Nonetheless, in the case of gender equality, my hope would be that eventually we would both abandon partisan movements in time, in favour of an inclusive one - but that's just not going to happen as things stand.

I think whatever you are trying to do here is going to be very complex in an Irish context for a lot of reasons. For one thing it's a marian centred culture in some regards and with high levels of absenteeism for the men HISTORICALLY, with either emmigration or addiction taking them away . And you were left with a lot of priests around ruling the roost, especially the family - so ultimately the women were instruments of the theocracy even if you called it a matriarch. You had a brief reprieve from this with the celtic tiger where the men didn't have to leave, and religiosity was diluted though not forgotten, but now you have a situation where the men AND the women are being forced to emmigrate so maybe you will have an equality of the genders left behind, and maybe those left behind will want to change things- will they die out [beyond the elderly population left here] or they struggle to pay off their negative equity or cope with homelessness.

So in terms of what remains in Ireland, is it a patriarchy or a matriarchy or just a ghost town? So my guess is with different problems on the foreground, gender issues will be on the back burner.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

I never heard of the name changing expectation. Interesting.

That is not quite right about having kids out of wedlock.

As I said, I'm no expert on the US and am only reporting what I've either read or been told by Americans themselves.

I think whatever you are trying to do here is going to be very complex in an Irish context for a lot of reasons. For one thing it's a marian centred culture in some regards and with high levels of absenteeism for the men HISTORICALLY, with either emmigration or addiction taking them away . And you were left with a lot of priests around ruling the roost, especially the family - so ultimately the women were instruments of the theocracy even if you called it a matriarch. You had a brief reprieve from this with the celtic tiger where the men didn't have to leave, and religiosity was diluted though not forgotten, but now you have a situation where the men AND the women are being forced to emmigrate so maybe you will have an equality of the genders left behind, and maybe those left behind will want to change things- will they die out [beyond the elderly population left here] or they struggle to pay off their negative equity or cope with homelessness.

So in terms of what remains in Ireland, is it a patriarchy or a matriarchy or just a ghost town? So my guess is with different problems on the foreground, gender issues will be on the back burner.

I've not said that I'm trying to achieve anything. Nor do I believe than it would be easy for any kind of masculinist counter-balance to take root. Only that it's the only realistic option and one that almost certainly will take root in time as resentment and realization kicks in with men of their increasingly secondary status - it's basically a historical inevitability as was the trade union movement or, ironically, feminism.

As to the bulk of your argument, I really don't know what to say other than it being a serious non sequitur to anything I've written. If there is relevance to it, I genuinely can't see it.

clairefontaine

Well if you believe it is a destiny than you can also believe that it will create more oppositional thinking and bi products too and then you will be a never ending game of blame and resentment.

With all the emmigration of young people, I wouldn't necessarily bet on it being an inevitability.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Well if you believe it is a destiny than you can also believe that it will create more oppositional thinking and bi products too and then you will be a never ending game of blame and resentment.

I've never said destiny, only that it is inevitable given there appear to be no likely alternatives and present trends continue. And I do agree there is that danger of an endless negative circle, which is why I keep on asking you if you think a likely alternative exists.

With all the emmigration of young people, I wouldn't necessarily bet on it being an inevitability.

I'm not sure emigration makes a difference, as these issues will still be here and there will still be people in Ireland.

Unless of course all the men emigrate because of this, and I'll have to admit that gender politics in Ireland is one of the reasons I left, and since the cohabitation bill, I've heard it cited by more recent emmigrees.