I need feminism because...

kylith

Would this have an impact beyond the delivery room? By my reading it opens the door for any HCP to perform any procedure on a patient regardless of the patient's wishes.

IvyTheTerrible

That is beyond frightening.

iwantmydinner

Oh Jesus. How fcuking terrifying is that?

I really don't see that ruling being upheld in the Supreme Court though... I really, really hope it gets appealed.

Delirium

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't really understand the article what does it mean in practice? Can't a woman just refuse a midwife if she suggests something the woman isn't happy about? They can't force her.

From what I understand, they did carry out a procedure against the wishes of the woman who was suing the hospital.

from the article:

The woman claims that the midwife performed the ARM against her wishes and was a unnecessary intervention in her normally progressing birth that led to long term consequences for both herself and her son.

eviltwin

It's scary to think we could be going the way of the US

http://jezebel.com/woman-opts-for-vaginal-birth-fl-hospital-threatens-chi-1611727550

eviltwin

SW wrote: »

From what I understand, they did carry out a procedure against the wishes of the woman who was suing the hospital.

from the article:

But if she had refused how can the midwife do it against her will, that's the bit I don't get, did she hold her down and do it anyway?

meeeeh

Ok does anybody have a bit more information about the whole thing than a blog and fairly basic article?

It always worries me when someone is telling other people that they should spend their money going to supreme court on a basis of a very limited reports about a court case.

But let me just finish off with this: this case needs to go to the Supreme Court. It mightn’t if the woman in question can’t afford the risk of losing and having further costs awarded against her, but it really needs to, because based on this judgement, woman’s voices and their bodily autonomy have just been ripped away. We need to get them back.

Das Kitty

eviltwin wrote: »

But if she had refused how can the midwife do it against her will, that's the bit I don't get, did she hold her down and do it anyway?

That particular one is done during an internal exam. Having had that procedure I can easily see how it could be done even when she refused.

kylith

eviltwin wrote: »

But if she had refused how can the midwife do it against her will, that's the bit I don't get, did she hold her down and do it anyway?

She was in labour, presumably with her feet in stirrups, she wasn't exactly going to be able to run away.

Neyite

eviltwin wrote: »

But if she had refused how can the midwife do it against her will, that's the bit I don't get, did she hold her down and do it anyway?

I'm not sure, but I got the impression the woman had consented to being examined by the midwife so thought it was a standard internal examination that was being done.

I have heard of women having what they assumed was an internal only to find out afterwards the midwife performed a sweep when she was in there.

iwantmydinner

meeeeh wrote: »

Ok does anybody have a bit more information about the whole thing than a blog and fairly basic article?

That's part of the point though. It hasn't been reported properly. It's not seen as that big of a deal.

Dolbert

eviltwin wrote: »

But if she had refused how can the midwife do it against her will, that's the bit I don't get, did she hold her down and do it anyway?

She claims that the midwife said she was 'going to check on her', and broke the membranes without telling her. The.midwife claims it was discussed beforehand.

meeeeh

iwantmydinner wrote: »

That's part of the point though. It hasn't been reported properly. It's not seen as that big of a deal.

Maybe because it wasn't or maybe it is. The fact is nobody really knows and somebody deciding the case should go to the supreme court on the basis of couple of sentences isn't exactly trustworthy. It's an opinion piece, yet nobody really knows what was going on except woman suing saying she didn't consent to procedure. We know nothing what other medical witnesses said or any other details.

iwantmydinner

meeeeh wrote: »

Maybe because it wasn't or maybe it is. The fact is nobody really knows and somebody deciding the case should go to the supreme court on the basis of couple of sentences isn't exactly trustworthy. It's an opinion piece, yet nobody really knows what was going on except woman suing saying she didn't consent to procedure. We know nothing what other medical witnesses said or any other details.

I don't get your point. The writer formed an opinion based on the info available to her, while pointing to the caveat that the case was woefully under-reported. What's the problem?

meeeeh

iwantmydinner wrote: »

I don't get your point. The writer formed an opinion based on the info available to her, while pointing to the caveat that the case was woefully under-reported. What's the problem?

It's hardly fact though is it? I'm just saying, before we start collecting money for the lawsuit in the supreme court or deciding to give birth outside of the country.

NamelessPhil

The writer of the blog must have more information available to them than that reported in the Irish Examiner article. There is no mention in the newspaper article of anyone seeking consent for a medical procedure, or of the woman's wishes being ignored.

I'll be waiting for the actual judgment on the Courts website. All that is reported is that Ms. Hamilton sued the HSE for the consequences of the ceasarean section.

rainbow kirby

More detailed article on the AIMS Ireland blog today.

Frito

I wonder if this lady's case has been referred to an bord Altranais.

sunshine and showers

Because this is how women's rugby is still reported on.

http://balls.ie/rugby/article-exactly-irish-womens-rugby-without/

YumCha

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Because this is how women's rugby is still reported on.

http://balls.ie/rugby/article-exactly-irish-womens-rugby-without/

Ughhhhhhh Niamh Horan has been responsible for some really terrible articles in recent memory, I'd go looking for them but I've used up my hate-reading quota for the day just with that rugby one...

iwantmydinner

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Because this is how women's rugby is still reported on.

http://balls.ie/rugby/article-exactly-irish-womens-rugby-without/

Rage rage raaaaaaaaage

kylith

It could be worse. Have a google for "Women's American Football" if you want to get really depressed. It's a shame that even in sport women are expected to be sexualised.

kylith

Limevapour wrote: »

I don't think your average woman in the western world needs feminism. In the western world women have achieved equality and in many areas are treated with special privilege such as sentencing in the courts. The women who really need feminism are those in Saudi Arabia and other such countries where women are treated like second class citizens. Feminsim in the western world is more like a trade union for women, equality is an afterthought.

All women everywhere need feminism. The problem is that in some quarters feminism has been corrupted from equality between men and women into an anti-male movement.

But to say that women in the west don't need feminism because women in the Middle East have it worse is like saying that you don't deserve sympathy for your broken leg because some people are in a wheelchair.

If you don't think that in the West women are seen as second class citizens then why, in my post you quoted, are women playing a professional sport wearing little more that a pair of knickers and a Wonderbra? I don't see the All Blacks competing in posing pouches. It's because the women in that league (because there are some proper female American Football leagues) are nothing more than something for men to **** over - it's just the same as mud wrestling or foxy-boxing. Someone, somewhere thought that women are worth so little as athletes that the only way to get anyone to watch is for them to be practically naked. Once again, women are only of worth if they are sexually appealing.

Kevlar Bay

kylith wrote: »

All women everywhere need feminism. The problem is that in some quarters feminism has been corrupted from equality between men and women into an anti-male movement.

But to say that women in the west don't need feminism because women in the Middle East have it worse is like saying that you don't deserve sympathy for your broken leg because some people are in a wheelchair.

If you don't think that in the West women are seen as second class citizens then why, in my post you quoted, are women playing a professional sport wearing little more that a pair of knickers and a Wonderbra? I don't see the All Blacks competing in posing pouches. It's because the women in that league (because there are some proper female American Football leagues) are nothing more than something for men to **** over - it's just the same as mud wrestling or foxy-boxing. Someone, somewhere thought that women are worth so little as athletes that the only way to get anyone to watch is for them to be practically naked. Once again, women are only of worth if they are sexually appealing.

Women in the west are most definitely not second class citizens. Women are more often seen in less clothing because it sells, attractive young women are valued highly because they are fertile, and are more likely to produce hsealthy offspring.You can't dictate to people what they can and can't value. It is each individual's right the value whatever they want. Women in the western world have equal rights, in some circumstances they have more than equal rights.

kylith

Kevlar Bay wrote: »

Women in the west are most definitely not second class citizens. Women are more often seen in less clothing because it sells, attractive young women are valued highly because they are fertile, and are more likely to produce hsealthy offspring.You can't dictate to people what they can and can't value. It is each individual's right the value whatever they want. Women in the western world have equal rights, in some circumstances they have more than equal rights.

Seeing women as commodities, or as good breeding stock, isn't seeing them as lesser than men?

Kevlar Bay

kylith wrote: »

Seeing women as commodities, or as good breeding stock, isn't seeing them as lesser than men?

Who said anything about seeing women as commodities? Women's youth and fertility is simply highly valued. There are corresponding traits in men that are highly valued. Do you think you should be able to dictate to people what they should and shouldn't value?

kylith

Kevlar Bay wrote: »

Who said anything about seeing women as commodities? Women's youth and fertility is simply highly valued. There are corresponding traits in men that are highly valued. Do you think you should be able to dictate to people what they should and shouldn't value?

"Women are more often seen in less clothing because it sells" is seeing women as something to be sold, or to be used to sell something. This is seeing them as a commodity.

And yes, if someone were to tell me that they are with a woman solely because of how she looks then I would tell them that they have their values arseways. A woman, or man, should be valued because of their intelligence, integrity, honesty, and personality, not because of what they look like.

meeeeh

Kevlar Bay wrote: »

Who said anything about seeing women as commodities? Women's youth and fertility is simply highly valued. There are corresponding traits in men that are highly valued. Do you think you should be able to dictate to people what they should and shouldn't value?

Yes and it works both ways. I find hurling or irish football most unapealing because how their outfits look. To somebody who didn't grow up with the sport there is very little to sell the sport or it's participants to.

Seriously though I think there is a whole wider debate about women in sport. I think the sports women like to participate and are good in should be more recognised. Without the obvious jokes about female beach volleyball, I think female volleyball is actually more interesting to watch because there is more play and less just power. Yes women succeeding in rugby is good. But it is a sport that is fairly niche even as a male sport and even more in it's female version. And it is less interesting. I'm rambling but it would be nice that sports where women shine and are interesting to each should get more attention. Not just women doing well in very male dominated sports getting sometimes a bit patronising attention.

Kevlar Bay

kylith wrote: »

"Women are more often seen in less clothing because it sells" is seeing women as something to be sold, or to be used to sell something. This is seeing them as a commodity.

And yes, if someone were to tell me that they are with a woman solely because of how she looks then I would tell them that they have their values arseways. A woman, or man, should be valued because of their intelligence, integrity, honesty, and personality, not because of what they look like.

and thats the same in all ares of life, women are no more treated as commodities as anyone else.


again I ask , what rights do women not have?

iwantmydinner

Kevlar Bay wrote: »

and thats the same in all ares of life, women are no more treated as commodities as anyone else.

Mmmkay.

Kevlar Bay, re reg troll, banned.

B0jangles

This is kind of a vague thing but I see it regularly enough for it to be really annoying - you know when you are having a (usually online) discussion about say, street harrassment of women, and a few woman posters tell their personal experiences of being pestered. Then a guy will show up and keep saying stuff about how he's never seen stuff like this happen, and none of his female friends have ever told him about being harrassed and maybe the women talking about it are exaggerating or imagining things. And he'll keep going on like this no matter how many women describe their own experiences.

Then one other guy shows up and say "No, it's true I've seen it happen".

And the original doubting thomas will be all "ok, really, wow, that's crazy".

A bit rambling, I think you'll recognise what I'm talking about

iwantmydinner

B0jangles wrote: »

This is kind of a vague thing but I see it regularly enough for it to be really annoying - you know when you are having a (usually online) discussion about say, street harrassment of women, and a few woman posters tell their personal experiences of being pestered. Then a guy will show up and keep saying stuff about how he's never seen stuff like this happen, and none of his female friends have ever told him about being harrassed and maybe the women talking about it are exaggerating or imagining things. And he'll keep going on like this no matter how many women describe their own experiences.

Then one other guy shows up and say "No, it's true I've seen it happen".

And the original doubting thomas will be all "ok, really, wow, that's crazy".

A bit rambling, I think you'll recognise what I'm talking about

That gnawing, disappointing, sinking feeling that one male voice is valued more than several female voices? I hear ye.

Dolbert

B0jangles wrote: »

This is kind of a vague thing but I see it regularly enough for it to be really annoying - you know when you are having a (usually online) discussion about say, street harrassment of women, and a few woman posters tell their personal experiences of being pestered. Then a guy will show up and keep saying stuff about how he's never seen stuff like this happen, and none of his female friends have ever told him about being harrassed and maybe the women talking about it are exaggerating or imagining things. And he'll keep going on like this no matter how many women describe their own experiences.

Then one other guy shows up and say "No, it's true I've seen it happen".

And the original doubting thomas will be all "ok, really, wow, that's crazy".

A bit rambling, I think you'll recognise what I'm talking about

Was just reading this when I saw your post

Next Time Someone Says Women Aren't Victims Of Harassment, Show Them This.

Lemonwater107

kylith wrote: »

Seeing women as commodities, or as good breeding stock, isn't seeing them as lesser than men?

I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Particular qualities in women are valued due to their reproductive value, it's similar for men, particular values in men. are valued more due to their reproductive value.

That conclusion you came to is sloppy and lazy.

People are entitled to value whatever they want. Women have at least equal rights to men in Ireland.

The rights of women would be served using precious resources where they actually don't have equal rights, such as third world countries.

You can't dictate what people should value. That's everyone's right.

Trying to change people's vales is futile, they are institutions Clive and honed through evolution.

Links234

You know, part of what I think it is, is that a lot of people don't think sexism is an issue any more because they think "we got equal rights, don't we?" It's the same way that people don't think racism is much of a problem in America any more because Jim Crow laws and anti-miscegination laws got struck down, but the reality is racism is still a huge issue and we've a long way to go yet.

Annasopra

Dolbert wrote: »

Was just reading this when I saw your post

Next Time Someone Says Women Aren't Victims Of Harassment, Show Them This.

Was just about to post the same thing

Da Shins Kelly

B0jangles wrote: »

This is kind of a vague thing but I see it regularly enough for it to be really annoying - you know when you are having a (usually online) discussion about say, street harrassment of women, and a few woman posters tell their personal experiences of being pestered. Then a guy will show up and keep saying stuff about how he's never seen stuff like this happen, and none of his female friends have ever told him about being harrassed and maybe the women talking about it are exaggerating or imagining things. And he'll keep going on like this no matter how many women describe their own experiences.

Then one other guy shows up and say "No, it's true I've seen it happen".

And the original doubting thomas will be all "ok, really, wow, that's crazy".

A bit rambling, I think you'll recognise what I'm talking about

The fact that women's experiences are consistently devalued is proof enough of why we still need feminism. Feminism provides a space for women to talk about their experiences without being shouted down or told that they're imagining it, exaggerating, etc. Of course you'll always find men who want to push their way into this space in order to continue to dictate to women how they should or shouldn't feel about certain experiences or issues. I honestly think that attitude stems from some men's inability to accept that there is a space in which they're not in control of the conversation, since in pretty much every other walk of life the dominant voices tend to be male.

(Obviously this doesn't mean that men can't get involved in a feminist conversation, simply talking about those who only want to join the conversation so they can tell women they're wrong)

eviltwin

Its pretty depressing that in a safe space like this where the thread title and the forum itself give a clue to the nature of the discussion that you still get the people who try and reduce our experiences to little more than paranoia so you can imagine how much worse it must be in the real world.

Scarinae

Men can definitely get involved in a feminist conversation. Did anyone see Robert Webb's piece in the New Statesman last week? I only saw it today when it was mentioned on thejournal.ie. Here is part of it, slightly edited to keep the swear words in:

Guys, your doctor might tell you to lose a few pounds – but the taxi driver will not; the Daily Mail will not. You won’t open the Sun and compare your own cock to that of a well-endowed model. You won’t get dressed for a party and worry if you look like a slut, or get called a slut, or get raped on the way home “because you look like a slut”. In the rare event that you do get raped, the police won’t seem to mind what you were wearing. Lawyers won’t ask what you were wearing; your mother won’t ask what you were wearing.

When you dance in a ballroom, you won’t have to do it backwards in high heels; when you speak in a boardroom, you won’t have to second-guess yourself in case you’re coming across as “shrill”. You reached that boardroom with the grain, not against it. You didn’t need to look hard for role models. If they cut your genitals when you were an infant, they didn’t expect it to make much difference to your enjoyment of sex. If they cut your genitals while you were giving birth . . . Ah, but then you will never give birth and nobody will make you feel guilty about whether you breastfeed or not. You don’t judge yourself for eating a cake; you haven’t, since childhood, been encouraged by the media and by every careless comment from your family to have a relationship with food that borders on psychosis.

Speaking of madness, you can be angry without being accused of hysteria. You can be spiteful and no one will call you a “bitch”, although they might call you a “cnut” or a “twat” or a “woman”. You never had it explained to you and you never had to figure it out for yourself that in this world, you’re slightly wrong. That everything is going to be made more difficult for you than for the opposite sex. You didn’t notice – and why would you? Nobody judges your driving by the colour of your fcuking hair.

seenitall

Pfffft, that Robert Webb, what a White Knight... he must be whipped or something...

:P

eviltwin

Scarinae wrote: »

Men can definitely get involved in a feminist conversation. Did anyone see Robert Webb's piece in the New Statesman last week? I only saw it today when it was mentioned on thejournal.ie. Here is part of it, slightly edited to keep the swear words in:

It's a great piece but I can't help feeling if it had been written by a woman it would be passed over as a whiny female giving out, the fact its been written by a male seems to give it some authority. Don't get me wrong, I love what he wrote and love that its getting the attention it rightly deserves but had it been written by a woman would anyone in the media care?

YumCha

I need feminism for that whooshing sound of this entire thread going over mens' heads as they parachute into it...

allym

I'll never really understand the whole "we don't need feminism cos everything's fine in the Western world" idea.

Even if that was true, and women were 100% treated the exact same as men in the west, just because something doesn't affect me personally, doesn't mean it's not an issue.

As Links said, racism is still a huge issue but just because I've never personally experienced it, doesn't mean it's not happening and I should just ignore it and say "Ah sure, we're grand now why would you be worried about that!"
The same could be said for marriage equality, poverty, any number of issues really. But I doubt you'd have many people taking a similar stance on those issues that they do with feminism.

Scarinae

eviltwin wrote: »

It's a great piece but I can't help feeling if it had been written by a woman it would be passed over as a whiny female giving out, the fact its been written by a male seems to give it some authority. Don't get me wrong, I love what he wrote and love that its getting the attention it rightly deserves but had it been written by a woman would anyone in the media care?

I completely get what you’re saying - it IS annoying when a man writes something positive about feminism and gets praised for it, when a woman saying the exact same thing would be ridiculed or characterised as a ‘Feminazi’ (however, reading the comments on the article, there are still a lot of ‘what about the men’ type responses)

meeeeh

I do agree with the majority of article but I am willing to guess it is written by someone reasonably slim. My oh and my best friend are overweight and my brother used to be overweight. I don't think slim people sometimes realize how much abuse can overweight people get regardless of the gender. It would be sometimes painful to watch my slightly overweight brother how affected he was by it.

B0jangles

Because this kind of thinking is still so commonplace:

40% of managers avoid hiring younger women to get around maternity leave

Cost of maternity leave too high and women 'aren't as good at their jobs' when they return, survey of 500 managers says

A third of managers would rather employ a man in his 20s or 30s over a woman of the same age for fear of maternity leave, according to a new study. A survey of 500 managers by law firm Slater & Gordon showed that more than 40% admitted they are generally wary of hiring a woman of childbearing age, while a similar number would be wary of hiring a woman who has already had a child or hiring a mother for a senior role.

A quarter said they would rather hire a man to get around issues of maternity leave and child care when a woman does return to work, with 44% saying the financial costs to their business because of maternity leave are a significant concern.

The study also showed that a third of managers claim that women are not as good at their jobs when they come back from maternity leave.

Employment relations minister Jo Swinson said: "Pregnancy discrimination is illegal, immoral and completely unacceptable. There is no excuse for such attitudes from these employers, who frankly are dinosaurs. British business simply can't afford to lose out on half of the available talent pool.

"In any event, the introduction of shared parental leave from April will mean men as well as women taking leave to look after their new baby. This will help to stamp out outdated stereotypes about who should do what, and let parents get on with making their own decisions about how they manage work and family life."

Frances O'Grady, the general secretary of TUC, said: "It is illegal to not give someone a job on the grounds that they may have children in the future.

"Employers that do this are not only breaking the law but being incredibly stupid as they are missing out on many of the country's brightest young workers."

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/aug/12/managers-avoid-hiring-younger-women-maternity-leave

ivytwine

B0jangles wrote: »

Because this kind of thinking is still so commonplace:



http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/aug/12/managers-avoid-hiring-younger-women-maternity-leave

Well, as a 25 yo looking for a better job who is nowhere near getting sorted enough to be going popping out sprogs, that has to be one of the most depressing things I've read all day.

rainbow kirby

"In any event, the introduction of shared parental leave from April will mean men as well as women taking leave to look after their new baby. This will help to stamp out outdated stereotypes about who should do what, and let parents get on with making their own decisions about how they manage work and family life."

The fact that it has taken so long for shared parental leave to be A Thing pretty much anywhere, and the fact that it will probably take about another 20 years for it to appear in Ireland...

strobe

Scarinae wrote: »

(however, reading the comments on the article, there are still a lot of ‘what about the men’ type responses)

but... it's an article written by a man, directed at men, with an opening gambit "A man complaining about “anti-male sexism” is the sound of a man crying about lost advantages. Huge, man-made, God-thundering advantages." which boils down to 'sexism against men doesn't exist and any man that mentions it is just a privileged crybaby'...

...you can hardly play the 'whataboutery card' on this one surely..?