Companies 'may be forced to appoint women to boards'

tigger123

Three Seasons wrote: »

I would expect plenty of women to be against this as most women aren't feminists IMO.

I haven't heard much from feminists groups being outraged agains such quotas.

Most women aren't feminists? What's your definition of a feminist?

dark crystal

Three Seasons wrote: »

That's a personal issue to be decided between parents as to who takes care of those duties.

Indeed, but I was simply addressing the point another poster made, stating she had never seen men using the 'kid card' and that she had only seen women doing this, which in turn makes it harder for them to be taken seriously.

I was just pointing out why that may be the case.

Lady Chuckles

thebigbiffo wrote: »

Sorry but I will in fact blame all feminists – I’ve never met a feminist who doesn’t blame all men for their woes – so welcome to the club. I’m for EQUALITY, feminism

I'm a feminist. I don't blame men.
How do you do

VinLieger

Lady Chuckles wrote: »

I said google it!
It seemed to me you don't think the anti-quota debate is there. I'm telling you it's there. Google it.

I know you did but you also said there was quotes from the article i was responding to that, also its usually up to the person making the claims to provide the evidence but i will do some of my own googling. However im still yet to see any groups voice their opinions in public through the media etc

Three Seasons

tigger123 wrote: »

Most women aren't feminists? What's your definition of a feminist?

To refine: most women don't identify as feminists.

HondaSami

dark crystal wrote: »

Have a think about why you haven't seen that.

Who do you think is picking up the men's kids after school, taking them to the doctor and the dentist, attending the parent teacher meeting etc.?

It could be the man's mother, father or anyone not necessarily his wife/mother of his children.
Some women have the same option but choose to do it themselves.

kunst nugget

VinLieger wrote: »

Not one person from the article who disagrees with the proposal is doing so because they find it discriminatory, they all think it doesnt go far enough, maybe you should read the article again

If you use that handy google thing you'll see that, shock horror, not all feminists are in agreement with the notion of quotas and have been vocal about it.

http://themamabee.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/why-gender-quotas-are-bad-for-business-and-for-feminism/

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-gender-quotas-do-women-no-favours-–-and-undermine-democracy/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/07/boardroom-gender-quotas-dangerous-burberry

kunst nugget

HondaSami wrote: »

It could be the man's mother, father or anyone not necessarily his wife/mother of his children.
Some women have the same option but choose to do it themselves.

Some women might have the option, the majority don't.

dark crystal

HondaSami wrote: »

It could be the man's mother, father or anyone not necessarily his wife/mother of his children.
Some women have the same option but choose to do it themselves.

Really? You think women frequently leave work do this stuff even when they have a relative or a paid childminder to do it for them instead?

Bannasidhe

Lady Chuckles wrote: »

I'm a feminist. I don't blame men.
How do you do

Me too.

That's two.

Lady Chuckles

VinLieger wrote: »

I know you did but you also said there was quotes from the article i was responding to that, also its usually up to the person making the claims to provide the evidence but i will do some of my own googling. However im still yet to see any groups voice their opinions in public through the media etc

The proposal was called "worst of both worlds", that's what I was getting at.

You started the claim-game. I was just curious how much research you had put into the statement that feminists are all for quotas

VinLieger

Lady Chuckles wrote: »

The proposal was called "worst of both worlds", that's what I was getting at.

You started the claim-game. I was just curious how much research you had put into the statement that feminists are all for quotas

When did i ever say all? In fact if you go back to my 2nd post in the thread i specifically said

VinLieger wrote: »

Exactly, i may have been a bit generalising in my previous post of course all feminists dont think alike

kunst nugget

thebigbiffo wrote: »

Sorry but I will in fact blame all feminists – I’ve never met a feminist who doesn’t blame all men for their woes – so welcome to the club. I’m for EQUALITY, feminism

That's like saying 'I haven't met a white male who doesn't blame all his woes on minority groups'. It's a ridiculous statement.

thebigbiffo

tigger123 wrote: »

Most women aren't feminists? What's your definition of a feminist?

My wife, a strong, independent woman, curses feminism – and I agree.

Economically, women entering the workforce for a lifetime drove prices up and forced wages down. Socially, it created (and is creating) children raised outside of the home by teachers/creche workers, grandparents and 15 year old babysitters, children who see their mom for an hour a day. Couple that with a mother and father who’re exhausted come the weekend from both of them trying to keep a house in order etc and you’ve kids who are raised completely differently than a couple of generations ago – and for endless generations before that kids were raised differently.

‘A womans place is in the home’ is seen as the very peak of a sexist statement – but I fully believe that, from a family, SOMEONES place is in the home. I genuinely don’t give a toss if that’s the man or woman, feminism gave us the choice of which BUT STOPPED US AFFORDING IT!!!

Nodin

..it does seem to have ended up going from women having the choice to work to women having to work, certainly.

Pherekydes

"Women will never be equal until they stop counting."

thebigbiffo

Lady Chuckles wrote: »

I'm a feminist. I don't blame men.
How do you do

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Me too.

That's two.

Nice to meet you both - I am sorry to stereotype you both!

kunst nugget wrote: »

That's like saying 'I haven't met a white male who doesn't blame all his woes on minority groups'. It's a ridiculous statement.

Seriously, my view of feminism is that it now, as a movement, has gone too far. I dont see a distinction between feminists. Feminism brought this ridiculous situation about, so therefore all feminists are to blame, although possibly to lesser extents. At the very least, you should say that the RADICAL side of the feminism movement is winning in the context of this situation.

Bannasidhe

thebigbiffo wrote: »

My wife, a strong, independent woman, curses feminism – and I agree.

Economically, women entering the workforce for a lifetime drove prices up and forced wages down. Socially, it created (and is creating) children raised outside of the home by teachers/creche workers, grandparents and 15 year old babysitters, children who see their mom for an hour a day. Couple that with a mother and father who’re exhausted come the weekend from both of them trying to keep a house in order etc and you’ve kids who are raised completely differently than a couple of generations ago – and for endless generations before that kids were raised differently.

‘A womans place is in the home’ is seen as the very peak of a sexist statement – but I fully believe that, from a family, SOMEONES place is in the home. I genuinely don’t give a toss if that’s the man or woman, feminism gave us the choice of which BUT STOPPED US AFFORDING IT!!!

You would prefer us to have no independent income and stay at home making and minding babbies?

Should we reintroduce the Marriage Ban?

Bannasidhe

thebigbiffo wrote: »

Nice to meet you both - I am sorry to stereotype you both!



Seriously, my view of feminism is that it now, as a movement, has gone too far. I dont see a distinction between feminists. Feminism brought this ridiculous situation about, so therefore all feminists are to blame, although possibly to lesser extents. At the very least, you should say that the RADICAL side of the feminism movement is winning in the context of this situation.

You are complaining that Feminists all cast men as the source of all their woes while at the same time casting Feminists as the source of all societies/men's woes??? Really?? You don't think that may be a tad ironic?

How many feminists were involved in the writing of Irish legislation around family law, maternity leave etc etc?

Those well known Feminist bankers and property developers destroyed our economy did they?

The Boys in the Dáil write the laws of this country - but go ahead and blame feminism if you wish - are we also to blame for Climate Change?

Agent Smith

Dravokivich wrote: »

I wonder if the UN Declaration of Human Rights has any actual hold within member states:


http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Gender Quotas, from what I see, go against it. Any kind of nominal quotas do actually.

Gender quota legislation in the Dáil Gets around that by only guaranteeing that at least 30% of candidates be of one gender.(30% male 70% female or 30% female 70% male) Membership of the dáil is down to who gets voted in.

I don't agree with the state interfering with the boards of Private companies.

VinLieger

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You would prefer us to have no independent income and stay at home making and minding babbies?

Should we reintroduce the Marriage Ban?

No but forcing women into the workplace doesnt help, maybe they should focus on helping reduce the emphasis that men have to work to provide. I agree that at least 1 parent should be at home with the child but the problem is there is still a stigma associated with being a house husband so why not try help reduce this with the aim of it being an equal choice for both parents?.
Also if both parents were given equal maternity/paternity leave under the law, similar to sweden, then everything would be equal when interviewing for a job, as the question of whether you were planning on having a child would apply equally to both genders in the eyes of a future employer but feminist lobbiers never seem to understand that campaigning for certain mens rights would achieve their aims as in some of their eyes a plus for men equals a minus for women

SeventySix

HondaSami wrote: »

I can honestly say i have never seen a man use it.



School meetings, starting late, finishing early, using the kid as an excuse to get out of work.

VinLieger wrote: »

No but forcing women into the workplace doesnt help, maybe they should focus on helping reduce the emphasis that men have to work to provide. I agree that at least 1 parent should be at home with the child but the problem is there is still a stigma associated with being a house husband so why not try help reduce this with the aim of it being an equal choice for both parents?.
Also if both parents were given equal maternity/paternity leave under the law, similar to sweden, then everything would be equal when interviewing for a job, as the question of whether you were planning on having a child would apply equally to both genders in the eyes of a future employer but feminist lobbiers never seem to understand that campaigning for certain mens rights would achieve their aims as in some of their eyes a plus for men equals a minus for women

Its not feminists preventing equal maternity/paternity leave. No women I know would have a problem with this. In fact it would make most woments lives easier too. But I dont know any women on the boards of companies where those kinds of decisions are made. So I say again - before blaming feminists for not campaign for more rights for men - ask your brothers who currently control the halls of power.

thebigbiffo

SeventySix wrote: »

Its not feminists preventing equal maternity/paternity leave. No women I know would have a problem with this. In fact it would make most woments lives easier too. But I dont know any women on the boards of companies where those kinds of decisions are made. So I say again - before blaming feminists for not campaign for more rights for men - ask your brothers who currently control the halls of power.

stop referring to people as my 'brothers' - it sounds like you're a radical feminist and a sexist.

I am not black.

dr.bollocko

thebigbiffo wrote: »

Sorry but I will in fact blame all feminists – I’ve never met a feminist who doesn’t blame all men for their woes – so welcome to the club. I’m for EQUALITY, feminism

I’ve always had a problem with the maternity leave issue, because I do in fact believe it’s a very pertinent point when hiring staff. If I’m a struggling SME who needs someone in admin, why can I not ask a recently married 20 something what her intentions are as regards family? If I’m going to lose that staff member a matter of months after hiring them and pay for their leave and other benefits, it has the ability to break my company and cause major upset as I hire cover etc.

It’s not my bloody fault I can’t get pregnant! That’s not sexism, it’s human nature!

thebigbiffo wrote: »

Nice to meet you both - I am sorry to stereotype you both!



Seriously, my view of feminism is that it now, as a movement, has gone too far. I dont see a distinction between feminists. Feminism brought this ridiculous situation about, so therefore all feminists are to blame, although possibly to lesser extents. At the very least, you should say that the RADICAL side of the feminism movement is winning in the context of this situation.

MOD:
OK. You started this thread.
I noticed it and started reading. Interesting debate.
Fair enough.

Now with the absolute crap above you've shown your true colours.
So
Post in this thread again = ban.

Considering your history, it will be a looooooooooooong ban too.

Any one else queries on the moderation, PM a mod or try feedback. Lets not ruin this thread with talk on thread. Please report any posts which cross the line.

who the fug

Nodin wrote: »

Odd, one of the main requirements to get on to any board I've ever dealt with seems to have been to be a dickhead.

No it is not good enough to be a dickhead , one must be a Slippery Dickhead

VinLieger

VinLieger wrote: »

No but forcing women into the workplace doesnt help, maybe they should focus on helping reduce the emphasis that men have to work to provide. I agree that at least 1 parent should be at home with the child but the problem is there is still a stigma associated with being a house husband so why not try help reduce this with the aim of it being an equal choice for both parents?.
Also if both parents were given equal maternity/paternity leave under the law, similar to sweden, then everything would be equal when interviewing for a job, as the question of whether you were planning on having a child would apply equally to both genders in the eyes of a future employer but feminist lobbiers never seem to understand that campaigning for certain mens rights would achieve their aims as in some of their eyes a plus for men equals a minus for women

Perhaps we should apply the same logic and say that we don't see enough men's groups lobbying for it. And if men really are running all the boardrooms, maybe you should ask them why it isn't the case, instead of blaming women. Maybe you should ask all those male interviewers who wouldn't hire women because of maternity leave - sound likely they'll be happy to grant paternity leave?

VinLieger

SeventySix wrote: »

Its not feminists preventing equal maternity/paternity leave. No women I know would have a problem with this. In fact it would make most woments lives easier too. But I dont know any women on the boards of companies where those kinds of decisions are made. So I say again - before blaming feminists for not campaign for more rights for men - ask your brothers who currently control the halls of power.

Did i say they were preventing it? Also its not women on the boards of companies who make these decisions its govenrment. And men do not exactly have an established lobby group, although i dont wanna start that argument as it will probably get me in trouble, so why cant feminists lobby for both genders in this case?
Also yeah stop saying "brothers", as said above im not black and its incredibly condenscending also it just makes you sound like a try hard radical

VinLieger

VinLieger wrote: »

Did i say they were preventing it? Also its not women on the boards of companies who make these decisions its govenrment. And men do not exactly have an established lobby group, although i dont wanna start that argument as it will probably get me in trouble, so why cant feminists lobby for both genders in this case?
Also yeah stop saying "brothers", as said above im not black and its incredibly condenscending also it just makes you sound like a try hard radical

lol? You don't want to establish a lobby group, you want to just sit back and complain that you're not getting it all your way and everyone else should do your hard work for you - and when they do the hard work, you can keep sitting back complaining it's not enough?
Pull the other one
Of course we should all aim for equality but it's hardly radical that we might have different experiences giving us weight to taking different routes to get there

Corkbah

so .... how long before the token jew, black, asian and hispanic must also be part of the board.

and why stop there ....its just wrong !!

candidates should be given a job on merits, if someone believes they were discriminated against due to their gender/beliefs/race there are independent investigations performed and equality groups which can check.

there was a case in the High Court years ago about a guy who believed he was not given a college place because the college had quota's to fill of minority groups .... turns out the guy didn't have as good results as the other people so they were chosen above him, but that didn't stop him taking his action.

Bannasidhe

VinLieger wrote: »

No but forcing women into the workplace doesnt help, maybe they should focus on helping reduce the emphasis that men have to work to provide. I agree that at least 1 parent should be at home with the child but the problem is there is still a stigma associated with being a house husband so why not try help reduce this with the aim of it being an equal choice for both parents?.
Also if both parents were given equal maternity/paternity leave under the law, similar to sweden, then everything would be equal when interviewing for a job, as the question of whether you were planning on having a child would apply equally to both genders in the eyes of a future employer but feminist lobbiers never seem to understand that campaigning for certain mens rights would achieve their aims[/QUOTE]

You are blaming feminism for 'forcing women' into the workplace??? Feminism drives economic forces does it?

What about women with no children or grown children? Should they be 'allowed' to work?
No all women are mothers of small children you know. In fact, I suspect the minority of women are...

You seem to be advocating that women with children should stay at home minding the babbies as society looks askance at men who do so plus current legislation (written in the main by men) favours women in the role of care-givers and the bad feminists aren't doing enough to challenge this so it's all their fault.

Are feminist's responsible for the 'stigma associated with being a house husband' or is that down to other men seeing this role as unmasculine?


How many feminists were/are involved in framing Irish legislation around leave entitlements?

Ironic that you are espousing Sweden as the example to follow - did you know that Sweden introduced gender quotas in public elections and as a result had a 42% female national parliament in 1998?

Seedy Arling

Zulu wrote: »

Didn't you get Ivana Baciks memo? Sexism is bad, but it's ok to be sexist in order to get rid of sexism. You see if you want to stop sexism, you need to introduce even more sexism.

What's wrong with being sexy?

shruikan2553

If I was working as one of 10 people with 6 men and 4 women with a 40% quota I wouldn't see the women as capable and just see them as token members there to fill up space. Im sure some or even all could of been the best candidate for the job but the fact that we are just scraping the quota would seem as if they are just to fill up space.

Corkbah

shruikan2553 wrote: »

If I was working as one of 10 people with 6 men and 4 women with a 40% quota I wouldn't see the women as capable and just see them as token members there to fill up space. Im sure some or even all could of been the best candidate for the job but the fact that we are just scraping the quota would seem as if they are just to fill up space.

but the difference is how it would/could be perceived by anyone outside the board ..... there would always be talk of if she was only on the board due to quota regulations and not actually there on merit.

so the question of merit and quota would be quite easily linked and decisions to hire someone based on merit would be clouded by quota limits (ie. we cant appoint a guy for this board because we have only 3 women and the quota is 4 minimum ....leads to discrimination and sexism)

Bannasidhe

Corkbah wrote: »

so .... how long before the token jew, black, asian and hispanic must also be part of the board.

and why stop there ....its just wrong !!

candidates should be given a job on merits, if someone believes they were discriminated against due to their gender/beliefs/race there are independent investigations performed and equality groups which can check.

there was a case in the High Court years ago about a guy who believed he was not given a college place because the college had quota's to fill of minority groups .... turns out the guy didn't have as good results as the other people so they were chosen above him, but that didn't stop him taking his action.

This many come as a surprise to you but at least half the population of Ireland is female - the same cannot be said of the minority groups you mentioned. Is this reflected in the upper echelons of political/financial power?

Why no, it's not.

Is this because women are inherently incapable of governing/managing?
Could there be another reason??:eek:

SeventySix

VinLieger wrote: »

Did i say they were preventing it? Also its not women on the boards of companies who make these decisions its govenrment. And men do not exactly have an established lobby group, although i dont wanna start that argument as it will probably get me in trouble, so why cant feminists lobby for both genders in this case?
Also yeah stop saying "brothers", as said above im not black and its incredibly condenscending also it just makes you sound like a try hard radical

If I said 'sisters' when talking about a feminist issue no one would associate it with black people. Men do, and its seems its because ye dont seem to see yourselves as a group, when if ye had any kind of unity you could achieve all you aim for, as it is other men that are the majority in power. The men in power, on boards or in government, could give other men access to paternity leave if the wanted. Once it was equal and not more to maternity leave few women would object.

But ye dont. And rather than blaming feminists for not getting you what you want, you should start asking each other why you dont have what you want.

I think there is no shared maternity/paternity as it would affect the bottom line of companies, and not enough men care enough about it, to make it an electorial issue.

hatrickpatrick

If you support these quotas, then you also support quotas for men in third level education, regardless of their leaving cert performance or ability to do the course they've applied for.

Otherwise you're not just a sexist, you're also a hypocrite. Because that's exactly what quotas are. There's no difference whatsoever between the two scenarios.

jam_mac_jam

I would consider myself a feminist but I don't agree with quotas. We are meant to have equal rights not to be favoured for your sex, the best person should get the job.

Zulu

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is this because women are inherently incapable of governing/managing?

Or do an equal amount of women forwarding themselves with equal skills?

Could there be another reason??:eek:

That the other 50% of society are deliberately suppressing women folks because they are hell bent on controlling society, objectifying women, molesting children and generally being bad bad people?

SeventySix

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If you support these quotas, then you also support quotas for men in third level education, regardless of their leaving cert performance or ability to do the course they've applied for.

Otherwise you're not just a sexist, you're also a hypocrite. Because that's exactly what quotas are. There's no difference whatsoever between the two scenarios.

I am not supporting quotas but you are being a touch hysterical with the example proposed above. There is a difference between the two senarios. They are not proposing just pulling women in off the street to sit on the board. They would need to be qualified.

So a better example would be to support quotas in third level education where all candidates have achieved the minimum requirements for the course.

humbert

SeventySix wrote: »

If I said 'sisters' when talking about a feminist issue no one would associate it with black people.

Just another plea to stop with the sisters and brothers shit. Most men don't feel they have a brotherly relationship with other men and, if I might be so bold, I assume most women don't feel a sisterly relationship with other women. I just see other men and other women as other people.

jam_mac_jam

SeventySix wrote: »

So a better example would be to support quotas in third level education where all candidates have achieved the minimum requirements for the course.

Would you support that? I think that's a bit unfair on the people who have higher marks? Why should your gender mean you are favoured.

Bannasidhe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If you support these quotas, then you also support quotas for men in third level education, regardless of their leaving cert performance or ability to do the course they've applied for.

Otherwise you're not just a sexist, you're also a hypocrite. Because that's exactly what quotas are. There's no difference whatsoever between the two scenarios.

What?

For all it's many faults the points system is good in that it is gender neutral as is exam marking in universities as students are identified only by a number.

If female students now outnumber/outperform male students because they are getting more points/marks under an anonymous marking system it seems a bit rich to cry 'discrimination'.

There are quotas in universities for mature students, access students and students with disabilities - there are no gender based quotas.

The Irish University student selection process is actually is one of the few completely level playing fields in Irish society where gender has no impact but you are complaining because recently females have been performing better. :rolleyes:

Must be because of all those feminist college presidents and head of departments and tenured professors running our universities...oh, hang on... the vast majority of those are men :eek:

SeventySix

humbert wrote: »

Just another plea to stop with the sisters and brothers shit. Most men don't feel they have a brotherly relationship with other men and, if I might be so bold, I assume most women don't feel a sisterly relationship with other women. I just see other men and other women as other people.

I have stopped. I was just explaining the context in which I was using it and trying to point out that if there was more unity among men then perhaps ye would get what you want a bit quicker.

Bannasidhe

Zulu wrote: »

Or do an equal amount of women forwarding themselves with equal skills?
That the other 50% of society are deliberately suppressing women folks because they are hell bent on controlling society, objectifying women, molesting children and generally being bad bad people?

It's really just about 5% of society- aka the Old Boys Club.

jaffacakesyum

Haven't quoted all the blatant generalising feminist-bashing but I'll just say this and then I'm out:

A feminist believes in the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

By that definition I am a feminist. By that definition most decent men I know are feminists. That doesn't mean we belong to any particular feminist group (I don't belong to any) - it means we believe in equal rights for men and women.

A HELL of a lot of men (and women perhaps) on boards.ie seem to think that because there are vocal feminists that have extreme views or views not necessarily that I would agree with (such as gender quotas), it is ok to bash all feminists with a stick.

Once people are mature enough to realise that being a feminist doesn't mean you're part of this extreme group I will happily debate with anyone. But I don't think that's going to happen any time soon.

I'm not reponsibly for all feminists but I am one. Same way a German nationalists isn't responsible for any extreme ends of this, such as the Nazi movement.

It's a concept most people on here can't seem to get but carry on with the feminist-bashing and sexist jokes, AH. Don't mind me I'll just get back to making sandwiches

SeventySix

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Would you support that? I think that's a bit unfair on the people who have higher marks? Why should your gender mean you are favoured.

No I wouldnt support it. I think it is more appropriate to try to address why boys are underperforming in school. I was just trying to point out why the previous poster was being hysterical.

jam_mac_jam

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Haven't quoted all the blatant generalising feminist-bashing but I'll just say this and then I'm out:

A feminist believes in the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

By that definition I am a feminist. By that definition most decent men I know are feminists. That doesn't mean we belong to any particular feminist group (I don't belong to any) - it means we believe in equal rights for men and women.

A HELL of a lot of men (and women perhaps) on boards.ie seem to think that because there are vocal feminists that have extreme views or views not necessarily that I would agree with (such as gender quotas), it is ok to bash all feminists with a stick.

Once people are mature enough to realise that being a feminist doesn't mean you're part of this extreme group I will happily debate with anyone. But I don't think that's going to happen any time soon.

I'm not reponsibly for all feminists but I am one. Same way a German nationalists isn't responsible for any extreme ends of this, such as the Nazi movement.

It's a concept most people on here can't seem to get but carry on with the feminist-bashing and sexist jokes, AH. Don't mind me I'll just get back to making sandwiches

Completely agree with this, I don't think most people have any understanding of what the word means anymore.

humbert

SeventySix wrote: »

I have stopped. I was just explaining the context in which I was using it and trying to point out that if there was more unity among men then perhaps ye would get what you want a bit quicker.

See the problem is that men, like women, don't all want the same thing.

Lingua Franca

HondaSami wrote: »

Is this what they are proposing really? regardless of qualifications or who is the best candidate you have to hire a woman ?

No, OP didn't read his own link which says

The EU proposals say that companies must have clear, gender-neutral criteria for choosing non-executive directors and that if candidates are found to be equally qualified, then preference should be given to women.

...in his eagerness to blame feminists for an EU decision.


I'm also against quotas and think this is a dumb move. But blaming feminists for it is equally as dumb.

humbert

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Haven't quoted all the blatant generalising feminist-bashing but I'll just say this and then I'm out:

A feminist believes in the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

By that definition I am a feminist. By that definition most decent men I know are feminists. That doesn't mean we belong to any particular feminist group (I don't belong to any) - it means we believe in equal rights for men and women.

A HELL of a lot of men (and women perhaps) on boards.ie seem to think that because there are vocal feminists that have extreme views or views not necessarily that I would agree with (such as gender quotas), it is ok to bash all feminists with a stick.

Once people are mature enough to realise that being a feminist doesn't mean you're part of this extreme group I will happily debate with anyone. But I don't think that's going to happen any time soon.

I'm not reponsibly for all feminists but I am one. Same way a German nationalists isn't responsible for any extreme ends of this, such as the Nazi movement.

It's a concept most people on here can't seem to get but carry on with the feminist-bashing and sexist jokes, AH. Don't mind me I'll just get back to making sandwiches

I think the problem is that feminism sounds very one-sided and gender biased, whereas what you describe is completely symmetric and gender neutral.