I need feminism because...

upandcumming

Morag wrote: »

I need feminism as there are not enough women in our government.

How is this a feminist issue?

Legs.Eleven

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

How is feminism still needed in the West? Genuine question, not being smart. I know there are certain things which affect women simply because of their gender, ditto for men. I'd believe in focusing on both together, rather than it being a case of "Them and us".

Feminism is needed in Afghanistan because women are actually subjugated simply because of being women (although some might argue that that's not just a gender issue but a human rights one).

Not that I have any time for women viewing feminism as a dirty word. I can't stand that attitude.

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

So why a focus just on women, why not a focus on all affected due to their gender?

I see what you're saying but I'd call myself a feminist along with many other things. I'm not part of any feminist group and when I do go out and protest, I'm protesting for the rights of everyone. I'm not JUST a feminist which probably leads to the question of why I don't just call myself a humanist instead (which I do also) and I suppose I'd answer that by saying I support some feminist causes specifically and acknowledge all that has been done for women right up to now as a woman - but I don't support feminist causes exclusively.

I call myself multiple things and support multiple -isms and I think you'll find that often moderate feminists are often part of many groups. They're often activists generally.

Tbh, the labels grate on me a bit but I also don't want to shun the label as often that's associated with being "anti-feminist" thus anti women (by some people) just as being feminist is associated with hating men by some people. Everyone has their perspective and it's impossible to please everyone. It's a difficult one and labels are often dangerous and as you said, can create divisions. I don't want to be associated with fundamentalists or extremist feminists and I don't want to be associated with the women who are ashamed of their own gender. What's in a label or a name really? I support many causes associated with women (which have been mentioned on this thread) and believe in equal rights for women internationally and acknowledge all that has been done for us...but not exclusively. In fact I concern myself with rights for everyone more often. I go on protests fairly regularly in Madrid but none of them are feminist marches because right now, I believe we have to act as a collective.

I don't actively partake in feminist activities so does that mean I'm not a feminist? I don't know. I still call myself one if someone asks but I don't tell everyone I am when it doesn't come up in conversation.


I live in Spain (as you know ) where there is still a definite need for feminism where sexism is still rife. Obviously nowhere near as bad as the Middle East but as the dictatorship has only ended relatively recently, the mindset of many people and the establishment hasn't had time to catch up. They kind of forced the liberal mindset suddenly instead of there being a natural evolution. Other European countries are the same.

I suppose I'd call myself a humanist which would be an umbrella term which would encompass a load of other "ists" and "isms" including feminism, so calling myself a feminist doesn't preclude me from other concerns.

Links234

upandcumming wrote: »

How is this a feminist issue?

that a huge section of the Irish people are under represented in our government? how is it not?

Morag

upandcumming wrote: »

How is this a feminist issue?

Because it stems from the systematic biases about what women should do and what they are and are not capable of.

Strawberry Swan

Feathers wrote: »

That's exactly the point I was making, though from the opposite angle - someone was annoyed that young women weren't identifying with the term feminism. So long as the issues themselves get addressed, does it need to be given an umbrella name of "feminism"?

Yes, it does need the umbrella term feminism. And that's the key, it's an umbrella term under which all different kinds of feminism exist but uniting them all is the belief that females (children and adults) aren't being treated equally to males simply BECAUSE of their gender.

In order to talk about feminist issues you need to give it a name. Imagine talking about people you know but not using their name. It makes communicating a lot easier. The issue I think you have with the term feminism is that it must mean you are a man-hating lesbian who doesn't want to wear make-up, or some other crap. I have no doubt that both men and women have this skewed view but it's not reality. Feminism has a long history of incredibly brave women fighting to stand up for the rights that most of us today enjoy. It encompasses different movements such as free-thinkers, the suffragettes, anarcha-feminism (see the great Emma Goldman), women's liberation in the 60's and third wave feminism which is basically today's continuation of women's lib. And that's only a few of the movements from around the world. To be part of that fight for gender equality is something to be very proud of, not ashamed.

And make no mistake, there is still need for it today - in the workplace, in our schools, culturally and socially. All other things being equal, men still get paid more for the same work. Only last year women were allowed to box in the Olympics for the first time thanks to Katie Taylor's fight to have what men had for a long long time.

I am proud to call myself a feminist because I am proud to be a women and I still see and experience inequalities regularly. That's not to say I don't support men's rights too, particularly in relation to children. In the eyes of the law they are seen as second to the mother. But that is a separate issue. Just as gay rights is another issue. Feminism is one of hundreds you could choose to be part of if you so wished. So to anyone who doesn't know what feminism really means, educate yourself so that you can choose to be one or not. If you choose not to be a feminist then one can only assume you actually think females deserve to be treated lesser than males.

runawaybishop

Strawberry Swan wrote: »

If you choose not to be a feminist then one can only assume you actually think females deserve to be treated lesser than males.

What a retarded assumption.

The Corinthian

Strawberry Swan wrote: »

Yes, it does need the umbrella term feminism. And that's the key, it's an umbrella term under which all different kinds of feminism exist but uniting them all is the belief that females (children and adults) aren't being treated equally to males simply BECAUSE of their gender.

Then why is Feminism so silent (bar some lip service) on issues where females (children and adults) aren't being treated equally to males simply BECAUSE of their gender, in areas such as parental rights, criminal sentencing, military service or domestic violence, for example?

It doesn't really sell the notion that Feminism is about gender equality when it's only about gender equality to the advantage of one gender.

Lyaiera

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then why is Feminism so silent (bar some lip service) on issues where females (children and adults) aren't being treated equally to males simply BECAUSE of their gender, in areas such as parental rights, criminal sentencing, military service or domestic violence, for example?

It doesn't really sell the notion that Feminism is about gender equality when it's only about gender equality to the advantage of one gender.

This is such bollocks. Every ****ing thread on feminism goes back to this despite it being explained that all of those issues stem from the way women were and continue to be treated. "Patriarchy" look it ****ing up.

TINA1984

Morag wrote: »

Because it stems from the systematic biases about what women should do and what they are and are not capable of.

Are those the same systemic biases that mean it is less likely that ethnic minorities, working class, young people, minority religion etc. aren't represented in the house's of parliament?

Lyaiera

TINA1984 wrote: »

Are those the same systemic biases that mean it is less likely that ethnic minorities, working class, young people, minority religion etc. aren't represented in the house's of parliament?

Yes. It's called "Intersectionality" and it's been a part of feminism since we moved from the Second Wave to the Third Wave.

TINA1984

Lyaiera wrote: »

Yes. It's called "Intersectionality" and it's been a part of feminism since we moved from the Second Wave to the Third Wave.

So I presume then you want electoral quota's introduced for these minorities as well?

The Corinthian

Lyaiera wrote: »

This is such bollocks. Every ****ing thread on feminism goes back to this despite it being explained that all of those issues stem from the way women were and continue to be treated. "Patriarchy" look it ****ing up.

I'm not suggesting that any of these stem from Feminism. I can fully accept that Patriarchy is probably at the root of most if not all gender inequalities, for both genders.

What I'm asking is; if Feminism is about gender equality, why does it ignore those gender inequalities that advantage women?

Lyaiera

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that any of these stem from Feminism. I can fully accept that Patriarchy is probably at the root of most if not all gender inequalities, for both genders.

What I'm asking is; if Feminism is about gender equality, why does it ignore those gender inequalities that advantage women?

Straw feminists again.

Edit: And "Den y u call it feminism!?!"

The Corinthian

Lyaiera wrote: »

Straw feminists again.

If you're going to try to dismiss what I'm asking as a straw argument, you might do me the courtesy of explaining why it is so, otherwise you just look like you're attempting to shout me down.

Lyaiera

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you're going to try to dismiss what I'm asking as a straw argument, you might do me the courtesy of explaining why it is so, otherwise you just look like you're attempting to shout me down.

I said "Straw feminists" not "straw argument."

Also, no.

Strawberry Swan

runawaybishop wrote: »

What a retarded assumption.

Why? I took the time to write out my post and explain my position. If there is false logic in my argument let me hear it. And try not to use the word retarded, it's insulting on many levels.

TINA1984

TINA1984 wrote: »

So I presume then you want electoral quota's introduced for these minorities as well?

'Y U NO' reply to this question Lyaiera?

GalwayGuy2

This is such bollocks. Every ****ing thread on feminism goes back to this despite it being explained that all of those issues stem from the way women were and continue to be treated. "Patriarchy" look it ****ing up.

Not entirely sure I agree with the term patriarchy. Not saying women weren't second class citizens, or that men weren't in more authoritative roles, but it does seem to stress the structural authority, and ignore the more nebulous authorities.

Lyaiera

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Not entirely sure I agree with the term patriarchy. Not saying women weren't second class citizens, or that men weren't in more authoritative roles, but it does seem to stress the structural authority, and ignore the more nebulous authorities.

No it doesn't.

TINA1984 wrote: »

'Y U NO' reply to this question Lyaiera?

Because it's a stupid question.

The Corinthian

Lyaiera wrote: »

I said "Straw feminists" not "straw argument."

How did my question have anything to do with 'straw feminists' then? The dismissal makes no sense.

Also, no.

Then why not take the time to actually respond to the question, because I've noticed it tends not to be.

Ambersky

I am kind of trying to keep a bit of distance on this one because I hate the way threads often go when feminism comes up it is so disheartening sometimes.
Like I have said earlier threads like "Have you ever been sexually assaulted" that ran on for ages should be reason enough to be able to say without any doubt that feminism is still valid and very necessary. If the sheer number of posters in that thread telling stories of their sexual assaults were not enough there were a number of other factors, for example many of the posters doubted that what they experienced could be called sexual assault, hadnt told anyone else, there were frequent interventions to try to minimise what women were saying and repeated attempts to change the subject to men get assaulted too.
The fact is it is still very difficult to hear anything from a womens perspective and where that space exists it needs constant moderation and protection otherwise it will be derailed.

On the word feminism. Feminism has always been a dirty word, always, right back to the time of the suffragettes and they were looking for something as basic as the right of women to vote. Myths about feminists being out to destroy society and the family in particular, about feminists being ugly or man hating, or too serious or not necessary etc etc have been popular since the 19th Century.
The fact that feminism has been scapegoated and misrepresented in so many ways, since its very beginnings and right up to the present, even in conditions where women didn't have the vote, is kind of evidence in itself of feminisms relevance. Feminists dont have to say anything outrageous to be accused of humourless destructive, man hating irrelevance they have been the accusations right from the first woman saying I think I would like to vote.
http://http://www.scienceomega.com/article/860/why-do-some-women-view-feminism-as-a-dirty-word

Here are some of the ways feminists were being blamed for being too angry, for looking like men and for wanting to take over the male role back in the 19th and early 20th Centuries.




Women who disasociated themselves from crazy feminists were portrayed as sensible even heroic for being able to stand up against their destructive (see the hammer brandished in the feminists hand) flag waving attention seeking behaviour. Women believing the anti feminist propaganda is nothing new.
Also there seems to be something a bit lesbophobic about how often women say they are not feminist as in the man hating lesbian variety.

J P Morgan Toledo

J P Morgan Toledo wrote: »

Sluts, both male and female ARE immoral. .

Define "slut" in this case. One thing I can never understand is the willingness of those to look down upon those that practice casual sex; be they male or female. Your morals are not the same as my morals. Or if you mean "slut" as in prostitution? Then as long as they are doing it willing and haven't been trafficked/tricked into it, then there is no problem with it. They provide a service and if legalized, strictly moderated, and taxed, then could bring in quite an influx of cash to the economy.

Mod

J P Morgan Toledo.

Re reg troll - banned.

ciara1052

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then why is Feminism so silent (bar some lip service) on issues where females (children and adults) aren't being treated equally to males simply BECAUSE of their gender, in areas such as parental rights, criminal sentencing, military service or domestic violence, for example?

It doesn't really sell the notion that Feminism is about gender equality when it's only about gender equality to the advantage of one gender.

This really bugs me - and it's why I dislike the word feminism - because people assume that you're aiming for the progression of one gender, and also because feminists are like a collective group of people -with a list of things we do and don't talk about.

Any feminists I know (not that we call ourselves that) are entirely in agreement with inequalities like those outlined in your post. Most 'feminists' would be

Is this 'Feminism' that is so silent a group of people?? All individuals can do is agree or disagree with people via their own opinion. I'm 20 - and as far as I know there isn't really a local 'Feminism' movement that I could correct for being silent.

Maybe there isn't an agreement between feminists - tbh I don't think it means one definitive thing anymore. I've always taken it as equal rights. (on phone - could probably have explained myself better with access to a computer)

The Corinthian

ciara1052 wrote: »

Any feminists I know (not that we call ourselves that) are entirely in agreement with inequalities like those outlined in your post. Most 'feminists' would be

I did concede that there is lip service to this effect. But that's all it is.

Maybe there isn't an agreement between feminists - tbh I don't think it means one definitive thing anymore. I've always taken it as equal rights. (on phone - could probably have explained myself better with access to a computer)

But if it is about equal rights, why does feminism never campaign where women might lose rights in the interests of equality? Paternity rights being a case in point.

After all, you can't represent equality unless you represent the rights of both genders, and that may mean representing issues in the interests of equality that may result in women losing traditional, patriarchal rights.

So how does one explain this inconsistency in the claim that feminism is about gender equality?

clairefontaine

upandcumming wrote: »

How is this a feminist issue?

Because they want quotas.

Why do we need more women in government? I have no idea what this assumption is based on. Ridiculous and sexist.

ciara1052

The Corinthian wrote: »

I did concede that there is lip service to this effect. But that's all it is.

But if it is about equal rights, why does feminism never campaign where women might lose rights in the interests of equality? Paternity rights being a case in point.

After all, you can't represent equality unless you represent the rights of both genders, and that may mean representing issues in the interests of equality that may result in women losing traditional, patriarchal rights.

So how does one explain this inconsistency in the claim that feminism is about gender equality?

But that's my point - you keep referring to 'feminism' for not doing these things. I do.I do represent the rights of both genders - is there some 'head of feminism' I should complain to? It's not just me - it's any feminists I know (not only female) that do these things - should we stop calling ourselves feminists?

It's like you've an issue with the ideology of feminism. All I can do - along with other 'feminists' is hold my own views and debate others. I didn't join some club that actively ignores men's rights if you get what I'm saying?

clairefontaine

Lyaiera wrote: »

This is such bollocks. Every ****ing thread on feminism goes back to this despite it being explained that all of those issues stem from the way women were and continue to be treated. "Patriarchy" look it ****ing up.

Feminism is a divisive ideology to keep us all fighting amongst ourselves while the elites stay elites.

Feminists worked for lesbians but I don't think it did much for straight family oriented women.

Stop with the victim politics.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

I did concede that there is lip service to this effect. But that's all it is.

But if it is about equal rights, why does feminism never campaign where women might lose rights in the interests of equality? Paternity rights being a case in point.

After all, you can't represent equality unless you represent the rights of both genders, and that may mean representing issues in the interests of equality that may result in women losing traditional, patriarchal rights.

So how does one explain this inconsistency in the claim that feminism is about gender equality?

In fairness I have heard feminists argue that you know we have equality when there are as many women on death row as there are men.

Such is their charm.

B0jangles

There's a pretty good anaolgy in this Jezebel article explaining why feminism is called feminism and not humanism:

Unfortunately, the reason that "fem" is a part of the word "feminism" is that the world is not, currently, an equal, safe, and just place for women (and other groups as well—in its idealized form, intersectional feminism seeks to correct all those imbalances). To remove the gendered implications of the term is to deny that those imbalances exist, and you can't make problems disappear just by changing "feminism" to "humanism" and declaring the world healed. That won't work.

Think of it like this. Imagine you're reading a Dr. Seuss book about a bunch of beasts living on an island. There are two kinds of beasts: Fleetches and Flootches. (Stick with me here! I love you!) Though the two are functionally identical in terms of intellect and general competence, Fleetches are in charge of pretty much everything. They hold the majority of political positions, they make the most money (beast-bucks!), they dominate the beast media, they enact all kinds of laws infringing on the bodily autonomy of Flootches. Individually, most of them are perfectly nice beasts, but collectively they benefit comfortably from inequalities that are historically entrenched in the power structure of Beast Island. So, from birth, even the most unfortunate Fleetches encounter fewer institutional roadblocks and greater opportunity than almost all Flootches, regardless of individual merit. One day, a group of Flootches (the ones who have not internalized their inferiority) get together and decide to agitate to change that system. They call their movement "Flootchism," because it is specifically intended to address problems that disproportionately disadvantage Flootches while benefiting Fleetches. That makes sense, right?

Now imagine that, in response, a bunch of Fleetches begin complaining that Flootchism doesn't address their needs, and they have problems too, and therefore the movement should really be renamed Beastism. To be fair. The problem with that name change is that it that undermines the basic mission of the movement, because it obscures (deliberately, I'd warrant) that beast society is inherently weighted against Flootches. It implies that all problems are just beast problems, and that all beasts suffer comparably, which cripples the very necessary effort to prioritize and repair problems that are Flootch-specific. Those problems are a priority because they harm all Flootches, systematically, whereas Fleetch problems merely harm individual Fleetches. To argue that all problems are just "beast problems" is to discredit the idea of inequality altogether. It is, in fact, insulting.

Article link: http://jezebel.com/5992479/if-i-admit-that-hating-men-is-a-thing-will-you-stop-turning-it-into-a-self+fulfilling-prophecy

The Corinthian

ciara1052 wrote: »

But that's my point - you keep referring to 'feminism' for not doing these things. I do.I do represent the rights of both genders - is there some 'head of feminism' I should complain to? It's not just me - it's any feminists I know (not only female) that do these things - should we stop calling ourselves feminists?

Perhaps, because as far as the self-identifying media, feminist and 'equality' groups, and so on out who presently organize these social initiatives for gender quotas in politics, domestic violence centres that don't acknowledge violence against men, seek the abolition of custodial sentences for women while ignoring the vast disparity in sentencing that favours them and so on; certainly do behave that way. If you don't, maybe it's because you're not really a feminist. Or are you both? In which case it still returns us to the original question.

So maybe you should complain to them, because they're the public face of feminism and if people see feminists negatively, it's because of them.

But tell me this; of any marches or campaigns you may have been involved in, what percentage would have been for equality issue for men that may disadvantage women?

It's like you've an issue with the ideology of feminism.

I just feel it became morally bankrupt a few decades ago, when the message went from being about 'equality for women' and became about 'choice for women'.

The Corinthian

B0jangles wrote: »

because it obscures (deliberately, I'd warrant) that beast society is inherently weighted against Flootches.

I'd question if that's really the case any more in the West.

But here's another story for you:

Consider a society composed of chimps and gorillas. Gorillas each are allotted 2 bananas and 5 oranges. Chimps each are allotted 4 bananas and 1 orange. Both bananas and oranges are of equal value.

It is clear from this that chimps are unequal to gorillas as overall they have fewer fruit. So consider the chimps campaign to redress this imbalance and as a result both are ultimately allotted with 3 oranges.

Yet the chimps have not actually campaigned for equality in the long run, but for equality only where they were disadvantaged. In the short term their interests and the aim of equality coincided, but as time went on the two diverged. Had they sought equality in the long run they would have had to sacrifice their relative advantage in bananas, so that both they and the gorillas would have 3.

But they didn't.

Wibbs

Troll posts removed

B0jangles

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'd question if that's really the case any more in the West.

But here's another story for you:

Why is it the reponsibility of the chimps to do the gorillas campaigning for them? Surely if the gorillas feel that they have been unfairly treated it is up to them to campaign on thier own behalf?

ciara1052

The Corinthian wrote: »

Perhaps, because as far as the self-identifying media, feminist and 'equality' groups, and so on out who presently organize these social initiatives for gender quotas in politics, domestic violence centres that don't acknowledge violence against men, seek the abolition of custodial sentences for women while ignoring the vast disparity in sentencing that favours them and so on; certainly do behave that way. If you don't, maybe it's because you're not really a feminist. Or are you both? In which case it still returns us to the original question.

So maybe you should complain to them, because they're the public face of feminism and if people see feminists negatively, it's because of them.

But tell me this; of any marches or campaigns you may have been involved in, what percentage would have been for equality issue for men that may disadvantage women?

I just feel it became morally bankrupt a few decades ago, when the message went from being about 'equality for women' and became about 'choice for women'.

I can understand that - but it's not necessarily fair to kind of tar 'feminists' as a group of women with serious entitlement issues (All the benefits - none of the sacrifice) - as not all of us are like that.

(quoting is awkward so I've kind of replied on a point by point basis)

As for the self identified media - just because someone labels themselves as feminist doesn't mean they represent me as a feminist. I don't like gender quotas. I haven't heard decent arguments in favor of them. Issues like not enough male teachers/female politicians can be addressed in far better ways. I haven't had a conversation with someone who thinks domestic abuse is limited to females (Not arguing they don't exist - idiots everywhere - but I certainly don't associate with them - wouldn't call them feminists) and so...

The issue is that these people themselves aren't really feminists - it's not me that isn't the feminist. Sure I could argue that domestic violence effects women more - but by excluding one gender totally from the discussion?? Not really logical. Totally unfair.

How could I be both? Tbh it comes down to how you define feminism. I'm not going to argue that there's one set in stone definition.

Thing is - there might be people in the media that have their own view and opinions that identify as feminists - but I can only disagree with them and argue that their particular views aren't very fair. They may have other feminist based views - I can only disagree with the ones I disagree with. There isn't a union as far as I know....

Do I have to march/campaign to be a feminist? :eek:
I go to discussions/talks - I'll sign things I support - argue against things I don't. Tbh the more recent arguments regarding feminism would include issues like inequalities in parental rights/military service in certain countries etc.

upandcumming

Links234 wrote: »

that a huge section of the Irish people are under represented in our government? how is it not?

So you're saying the current representatives are not doing their job?

Playboy

B0jangles wrote: »

Why is it the reponsibility of the chimps to do the gorillas campaigning for them? Surely if the gorillas feel that they have been unfairly treated it is up to them to campaign on thier own behalf?

Well you just proved his point then.. feminism isn't about equality, it's about one gender furthering it's own cause even if it's at the expense of the other sex.

B0jangles

Playboy wrote: »

Well you just proved his point then.. feminism isn't about equality, it's about one gender furthering it's own cause even if it's at the expense of the other sex.

Equality is not a zero-sum game, men don't lose rights just because women gain them.

ciara1052

Playboy wrote: »

Well you just proved his point then.. feminism isn't about equality, it's about one gender furthering it's own cause even if it's at the expense of the other sex.

I'd have argued that is wasn't feminism. Isn't exactly fair to define it as such based on an article?

clairefontaine

B0jangles wrote: »

Why is it the reponsibility of the chimps to do the gorillas campaigning for them? Surely if the gorillas feel that they have been unfairly treated it is up to them to campaign on thier own behalf?

The metaphor is flawed and validates divisive assumptions.

Chimps and gorillas don't raise families together, dont exist within families together. This is why both sides are so divisive. The narratives are all either or, not both/and.

TINA1984

Lyaiera wrote: »

Because it's a stupid question.

It most certainly isn't. You want quota's introduced because women are under-represented in politics, but you think it's stupid to expand that reasoning to include other minorities who are under represented in houses of the Oireachtas?

I think quotas for anyone is silly.

It's also a little tiring to see constant sniping on the internet about how women won't do xyz for men. Have you set up campaign groups and asked feminist groups to help out the advancement of parental right equality - which I fully support - or you just not care enough about it to do anything but use it as a stick with which to beat women every time they mention feminism?
Yes, we know you exist, yes, we know you have problems too.
Do something instead of trying to drag everyone else's efforts down

The Corinthian

ciara1052 wrote: »

I can understand that - but it's not necessarily fair to kind of tar 'feminists' as a group of women with serious entitlement issues (All the benefits - none of the sacrifice) - as not all of us are like that.

Well maybe you're not a feminist. You can't all be feminists and have such, frankly, incompatible views.

The issue is that these people themselves aren't really feminists - it's not me that isn't the feminist.

These people are those running 'gender' equality courses. Writing books on feminism. In politics and the highest levels of the NGO's.

I suspect they've more right to call themselves what they want that you do.

Unless people like you act and take that right back, you're just on their bandwagon giving tacit support to the policies they push.

B0jangles wrote: »

Why is it the reponsibility of the chimps to do the gorillas campaigning for them? Surely if the gorillas feel that they have been unfairly treated it is up to them to campaign on thier own behalf?

Because the chimps have set themselves up to be representing equality. If they do that, they have to represent both the themselves and the Gorillas - otherwise they're just representing themselves.

So is feminism about representing the interests of equality or women?

B0jangles wrote: »

Equality is not a zero-sum game, men don't lose rights just because women gain them.

To begin with, that's not actually true. Positive discrimination inevitably means that another group loses out. Now this may be fair, in that this other group had an unfair advantage, but it still loses out.

Yet feminism only appears to support positive discrimination selectively; it's desirable where it comes to, say, quotas in the board room or electoral lists, but what about child custody cases?

And equality is a zero-sum game, I thought my example demonstrated this; by the end of it, you didn't have equality, you just ended up with a different form of inequality.

clairefontaine wrote: »

Chimps and gorillas don't raise families together, dont exist within families together. This is why both sides are so divisive. The narratives are all either or, not both/and.

What on Earth are you talking about?

bluewolf wrote: »

It's also a little tiring to see constant sniping on the internet about how women won't do xyz for men.

I think you misunderstood me. Women, more correctly feminists, do not have to do anything for men. Feminism can happily represent the interests of women and no one else. No problem.

However, if you claim to represent equality, then you have to represent both sides, regardless of whether men are doing anything about it ourselves - otherwise you're not actually representing equality.

Which one will it be? Represent men in the interests of equality, even if it means women losing unfair advantages or just stop pretending that feminism represents equality?

But don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.

fits

bluewolf wrote: »

I think quotas for anyone is silly.

I actually don't. I think better gender balance will follow higher participation from both sexes. I think its really important in politics in particular. The lack of female political voices in the abortion debate is evidence of that.

And I don't just believe in gender quotas for women either. Society in general would benefit from more men in traditionally female roles also. Particularly teaching and nursing.

(edit: not to say that teaching is traditionally female role, but it is female dominated recently)

Feathers

Strawberry Swan wrote: »

In order to talk about feminist issues you need to give it a name. Imagine talking about people you know but not using their name. It makes communicating a lot easier.

But these issues do have names - childcare, equal pay & opportunities in the workforce, political representation, etc.

A collective term only makes it easier if someone wants to try to discuss these as a group of issues, but some people are happy to address them individually.

It doesn't make them any less passionate or committed about individual issues by doing so, nor does it mean they disregard rights won in these areas in the past under the banner of feminism.

clairefontaine

fits wrote: »

I actually don't. I think better gender balance will follow higher participation from both sexes. I think its really important in politics in particular. The lack of female political voices in the abortion debate is evidence of that.

And I don't just believe in gender quotas for women either. Society in general would benefit from more men in traditionally female roles also. Particularly teaching and nursing.

(edit: not to say that teaching is traditionally female role, but it is female dominated recently)

Maybe they don't want to go into politics.

Gender quotas in politics just looks like you love government and hate men.

Why oh why is there this push and assumption that there needs to be more women? You want gay quotas? Traveller quotas? He'll lets just wipe out the democratic process altogether.

fits

clairefontaine wrote: »

Maybe they don't want to go into politics.

.

Maybe they don't want to go into politics because its not perceived as female-friendly. Maybe if there were more women in politics that perception (or reality) would fade and more women would be inclined to try it.

fits

clairefontaine wrote: »

and hate men.

where does this 'man hating' thing come from btw? How is it man hating to want some (not even 50%) of your political representatives to be female.

I don't hate men. I LOVE men!

Feathers

fits wrote: »

where does this 'man hating' thing come from btw? How is it man hating to want some (not even 50%) of your political representatives to be female.

I don't hate men. I LOVE men!

I agree that it's not men-hating, but I think it's strange that ordinary people are championing it as a genuine fix to get more issues affecting women addressed in parliament. I can understand the political parties introducing it as easy lip-service to getting more women involved. In reality though I think quotas will get more of the women already involved on the ballot paper, but do little to get women who weren't involved into politics to begin with.

Getting more people from non-traditional backgrounds into parliament, both women & men, could do more for the issues that affect women rather than having a few more incumbents' daughter, niece or sister take over his seat.

Quotas have merely addressed the symptom & not the cause of the lack of women in politics.

fits

Feathers wrote: »

Quotas have merely addressed the symptom & not the cause of the lack of women in politics.

And I agree with you. Its an imperfect solution. But perhaps in the longer term, it will address the cause also and attract more women into politics who wouldn't have been there in the first instance.
Also the presence of more women in politics might have the effect of reforming it to be more women (and people) friendly in general. Politics is not conducive to rearing a family right now for example and while there's such a majority of men in it, it is not likely to be addressed by men even if it should be an issue for them too.

So, I'm not saying its perfect, but can you come up with a better solution or are you happy with things as they are?