Feminists sabotage yet another talk on men's equality

Fukuyama

The Corinthian wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/groups-welcome-passing-of-bill-on-gender-quotas-1.539585

I'm assuming you haven't actually read the bill then.

It proposes 30% minimum female candidates AND 30% minimum male candidates. How is that sexist? So the best candidate still gets elected, and both males and females MUST be at least 30% of the candidate pool.

There can also never be a gender quota on the Dáil btw. As it would violate UN democracy definitions,EU law and the Irish constitution.

iptba

Dean0088 wrote: »

Can you point out an example of any sexist gender quotas in Ireland?

I gave gender quotas as an example of the following:

But many people with real power would be reluctant to challenge feminists on many issues and/or speak up for men's rights.

The most recent gender quotas were in politics. 30% of political candidates for the first few years, 40% after that. It seems to have got a lot of momentum from the report written/largely written by Ivana Bacik for the Oireachtas subcommittee. A lot of people in society don't seem to be happy with it, judging by internet discussion boards for example, but apart from Joanna Tuffy, few people spoke out about it.

iptba

Dean0088 wrote: »

It proposes 30% minimum female candidates AND 30% minimum male candidates. How is that sexist? So the best candidate still gets elected, and both males and females MUST be at least 30% of the candidate pool.

If short lists for primary school teaching posts had gender quotas (30% initially, 40% in a few years) with a few positions having to be filled at any one time, many might say that gives an unfair advantage to men. Some might call it sexist.

It's not a perfect example*, as candidates would still likely be selected on merit. With politics, a lot of voting is down to the party, so even relatively incompetent people can get elected once you are selected as a party's candidate.

However, as I said, my point related to challenging feminists.

*Another example on the same theme might be gender quotas for places on primary teaching courses.

eireannBEAR

the red haired yoke is in denial. women have the power where it matter ie. parenthood, in this and most countries an unmarried father has as much rights to his kid as a homeless bum on the street has. im sick of hearing about womens rights in the western world you have as much rights as men if not more. so shut the flup up please!!!!

The Corinthian

Dean0088 wrote: »

It proposes 30% minimum female candidates AND 30% minimum male candidates. How is that sexist?

Proposing gender quotas of either gender is sexist by definition. That only quotas that promote increased involvement of women are actually passed into law or even being proposed is even more sexist.

But I take it when you were discussing extremists seeking to impose "stupid gender quotas", this isn't one of them?

So the best candidate still gets elected, and both males and females MUST be at least 30% of the candidate pool.

I don't think you understand how quotas work; the best candidate from the allowed short-list is elected. Not the best candidate.

So are you going to address the point in my earlier post on the flaw in feminism that would have made it ultimately gynocentric inevitable or would you prefer not to respond again?

um7y1h83ge06nx

Free speech apparently allows you to tell others to "shut the f**k up" a lot.

Oh the irony.

Fukuyama

The Corinthian wrote: »

Proposing gender quotas of either gender is sexist by definition. That only quotas that promote increased involvement of women are actually passed into law or even being proposed is even more sexist.

But I take it when you were discussing extremists seeking to impose "stupid gender quotas", this isn't one of them?

I don't think you understand how quotas work; the best candidate from the allowed short-list is elected. Not the best candidate.

So are you going to address the point in my earlier post on the flaw in feminism that would have made it ultimately gynocentric inevitable or would you prefer not to respond again?

I agree with your point about how feminism has changed. But I think you're looking at the issues from a biased perspective.

You say the quota is sexist. It's not. It's just stupid, that's all. I don't agree with the quota because it may lead to a candidate being left out of the race. However, it's not sexist even he or she is excluded because of their sex, because both sexes were treated the same in the screening process. As wishy washy as it is to explain that, it's not sexism. Just stupidity.

On a practical level, we're not going to see the best candidate being left out anyways. There is no upward level to how many candidates can run.

The part of you post which I've highlighted misrepresents the situation. Either gender isn't being treated differently, both are being treated the same. Therefore, it's not sexist.

Again, I'll point out that quotas are a stupid idea and shortsighted. But thinking they're sexist is a clear misunderstanding of what we're dealing with here. Those women in the video misinform themselves and others, and twist simple logic to cry sexism, often leaving out full details (in this case, the obvious gender neutrality of the law, 30%, 30%) which is exactly what you're doing.

The Corinthian

Dean0088 wrote: »

I agree with your point about how feminism has changed. But I think you're looking at the issues from a biased perspective.

Is that supposed to be a response to my earlier post, as requested? Does this mean you concur that feminism was fundamentally flawed from the beginning and as the genders came closer to equality this flaw inevitably manifested itself? And if my view is from a biased perspective, why do you agree with it?

Or did you just avoid responding?

You say the quota is sexist. It's not. It's just stupid, that's all. I don't agree with the quota because it may lead to a candidate being left out of the race. However, it's not sexist even he or she is excluded because of their sex, because both sexes were treated the same in the screening process. As wishy washy as it is to explain that, it's not sexism. Just stupidity.

With respects, a policy may be de facto sexist, even if it is designed to be de jura not.

For example, you could introduce an entry requirement into the army officer school that all candidates must be at least 180cm tall, regardless of gender - technically that too is not sexist, but in practice it is. And any quota system that is clearly only going to benefit only one gender is also de facto sexist; were we to introduce gender quotas in primary schools, it won't benefit women at all - quite the opposite. Gender quotas in child custody would similarly only benefit men. It's all too easy to make something sound gender neutral, when in reality it is not.

And indeed, such quotas are only introduced where it benefits women nowadays. Quotas for primary school teachers or custodial parents are not only not being suggested, but would be met with hostility if they were, betraying the partisan and sexist agenda of such overarching policies.

So don't try to sell us the line that it's not sexist.

iptba

I just want to repeat that the gender quotas for political candidates are 40% gender quotas. It is only 30% for the first few years (seven, IIRC).

iptba

In this video, this guy challenges the claims of the red-haired woman in the OP that patriarchy is the reason mothers get custody, and some similar claims.

I'm afraid it's 15 minutes long and the points could be made in a shorter written piece.

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

In this video, this guy challenges the claims of the red-haired woman in the OP that patriarchy is the reason mothers get custody, and some similar claims.

I wouldn't entirely agree with the argument made in the video.

The origins of the prejudice that the mother is the primary parent and the father is, at best, some form of support to the mother in parental duties, is almost certainly patriarchal. It conforms to traditional gender roles that have been not only present, but propagated throughout our history through religion, art, literature and even legend.

Nonetheless, if one is to claim that one may blame patriarchy for the lack of rights fathers enjoy today, he makes the valid point that fathers actually enjoyed more rights when society was more patriarchal - as recently as sixty years ago, a father was favoured for custody of the children in the event of a marital breakup - the decline in patriarchy that followed saw a loss of father's rights, and this fundamentally contradicts the claim that a lack of father's rights today is down to patriarchy; it can be demonstrated clearly that it wasn't.

The reality, I believe, is that as with many things today it's not as simple as blaming patriarchy or matriarchy or any other 'archy', but down to the way that patriarchy has been replaced by a system that is neither, but a deeply flawed and increasing biased hybrid of the two.

As I postulated earlier, 'reform' of gender rights has been selective. Feminism 'reformed' mothers' rights to custody of their children, yet ignored the patriarchal notion that the mother is the primary parent - indeed, outside of some minor lip service where you'll hear feminism argue that fathers should have 'more' rights (note that 'equal' is almost never suggested), it has never questioned this prejudice and instead only sought to alleviate the negative consequences of this role monopoly, without sacrificing it - what do you think gender quotas are about?

Men have allowed ourselves to let this happen; at first because it was just to support the reform of much of the prejudices against women, but increasingly because we are continually being bombarded with propaganda that seeks to convince us that there is no discrimination against men, that somehow we still live in a patriarchal society, akin to an episode of Mad Men, and because women are still downtrodden; victims of penis-wielding oppressors like us. How dare we complain?

I do believe this propaganda is breaking down because discrimination against men is becoming so blatant and difficult to ignore, that increasingly we've begun to say; "don't piss on me and tell me it's raining".

Fukuyama

The Corinthian wrote: »

Is that supposed to be a response to my earlier post, as requested? Does this mean you concur that feminism was fundamentally flawed from the beginning and as the genders came closer to equality this flaw inevitably manifested itself? And if my view is from a biased perspective, why do you agree with it?

Or did you just avoid responding?

You're saying that feminism was flawed from the very beginning in that it was sexist, but appeared to be all about equality on the surface. I disagree.

Feminism, in the early 20th century campaigned for very basic democratic rights for women such as the right to vote, attend university etc... The opposition they met was stark. Look at some of the pictures of the first women students. They literally needed a heavy police presence just to cross the thresholds of colleges. And yet all the campaigned for, and all they got, was equality in the name of the law. Society followed a few decades later.

Feminism wanted laws altered to treat women the same as men. Ie. Any law that says 'no woman shall' should be altered or erased from the statute books. If it was flawed from the outset, surely the original campaigns would have campaigned for a reduction of the 'worth' of a mans vote or something similar.

As I already said, around the 80s and 90s things changed. Womens Lib in the UK got too powerful as a lobby group and began asking legislators to make society change their views, as opposed to just changing the law.

This is where our opinions converge in agreement in that feminism became sexist in that they wanted to achieve equality in society by punitive measures against men in law.

Obviously one generation will have their roots in the previous one. However, the ideology changed significantly and flaws were implanted rather than exposed.

With respects, a policy may be de facto sexist, even if it is designed to be de jura not.

For example, you could introduce an entry requirement into the army officer school that all candidates must be at least 180cm tall, regardless of gender - technically that too is not sexist, but in practice it is. And any quota system that is clearly only going to benefit only one gender is also de facto sexist; were we to introduce gender quotas in primary schools, it won't benefit women at all - quite the opposite. Gender quotas in child custody would similarly only benefit men. It's all too easy to make something sound gender neutral, when in reality it is not.

And indeed, such quotas are only introduced where it benefits women nowadays. Quotas for primary school teachers or custodial parents are not only not being suggested, but would be met with hostility if they were, betraying the partisan and sexist agenda of such overarching policies.

So don't try to sell us the line that it's not sexist.

You're seeing everything that might disqualify a portion of one gender as sexist without looking behind the reasons.

You mention the army where currently there are sexist entry requirements which favour women over men. A stuipd system as it not only disqualifies better able candidates but also puts those who do make it through under the reduced entry requirements behind the curve.

You mention height. That's not sexist - it's practical. Just because more men might become eligible for military service because of it is irrelevant. The reasons would be practical (ie. to operate equipment, complete physical assault courses, have suitable skeleton density etc...) and not based on gender.

To flip your example 180 - look at fighter pilots. Women have been proven to be, technically, better fighter pilots because they can multitask more efficiently. However, men are better able from around 1990 onwards having better spacial awareness and multitasking. Because of video games, funnily enough. No attention is paid to either gender based on these traits/acquired abilities as it ignores the abilities of the individual applicants, and rightly so.


But, hold on. There's a height MAXIMUM for fighter pilots. Surely, in your view, this discriminates against men? Because men are taller than women.

Of course not. There's just a height maximum for practical reasons within the cockpit.

As I said before, gender quotas are stupid. Their aim is to change the views of society by legislating for it. Obviously they're put in place to 'correct' the imbalance of genders in certain roles. But the quotas cannot themselves be accused of being sexist when it's in black and white that they're not.

You mention primary school teaching and the fact that there has been barely a whimper of similar quotas. A good thing too. I hate to see MRA reduced to pitiful, weak, attempts which feminism now attempts. I'd much rather, as a society, if we stopped looking twice at a male whose profession involves young children. This can be done via the media and conversation. There is no sexism there to fight against, merely a gender imbalance. So lets not cry wolf like feminists.

Like I said, I agree with you by-in-large about where feminism has gone and the kind of people now at the helm. But I think you're cursing the rain instead of the cloud.

If your asking me whether or not I think the current form of mainstream feminism supports sexist legislation and harbours many deluded sexists, then yes. Yes I do. Do I think real feminism is sexist? No.

You might have a point about me loosing the right to call myself a feminist however, due to the hijacking of the ideology.

The Corinthian

Dean0088 wrote: »

Feminism, in the early 20th century campaigned for very basic democratic rights for women such as the right to vote, attend university etc... The opposition they met was stark. Look at some of the pictures of the first women students. They literally needed a heavy police presence just to cross the thresholds of colleges. And yet all the campaigned for, and all they got, was equality in the name of the law. Society followed a few decades later.

Feminism wanted laws altered to treat women the same as men. Ie. Any law that says 'no woman shall' should be altered or erased from the statute books. If it was flawed from the outset, surely the original campaigns would have campaigned for a reduction of the 'worth' of a mans vote or something similar.

As I already said, around the 80s and 90s things changed. Womens Lib in the UK got too powerful as a lobby group and began asking legislators to make society change their views, as opposed to just changing the law.

You may disagree with me, but ironically your response simply underlined my position. For example, I underlined two things that you claim early feminism worked towards; both of which were about improving the situation for women.

Equality never entered into the equation; you may argue that feminism only sought to improve the situation for women because men held all the cards at the time, but that would be a lie - women were not drafted to war, for example, yet the male-only draft was never actually seriously challenged (if at all) by early feminism.

I would agree that from around the 1970's onwards this partisanship became more apparent, as the gap between the genders began to close, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there already - something that you've not only managed to fail to dismiss, but in your own words actually added further demonstration of.

It's important to return to first principles when assessing feminism's relationship to equality and what we mean by equality; after all equality is not one group having their situation improved alone unless they were disadvantaged in everything - and women were not. Selective reform for equality is not actually reform for equality; it's just one group seeking advantage or improvement under the justification of equality.

This is why I have said that even with early or (as you called it) true feminism, the seeds of its eventual evolution were there from the beginning. This fundamental flaw didn't change, and so enabled feminism's transition from a movement for womens' equality to womens' choice in the last 40 years. It made it inevitable.

You mention height. That's not sexist - it's practical.

Just because something is practical, does not mean it's not sexist. Not employing women of child baring age is also practical, as statistically they're going to have babies and take time out (often never to return) while you spend time and money holding their job with a temp. Should we accept this practical measure too?

It's very easy to create a nominally gender neutral law that is in reality anything but - I suggested quotas favouring men to illustrate the point. However it is the fact that only quotas favouring women are actually proposed, let alone enacted, that effectively betrays the motivations of those pushing for them.

Ultimately any law that de facto overwhelmingly benefits one gender over another is sexist, regardless of whether it nominally is gender neutral - it's designed to be and that's why 'modern' feminism pushes such laws.

You mention primary school teaching and the fact that there has been barely a whimper of similar quotas. A good thing too. I hate to see MRA reduced to pitiful, weak, attempts which feminism now attempts. I'd much rather, as a society, if we stopped looking twice at a male whose profession involves young children. This can be done via the media and conversation

What media and conversation? Tell me; for all of masculim's and the men's rights movement's bumbling campaigning, it's not been any round table group seeking compromise that has highlighted and informed people of discrimination against men that we even denied existed ten years ago.

Personally, I'd agree with you that we'd all be better off if we could all just sit down and work a compromise, but that's not going to happen as things stand any more than women would have been given the vote without agitation a century ago. It's a necessary and, hopefully, temporary evil which one day may be dispensed with as both feminism and masculim are consigned to ideological graveyards.

There is no sexism there to fight against, merely a gender imbalance.

Where do these 'gender imbalances' come from though? Prejudices that women are the primary child carer and men at best some form of parental support, it would seem - it is sexism that creates them, and one would have to be deluded not to admit this.

If your asking me whether or not I think the current form of mainstream feminism supports sexist legislation and harbours many deluded sexists, then yes. Yes I do. Do I think real feminism is sexist? No.

The evidence doesn't correlate, unfortunately. Feminism was needed at the start to get the ball rolling on addressing rights imbalances that disadvantaged women, without which nothing would have likely changed.

As I said, it was a necessary evil, but as those rights imbalances that disadvantaged women were closed off it just continued, when it would have been better for us all that it would have closed shop.

You might have a point about me loosing the right to call myself a feminist however, due to the hijacking of the ideology.

I think you have a very romantic view of historical feminism.

Fukuyama

The Corinthian wrote: »

I underlined two things that you claim early feminism worked towards; both of which were about improving the situation for women.

Equality never entered into the equation; you may argue that feminism only sought to improve the situation for women because men held all the cards at the time, but that would be a lie - women were not drafted to war, for example, yet the male-only draft was never actually seriously challenged (if at all) by early feminism.

Actually, requesting that you be allowed vote, alongside your fellow human, equally, is pretty much the definition of equality.

I see you've used the pittiful argument of military conscription. At the time, and now, there are two school of thoughts on this. The first is that involuntarily becoming a trained killer, forced to run into hails of bullets in trench warfare at the age of 18 for the cause of fat old men who've already lived their lives, is a good thing. A right of passage or something. OR, that it's a barbaric thing to force civilians to become combatants. I'd agree with the latter.

All logic should be able to be applied laterally. So, by your logic, the Jews should have campaigned for the Nurmberg laws to be applied to all Germans, black South Africans should have called for equal discrimination against whites and turkies should call for Christmas.

Cop on man. Look at what you're saying here. All in the face of the fact that women simply didn't even have a meaningful voice at the time.

You're also ignoring the fact that women universally not serving in militaries was something that the 'civilized world' made up and enforced. Sun Tzu references female battalions in his anecdotes, Celtic warriors had female fighters along with a host of other cultures from Asia.

It's important to return to first principles when assessing feminism's relationship to equality and what we mean by equality; after all equality is not one group having their situation improved alone unless they were disadvantaged in everything - and women were not. Selective reform for equality is not actually reform for equality; it's just one group seeking advantage or improvement under the justification of equality.

I'm aware of the importance of returing to principles. And if you did that you'd see how legislation cannot be sexist when it references both genders equally.

I see feminism now as being sexist. they cut their nose off to spite their face. However, you're saying that women on the whole requesting fundamental equality is sexist. It's not. It's their short-term tactics and ignoring equal and opposite men's issues that's sexist. Original feminists did not do this with the issues they campaigned for as they campaigned for huge issues where men were dominant.

The other issues, such as conscription, were by-in-large societal barriers which legislation would not have alone changed. You also seem to think it's the responsibility of women to campaign for the abolition of outdated practices.

Just because something is practical, does not mean it's not sexist. Not employing women of child baring age is also practical, as statistically they're going to have babies and take time out (often never to return) while you spend time and money holding their job with a temp. Should we accept this practical measure too?

You know what I mean by practical. Hiring a disabled person should be based on their ability to do the job. Not based on any arrangements you'll have to make to accommodate them. You're intentionally blurring the lines here to argue a defunct point.

[/QUOTE]

Again, you keep providing us with the injustices of men. Women obtain *stupid quotas. If there was to be a real push the same could be achieved by men. You say it's sexist that women do not achieve quotas for men - they do. the quotas are for men and women. They may 'correct' issues faced by women but they are not sexist.

If men wanted to, quotas could be imposed to favour men. I hope they don't. But men dominate the political stage at the minute and a lobby could push it through.

I know the principles are not often adhered too. But it's not sexism. It's human nature.

The Corinthian

Dean0088 wrote: »

Actually, requesting that you be allowed vote, alongside your fellow human, equally, is pretty much the definition of equality.

Nope. Requesting that you be allowed vote, alongside your fellow human, equally, is seeking equal rights in one area - indeed one that benefits you. Equality is requesting that you are treated equally in all areas - not only those which may benefit you.

I see you've used the pittiful argument of military conscription.

I see that the old tactic of ridiculing and dismissing an opposing argument has finally reared its ugly head.

At the time, and now, there are two school of thoughts on this. The first is that involuntarily becoming a trained killer, forced to run into hails of bullets in trench warfare at the age of 18 for the cause of fat old men who've already lived their lives, is a good thing. A right of passage or something. OR, that it's a barbaric thing to force civilians to become combatants. I'd agree with the latter.

All logic should be able to be applied laterally. So, by your logic, the Jews should have campaigned for the Nurmberg laws to be applied to all Germans, black South Africans should have called for equal discrimination against whites and turkies should call for Christmas.

Logical fallacy on your part, I'm afraid. Equality in this area would have been to campaign that no one should be drafted or both genders would, according to your 'two schools of thought'.

Cop on man. Look at what you're saying here. All in the face of the fact that women simply didn't even have a meaningful voice at the time.

Meaningful enough to get the vote.

I'm aware of the importance of returing to principles. And if you did that you'd see how legislation cannot be sexist when it references both genders equally.

I said first principles; "This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution?" - Marcus Aurelius

If you do that you'd see how such legislation can still be sexist when it references both genders equally.

However, you're saying that women on the whole requesting fundamental equality is sexist.

Again no, I am not saying that - if the early feminists did that you'd be correct. However, almost exclusively (there were some exceptions) they requested equality only in those areas where they were disadvantaged, not where men were disadvantaged (which while fewer in number did exist).

That is ultimately sexist, but back then because the gap was so large, because so many rights were denied of women, it was easy to not notice and for the cause of equality and of partisanship to be aligned. It was only when this gap narrowed that this flaw became visible, but ultimately it was always there.

I've explained this twice or three times at this stage, so I'd appreciate it if you don't come back and claim I said something else again.

The other issues, such as conscription, were by-in-large societal barriers which legislation would not have alone changed. You also seem to think it's the responsibility of women to campaign for the abolition of outdated practices.

Wasn't the disenfranchisement of women and logic behind that disenfranchisement not an "outdated practice?

If those "outdated practices" were sexist, I would have thought it the responsibility of feminists, if they are really about equality, to campaign for their abolition.

Or are you saying that feminists are only responsible to campaign for the abolition of outdated practices, when it negatively affects women? If so, that's not actually equality by any definition and I rest my case.

You know what I mean by practical. Hiring a disabled person should be based on their ability to do the job. Not based on any arrangements you'll have to make to accommodate them. You're intentionally blurring the lines here to argue a defunct point.

Fair enough.

If men wanted to, quotas could be imposed to favour men. I hope they don't. But men dominate the political stage at the minute and a lobby could push it through.

We both know that simply because the majority of politicians are male does not actually mean that the interests of men dominate politics. If you were to tell me what political lobby groups are strongest and most influential - those that push for the interests of men as a gender and those that push for the interests of women as a gender - who would you honestly say is the stronger?

Fukuyama

The Corinthian wrote: »

Nope. Requesting that you be allowed vote, alongside your fellow human, equally, is seeking equal rights in one area - indeed one that benefits you. Equality is requesting that you are treated equally in all areas - not only those which may benefit you.

I see that the old tactic of ridiculing and dismissing an opposing argument has finally reared its ugly head.

Logical fallacy on your part, I'm afraid. Equality in this area would have been to campaign that no one should be drafted or both genders would, according to your 'two schools of thought'.

I'll admit to my ignorance concerning feminism and conscription. However, my ignorance of their opposition to it doesn't mean it didn't exist.

I came, I saw, I googled. http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/DG051-099/dg068.wcoc/dg068.wcochistory.htm

Women opposed conscription not on the basis of their gender but on the existing patriarchy within the armed forces.

Meaningful enough to get the vote.

Not quite. It was male academics who gave feminism the voice they needed.

Again no, I am not saying that - if the early feminists did that you'd be correct. However, almost exclusively (there were some exceptions) they requested equality only in those areas where they were disadvantaged, not where men were disadvantaged (which while fewer in number did exist).

You're ignoring the human side to their campaign. They're not robots. Feminist campaigned for equality on women's issues. Perhaps in a perfect world they would have campaigned at centrally aligned humanists but society and practicality dictated otherwise. Suffragettes would still be spinning their wheels in the muddy trap that is your argument.

I've explained this twice or three times at this stage, so I'd appreciate it if you don't come back and claim I said something else again.

I'm not. I'm saying your applying fundamentals to an ideology that is so humane you cant expect that kind of robotic operation. There's a difference between being guilty of negligence and outwardly sexist and punitive. The latter, is only occurring in TODAY'S movement.

We both know that simply because the majority of politicians are male does not actually mean that the interests of men dominate politics. If you were to tell me what political lobby groups are strongest and most influential - those that push for the interests of men as a gender and those that push for the interests of women as a gender - who would you honestly say is the stronger?

Women. Nobody is trying to argue against that.

A politicians first job upon election is to make sure he or she gets re-elected. If there was a substantial need for change in this country in relation to male rights it'd be a political issue. It isn't.

Father's rights are about the only main issue and it is being questioned and talked about. Even by the most radical of feminists these days (who I'd rather steered clear of the debate altogether).

Any other issues are up to society to hash out ourselves. If a male, 17 y/o gets enough points in the Leaving Cert he will face no barriers to becoming a primary school teacher.

The Corinthian

Dean0088 wrote: »

I'll admit to my ignorance concerning feminism and conscription. However, my ignorance of their opposition to it doesn't mean it didn't exist.

I came, I saw, I googled. http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/DG051-099/dg068.wcoc/dg068.wcochistory.htm

Women opposed conscription not on the basis of their gender but on the existing patriarchy within the armed forces.

Glad to see they were thinking of equality and the men dying on their behalf.

Not quite. It was male academics who gave feminism the voice they needed.

So feminism achieved nothing then?

You're ignoring the human side to their campaign.

I'm not, I'm highlighting it. The whole point is that it was, from the start a movement by women for women. Self-interest and there's nothing wrong with that, but neither can you claim that self-interest breeds egalitarianism or unbiased equality.

I am in complete agreement with you on post-1960's feminism and what it has become today. I completely concur with you on policies such as quotas. However, what I do not share is your rather romantic belief that feminism was a movement for equality that somehow got hijacked and turned into something completely different. The seeds for that sexism were always present in feminism. Individuals in feminism may have been egalitarian and also sought to address men's rights, but this was always a rare exception and nowadays it's basically unheard of (beyond lip service).

Father's rights are about the only main issue and it is being questioned and talked about. Even by the most radical of feminists these days (who I'd rather steered clear of the debate altogether).

Increasingly there are others that are and should be discussed. Father's rights is most discussed, in many respects, because the level of discrimination has become so shamefully extreme.

And as the subject of this thread demonstrates, some radical feminists are more than happy to let us all know their views on this subject, BTW.

Any other issues are up to society to hash out ourselves. If a male, 17 y/o gets enough points in the Leaving Cert he will face no barriers to becoming a primary school teacher.

I suggest you read a few of the threads on boards by male primary teachers and the sort of prejudice and legal nightmares they have to deal with on a daily basis - prompting some to give up.

iptba

Dean0088 wrote: »

And if you did that you'd see how legislation cannot be sexist when it references both genders equally.

If there was legislation that Irish sports teams had to be at least 40% male and 40% female, by your argument that wouldn't be a sexist change/rule. I disagree. If something can give somebody an unfair advantage because of their sex, they can be sexist.

iptba

Dean0088 wrote: »

The other issues, such as conscription, were by-in-large societal barriers which legislation would not have alone changed. You also seem to think it's the responsibility of women to campaign for the abolition of outdated practices.

However, feminism is supposed to embrace men and women in terms of people who can support it.

I can't see why it couldn't/can't argue for conscription and military service for both, if it is involved in pushing to break down other societal barriers to equality.

iptba

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

lol, she writes on jezebel?

Just saw this re: Jezebel:

ETA: Actually, decided to give this a bit less publicity - you'll have to click the link to find it:
http://25.media.tumblr.com/767cf71e6f2fb764daf11836b7968a8b/tumblr_mqdvor3m8k1r7pphso1_1280.jpg

Bigdeadlydave

is that satire, like the onion or something?

iptba

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

is that satire, like the onion or something?

This description came up on Google:

Jezebel is a feminist blog aimed at women's interests, under the tagline "Celebrity, Sex, Fashion for women."

Panthro

The piece under "Fcuk you, Men's Right's Activists" is a bit.. I can't think of the correct term.

GalwayGuy2

The piece under "Fcuk you, Men's Right's Activists" is a bit.. I can't think of the correct term.

I'd call it "Pot callin' the kettle black".

Honestly, some of these arguments between Men's Rights Activists and Feminists are like mirror images shouting at each other.

kiffer

Panthro wrote: »

The piece under "Fcuk you, Men's Right's Activists" is a bit.. I can't think of the correct term.

I'm a little confused by it to be honest...

But I'm really annoyed by the domestic violence one... I want to read the article, but I know that it would ruin my evening.

Rev Hellfire

Panthro wrote: »

The piece under "Fcuk you, Men's Right's Activists" is a bit.. I can't think of the correct term.

Its a bit special, but then again bigots saying bigoted things isn't really all that surprising.

iptba

I see the theme of not giving masculists/MRAs free speech quite a lot on Twitter e.g. under the hashtag #misandry.

GalwayGuy2

But I'm really annoyed by the domestic violence one... I want to read the article, but I know that it would ruin my evening.

Here's a qoute:

After reviewing the answers, let's just say that it'd be wise to never ever **** with us.

Honestly, are they trying to do a teach men how to relate to women thing here? It's just so strange...

This furthers my belief that, while I don't agree with Men's Rights Activism, I think it's about time someone started showing these sort of things.

Empfehlen

Dean0088 wrote: »

You're saying that feminism was flawed from the very beginning in that it was sexist, but appeared to be all about equality on the surface. I disagree.

Feminism, in the early 20th century campaigned for very basic democratic rights for women such as the right to vote, attend university etc... The opposition they met was stark. Look at some of the pictures of the first women students. They literally needed a heavy police presence just to cross the thresholds of colleges. And yet all the campaigned for, and all they got, was equality in the name of the law. Society followed a few decades later.

Feminism wanted laws altered to treat women the same as men. Ie. Any law that says 'no woman shall' should be altered or erased from the statute books. If it was flawed from the outset, surely the original campaigns would have campaigned for a reduction of the 'worth' of a mans vote or something similar.

As I already said, around the 80s and 90s things changed. Womens Lib in the UK got too powerful as a lobby group and began asking legislators to make society change their views, as opposed to just changing the law.

This is where our opinions converge in agreement in that feminism became sexist in that they wanted to achieve equality in society by punitive measures against men in law.

Obviously one generation will have their roots in the previous one. However, the ideology changed significantly and flaws were implanted rather than exposed.






You're seeing everything that might disqualify a portion of one gender as sexist without looking behind the reasons.

You mention the army where currently there are sexist entry requirements which favour women over men. A stuipd system as it not only disqualifies better able candidates but also puts those who do make it through under the reduced entry requirements behind the curve.

You mention height. That's not sexist - it's practical. Just because more men might become eligible for military service because of it is irrelevant. The reasons would be practical (ie. to operate equipment, complete physical assault courses, have suitable skeleton density etc...) and not based on gender.

To flip your example 180 - look at fighter pilots. Women have been proven to be, technically, better fighter pilots because they can multitask more efficiently. However, men are better able from around 1990 onwards having better spacial awareness and multitasking. Because of video games, funnily enough. No attention is paid to either gender based on these traits/acquired abilities as it ignores the abilities of the individual applicants, and rightly so.


But, hold on. There's a height MAXIMUM for fighter pilots. Surely, in your view, this discriminates against men? Because men are taller than women.

Of course not. There's just a height maximum for practical reasons within the cockpit.

As I said before, gender quotas are stupid. Their aim is to change the views of society by legislating for it. Obviously they're put in place to 'correct' the imbalance of genders in certain roles. But the quotas cannot themselves be accused of being sexist when it's in black and white that they're not.

You mention primary school teaching and the fact that there has been barely a whimper of similar quotas. A good thing too. I hate to see MRA reduced to pitiful, weak, attempts which feminism now attempts. I'd much rather, as a society, if we stopped looking twice at a male whose profession involves young children. This can be done via the media and conversation. There is no sexism there to fight against, merely a gender imbalance. So lets not cry wolf like feminists.

Like I said, I agree with you by-in-large about where feminism has gone and the kind of people now at the helm. But I think you're cursing the rain instead of the cloud.

If your asking me whether or not I think the current form of mainstream feminism supports sexist legislation and harbours many deluded sexists, then yes. Yes I do. Do I think real feminism is sexist? No.

You might have a point about me loosing the right to call myself a feminist however, due to the hijacking of the ideology.

When, how and by whom was it proven that women are better fighter pilots?

And in response to Dean, a quota of 40 % for both men and women is sexist. It discriminates based on sex ( the essence of sexism), therefore it is sexist. It reduces the likelihood that the best person would get the job based on their abilities.

iptba

This interview (and possibly other recent coverage relating to Hugo Schwyzer) is not good PR for male feminists!

Porn Professor Hugo Schwyzer Comes Clean About His Twitter Meltdown and Life as a Fraud

by Richard Abowitz Aug 12, 2013 1:10 PM EDT

He built a successful, if divisive, career as a ‘male feminist’ and porn advocate. Then his life fell apart—on Twitter. He talks to Richard Abowitz about what fueled his epic meltdown.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/12/porn-professor-hugo-schwyzer-comes-clean-about-his-twitter-meltdown-and-life-as-a-fraud.html