Unhelpful 'gendering' of social issues

clairefontaine

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I agree CF, yes there are cultures where this nonsense is far more likely to happen, conflicts are another, however the usual bleat of the - and I really hate to use the phrase but IMHO it is descriptive in this case - loony left of the hardline feminist movement applies the term to the wider culture and community. This is especially the case in the US, but it seems it's filtering out from there.

As for Ireland and the jock culture? It's there, but not as full on, or concentrated for the most part. There was a case recently where a bunch of "jocks" had a menage more than deux and said performance was videod and it being the times made it's way onto the interweb to some debate(not on Boards though IIRC so I'll venture no more thataway). Rugger buggers and GAA players can and do attract female attention and I'm sure that can go to some heads and lead to morally dubious behaivour alright, but the levels reported in the US of more extreme hazing and rape type stuff would be lesser, IMHO and IME anyway.

As for this "article" it seems we've gone from the nutty 70's hardline "all men are rapists" to "all men are responsible for rapists and for women's safety". I dunno which is the more insidious.

RE IT article: Yep. It's called the slow boil. Or trickle down radicalism.

Agent Green

clairefontaine wrote: »

Ok we'll I'm not really pushed by the idea that feminists might not agree with it, in so far as that's fine by me. In other words, I really don't care whether feminists agree with it or they don't.

Your right that belief does not equate to fact, but I need suggested it did. I just think there is something to rape culture in specific contexts, and obviously that relates to my experiences and perceptions of them. I'm not trying to win anyone over here, I'm just adding in my two cents, anyone is free to take it or leave it.

Fair enough.

Femme_Fatale

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'll take your word for it - genuinely, I can happily accept that she could sometimes argues points that cross the line from fair criticism to unfair bigotry.

I actually listed out on an earlier post here the bits of her article that I found unpalatable. With regards to rape being viewed as the worst crime that could possibly be committed against someone: objectively, yes, there are more violent, physically damaging crimes, including murder. But subjectively: I haven't been raped so I can't say I know what it feels like, but anecdotally, there is something about a person forcing themselves on someone (not the ambiguous stuff that causes such debate, but forceful, ruthless brutalisation - on a female OR a male) that ends a person's world - messes their head up, kills them some bit inside. And imagine a person experiencing it as a child...
So to say "There's worse than rape" without putting it into context is sh1ttily insensitive IMO.

True; whenever I hear a male feminist it conjurers memories of those I knew in college, who would hang around the Student's Union Welfare Office, slavishly following their female 'colleagues' in some desperate hope it might get them laid.

However, it would be a mistake for me to simply dismiss them, simply because many are like this and it gets my back up. Simply categorizing them as 'self-loathing men' or 'turkeys voting for Christmas in the hope of getting a girlfriend' ignores the possibility that they may not be like this or there may be a valid message there.

Yeh I don't have a problem with women pointing out the general trends/attitudes/tendencies among many women - I am a woman and do it myself, just not in a manner completely lacking in self-awareness/irony, like "Women are so hysterical". I'd say "Women overall are more inclined to be emotionally-driven". I think women should become involved with men's rights activism too - I think we are vital to the cause actually.

What's different to the above though, and what I can't get my head around, is women agreeing with/helping perpetuate misogyny. Or men agreeing with/helping perpetuate misandry.
That's not constructive criticism of the group you're part of, or helping break down barriers between genders; that's bending over and pandering to those who would otherwise put you down.

Wibbs

Pyjama Man wrote: »

I've heard it said that objectification is mysogyny/mysandry. To objectify is not to hate.

Depending on the level of objectification involved of course, but for me at it's worst in some ways it's worse than hate, it's a form of dismissal.

py2006

There word misogyny is regularly misused. To some, it seems that any level of criticism aimed at a woman or a certain group of women (by men) is misogyny. Any critique of feminism (by men) is seen as misogyny. Men who discuss their negative experience of feminism are described as misogynists. Men who describe personal instances of discrimination, abuse etc are referred to as misogynists (by a small minority). I've a colleague who refers to men in positions of authority as misogynists.

Lets be clear, its means an actual hatred of women.

The Corinthian

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I actually listed out on an earlier post here the bits of her article that I found unpalatable.

I looked back at where you may have raised these points and would certainly agree with some of your criticisms (e.g. her favourite way to wake up is a subjective argument that she falsely applies as if it is an objective generalization).

Nonetheless, I also have to disagree with some of your objections. For example you think there should be less risk to men, not more risk to women. In an ideal World, I completely agree. However until we have that ideal World we have, for example, a certain number of dangerous roles in society. Unless we simply choose that no one does them, then someone has to and if we want men to take up less risk, that means that women will have to take some of them up, thus increasing their risk.

Another example is where you object to her suggesting men commit crimes due to women. Yet the persistent gender roles that paint men as being the provider mean that men sometimes must work multiple, unpleasant or dangerous jobs to put food on the table for their women (and children), and so crime is often motivated by the same reasons.

So unless you want to claim that both men and women have exactly the same social pressures on 'providing', then you have to accept that in some cases men do commit crimes due to the women in their lives. Is that not a valid observation?

With regards to rape being viewed as the worst crime that could possibly be committed against someone: objectively, yes, there are more violent, physically damaging crimes, including murder. But subjectively: I haven't been raped so I can't say I know what it feels like, but anecdotally, there is something about a person forcing themselves on someone (not the ambiguous stuff that causes such debate, but forceful, ruthless brutalisation - on a female OR a male) that ends a person's world - messes their head up, kills them some bit inside. And imagine a person experiencing it as a child...
So to say "There's worse than rape" without putting it into context is sh1ttily insensitive IMO.

First of all, objectively there are worse crimes than rape - murder being the classic example. If given a choice, no normal person would choose death over rape because that really does mean the end of that person's World; literally.

However, I can understand that to point this out can be insensitive, or at least come across as such, because there is the danger that by saying so, you can trivialize the 'lesser' crime, which is also wrong - rape is a heinous crime, regardless of whether there are worse crimes in existence.

If she does trivialize rape in her comparison, then you are justified in your criticism, however making the point that there are worse crimes that rape alone does not imply that rape is a trivial matter, and presuming it does is simply an irrational, defensive reaction to the comparison.

So does she trivialize rape when she does so? If she does, I completely accept your point, but if not then it's you who are trivializing rape in your mind, not she.

Yeh I don't have a problem with women pointing out the general trends/attitudes/tendencies among many women - I am a woman and do it myself, just not in a manner completely lacking in self-awareness/irony, like "Women are so hysterical". I'd say "Women overall are more inclined to be emotionally-driven". I think women should become involved with men's rights activism too - I think we are vital to the cause actually.

Well then what we're talking about is not necessarily a problem with her message, but with how she delivers it. That's a perfectly valid criticism and I personally feel that it is counter-productive to the message, just as any valid message that Mullally may have had in her article was ultimately lost in how she delivered it (although, in fairness, most of her actual message was pretty offensive to begin with).

What's different to the above though, and what I can't get my head around, is women agreeing with/helping perpetuate misogyny. Or men agreeing with/helping perpetuate misandry.

It's a very emotive topic. Certainly, in my experience, that it is often very difficult to comment on the sheer hypocrisy of the feminist movement, without letting my own emotions getting the better of me.

For example, I've asked repeatedly, of self-identifying feminists here, to explain the apparent paradox whereby feminism claims to be about "women having the same rights as men" with the reality that it's about "women having the same rights as men, but only when women are at a disadvantage" as it clearly contradicts the feminist claim that it is a movement that seeks equality.

We'll get as far as an admission that feminism only addresses issues that are in the interests of women, yet once they realize they've dug themselves into a logical dead end, they'll just leave the discussion and vanish, rather than concede the point. That's something that would drive most rational people nuts, because it's both an acknowledgement that they're aware of the hypocrisy, but also that they're unwilling to admit it.

py2006 wrote: »

Men who discuss there negative experience of feminism are described as misogynists.

Yes, the old "if you criticize Israel, you must be anti-Semitic" argument.

Of course, in the case of feminism, such a link between criticism of feminism and misogyny is soon to be recognised in EU law.

Carlos Orange

py2006 wrote: »

Lets be clear, its means an actual hatred of women.

No it doesn't. It is now mostly just a generic insult of someone who holds an opinion usually related to gender that you disagree with. In the same way bastard usually doesn't mean your parents weren't married and literally literally doesn't mean literally any more.

py2006

psinno wrote: »

No it doesn't. It is now mostly just a generic insult of someone who holds an opinion usually related to gender that you disagree with.

By that definition then a woman who criticises her own gender, men criticising their own gender or women criticising the male gender are misogynists.

Sorry but this is simply not true.

GalwayGuy2

Of course, in the case of feminism, such a link between criticism of feminism and misogyny is soon to be recognised in EU law.

It's worrying how there isn't outcry over that.

It's kind of like saying you can't criticize Capitalism because that'll make you a freedom hater.

The Corinthian

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

It's worrying how there isn't outcry over that.

Feminism has a very effective lobbying machine. Most men are still just muttering "I'm all right Jack" in our sleep and mascilism, the MRM or whatever you want to call it, still hasn't got its act together.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Feminism has a very effective lobbying machine. Most men are still just muttering "I'm all right Jack" in our sleep and mascilism, the MRM or whatever you want to call it, still hasn't got its act together.

Are you suggesting there is lobbying money behind this? Where would that have come from? Or is this just the start of a bigger clamp down on free speech to suit the powers that be or will come to be?

GalwayGuy2

Are you suggesting there is lobbying money behind this? Where would that have come from? Or is this just the start of a bigger clamp down on free speech to suit the powers that be or will come to be?

It wouldn't suprise me. There is massive money donated to women's rights, women's shelter, various NGOs, and even grassroots movements that gain regular donations. And very little is known about where it actually goes.

All you have to do is look at that everyday sexism twitter to see how much funding a feminist organization can get.

Not saying this money is used for lobbying, but it does make you wonder.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Are you suggesting there is lobbying money behind this? Where would that have come from? Or is this just the start of a bigger clamp down on free speech to suit the powers that be or will come to be?

By lobbying I wasn't implying the American model of lobbying, nor am I suggesting any grand conspiracy theory.

It's simply that feminism is now well placed in the media, in NGO's and other non-profit groups who lobby and campaign for legislation in gender-related areas and increasingly we are seeing politicians elected who subscribe to 'fringe' feminist policies. As such feminism has a lot of influence on how gender topics are framed in the public eye and put pressure accordingly.

clairefontaine

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

It wouldn't suprise me. There is massive money donated to women's rights, women's shelter, various NGOs, and even grassroots movements that gain regular donations. And very little is known about where it actually goes.

All you have to do is look at that everyday sexism twitter to see how much funding a feminist organization can get.

Not saying this money is used for lobbying, but it does make you wonder.

Lobbying doesn't have much power unless their is money behind it. So if this is due to lobby groups, there has to be money in this somewhere.

Or this is due to a beginning incrementalism of a clamp down on free speech, because it suits the government. With the EU as large as it is, that's a big portion of the western world who can't express an opinion without facing criminalisation.

Agent Green

The Corinthian wrote: »

Feminism has a very effective lobbying machine. Most men are still just muttering "I'm all right Jack" in our sleep and mascilism, the MRM or whatever you want to call it, still hasn't got its act together.

The MRM are the only ones who are actually trying to do anything, and I can tell you right now - it's bigger than it's ever been and is growing day-by-day. You're clearly intelligent and know the issues. Why don't you actually get involved?

The feminists aren't going to just change all of a sudden.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

By lobbying I wasn't implying the American model of lobbying, nor am I suggesting any grand conspiracy theory.

It's simply that feminism is now well placed in the media, in NGO's and other non-profit groups who lobby and campaign for legislation in gender-related areas and increasingly we are seeing politicians elected who subscribe to 'fringe' feminist policies. As such feminism has a lot of influence on how gender topics are framed in the public eye and put pressure accordingly.

The legislation also refers to other "vulnerable groups." So it's not just about the trickle down radical feminisms.

Agent Green

clairefontaine wrote: »

The legislation also refers to other "vulnerable groups." So it's not just about the trickle down radical feminisms.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying with this comment; it's a little confusing. Can you make this a little clearer?

Wibbs

The Corinthian wrote: »

By lobbying I wasn't implying the American model of lobbying, nor am I suggesting any grand conspiracy theory.

I reckon it's even simpler than that. It's become - and I dislike using the word but it works in this case - a set of memes in the public mind, a set of givens that we must as a society "fix". Givens that arose from good intentions and hard work to address the societal failures that were anti women, that were hijacked by the more extreme ends of the movement and by more luck than judgment ended up in the media, academia and the wider world.

Examples of these givens would be "women earn less than men". While true in the third world, it's not true in the west. "Domestic abuse is in the majority of cases aimed at women". Again not even close to true*. "Women face more threats to personal safety than men" Untrue, men are far more likely to be victims of violence than women. Indeed men live far more dangerous lives overall and are more likely to die from unnatural causes than women(murder, industrial accidents, war, suicide). One you don't hear so much now, but one that once had currency was "women are disadvantaged in education". You don't hear it so much now because it's so blatantly obvious it's untrue when one looks at university places and results.

The coming of the interweb gave more airtime to the nuttier ends(on both sides) and more apparent support for them, even though both the protaganists and supporters are relatively small in overall numbers. This gives an even bigger slant to things that in the real world most happily ignore. It's far easier to hijack worthwhile movements and ideas and insert daftness these days and it requires far fewer people to do so. It also tends towards the extreme more than it doesn't. Lines get drawn far faster.

Take this very thread subject. Unknown hack on small newspaper in small country as far as worldwide populations go says daft things that in the past might have been handed up as a college essay, promptly sniggered at for being hopelessly adolescent in flavour and then equally promptly forgotten. Today it can go worldwide in a day and among the normal "WTF?" responses from... well normal people, men and women, you get the hardliners eager to support the daftness, or loudly oppose it with their own brand of daftness. All the while real issues in men and women's lives get sidetracked.






*I recall reading that in the entire US of A that while there were hundreds of women's refuges for victims of domestic violence there was only one for men in the country. Dunno if that still holds true?

um7y1h83ge06nx

it does seems like the extremists are becoming the mainstream.

For instance there is a thread on the Lades Lounge about why we need feminism. Recently in the thread the argument was made that feminism is needed because of instances of child sexual abuse.

When the point was made from some men and women that this wasn't an area that needed to be gendered it was shot down.

Why does child sexual abuse show that we need feminism? Is it because only feminists care about children?

To quote myself:

"Saying you need feminism because there are cases of child sexual abuse seems similar to saying we need movements against animal cruelty because there are cases of child sexual abuse in society. Or bringing it closer, we need men's rights movements because there are cases of child sexual abuse in society.

I would really hope that society doesn't need feminism in order to see how twisted and barbaric child sexual abuse is. I wouldn't think that people that don't consider themselves feminists are wild savages."

I find it all very disturbing being honest, as it seems to be getting to close to how various countries have coerced their populations into supporting them through times of upheaval. "If you're not with us, you're against us and support the enemy",

I would hope people would agree that child sexual abuse is something that all of society should fight against, rather than allow it become a "cause" for any sole section of society.

The Corinthian

Wibbs wrote: »

Examples of these givens would be "women earn less than men". While true in the third world, it's not true in the west.

Well, in fairness it is true; even taking into account part time work (which used to be ignored so as to maximize the gap), women overall earn approximately 10% - 15% less than men on average, in the West.

Thing is, even with this statistic being true, it's grossly misused by feminism as it is always presented with at least the implication that this gap is down to pure sexism and nothing else. This is false and ironically even feminism otherwise accepts this.

Women's salaries are hugely affected by their continuing role as primary, or even sole, child carer in societies psyche. On one side, family law is both designed and rules as a matter of course that women must fill this role. On the other, society reinforces this through social pressure; men are at best temporary assistants, while women are the true carers - to the point that women who reject this role or fail to prioritize it become demonized.

Because of this commitment, they are unable to prioritize work or career. They have to leave the office early to take care of the children. They have to take career breaks of months or even years whenever they have a child. They have to take time off whenever their child(ren) are ill. Inevitably, promotion prospects will suffer, as will salary increments - when you have two 35-year olds going for a job, experience is a factor when deciding whom to give the job to or even what salary to offer; who has the advantage? The 35-year old who took a 5-year break to care for a child, or the 35-year old who took no break.

To underline this women in their twenties and childless women in their forties out-earn their male peers - the evidence is not only irrefutable, but even accepted by feminism itself.

So naturally, the solution to deal with this disparity would be to make childcare something which is gender neutral; that a man is seen to be and statistically as likely to take up. Unfortunately, this would mean campaigning for something that would mean women losing rights - more correctly losing an effective monopoly of rights over their children and second+ wave feminism has never been able to stomach such an idea. There is literally no example where it has ever campaigned for such a policy, even if it represented equality of rights for both genders.

Instead, it campaigns for policies where it can both retain this monopoly and reduce the negative consequences of that monopoly, such as quotas.

You don't hear it so much now because it's so blatantly obvious it's untrue when one looks at university places and results.

You don't hear it so much now because it might engender resources being put into helping boys improve their education, and that would mean that finite resources would be diverted from those helping girls. Another example of where partisanship trumps equality.

Take this very thread subject. Unknown hack on small newspaper in small country as far as worldwide populations go says daft things that in the past might have been handed up as a college essay, promptly sniggered at for being hopelessly adolescent in flavour and then equally promptly forgotten.

There's another very pertinent difference though - it's become mainstream. Such views are no longer treated as 'daft things', but given the credence of national media. We may believe that what she wrote was 'daft', but it clearly has enough support to appear on a platform that is not on the fringes.

py2006

Nathanael Jolly Barmaid wrote: »

I would hope people would agree that child sexual abuse is something that all of society should fight against, rather than allow it become a "cause" for any sole section of society.

+1

The suggestion from that thread you mention that somehow that only men can abuse children is worrying. There has been a long line of female teachers recently in America being charged with having sex with 13-16 year old children.

Child abuse and pedophilia is an issue for both genders.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Absolutely, I find it disgusting that it's made appear that men don't really care about the issue.

Imagine saying that to the fathers of the two girls that were raped in Athlone!

Wibbs

The Corinthian wrote: »

There's another very pertinent difference though - it's become mainstream. Such views are no longer treated as 'daft things', but given the credence of national media. We may believe that what she wrote was 'daft', but it clearly has enough support to appear on a platform that is not on the fringes.

Oh certainly and IMH the coming of the internet has facilitated this move of the daft towards the mainstream. It was always there of course, but it's far easier today for a few loud voices writing blogs filled with nonsensical bullshít to appear more popular than they actually are and from there it seems to make sense for mainstream media to buy into it. After all "[insert swivel eyed loony online writer here] has many thousands of followers/views/hits". Hang on I clicked the link and read her column, do I support her utterly daft "thoughts"? Nope. Never mind that the more controversial the opinion the more papers it sells and viewers it garners. The Daily Mail effect.

You don't just see this with extreme leftist feminism, you see it with racism, with extreme politics, even the PUA guff. If we were to judge the world just going by spotty bloggists and interweb commentators and comment leavers, we're a mad mix of teenage morons, racists, feminazis, misogynist crazies and just plain loons.

The Corinthian

Wibbs wrote: »

You don't just see this with extreme leftist feminism, you see it with racism, with extreme politics, even the PUA guff. If we were to judge the world just going by spotty bloggists and interweb commentators and comment leavers, we're a mad mix of teenage morons, racists, feminazis, misogynist crazies and just plain loons.

But do we see this level of extremism, in the mainstream, outside of feminism?

Are national papers publishing articles promoting racist editorial on the same level as the IT did, then defend them? Genuine question here, because while you might see some pieces in papers like the Daily Mail that are borderline, I don't think I've ever even heard of one that gone as far as to say that all blacks are either criminals or are associated with criminals, or all Muslims are terrorists or are associated with terrorists, while as we've seen recently saying all men are rapists or are associated with rapists has not only been published, but defended by the publisher and seen some level of support too (just check out a certain other forum here).

So while I accept your theory on a certain level, but unless the same can be said for other extreme views I don't think it really adds up.

pwurple

The Corinthian wrote: »

So naturally, the solution to deal with this disparity would be to make childcare something which is gender neutral; that a man is seen to be and statistically as likely to take up. Unfortunately, this would mean campaigning for something that would mean women losing rights - more correctly losing an effective monopoly of rights over their children and second+ wave feminism has never been able to stomach such an idea. There is literally no example where it has ever campaigned for such a policy, even if it represented equality of rights for both genders.

I 100% agree that this is the way forward. I've written to all parties on this issue every few months since 2010, and repeatedly brought it up with my local representatives on creating the ability to SHARE that leave after the birth of a baby. I've only had a response from labour to date saying it is on their agenda for some point in the future. Sounds like a brush off, but I live in hope.

It has undoubtedly held my career back. I have the greater long term earning power in our family. My husband is a fantastic hands-on father, and wants to spend more time with with his own children. Maternity leave pushes me a year or so behind my peers, not just with the time out, but with the catch-up required afterwards, and the handover period before. I've another maternity leave coming up next year, and already my juiciest projects are being handed over to my colleagues. In every way, it would suit us immensely better to be able to share that leave... me to take 12 weeks to recover physically, and him to take the remainder to give the baby the full time parental care required. Baby would bond with us both. I can't see any tax revenue downside to it either. If I earn more, I pay more tax. Worst case, it's tax neutral. I just don't know why it's not pushed! It's win win win surely? And it works perfectly well elsewhere.

Most women I know are all in favour, but I am harangued as a bad mother by some small groups for even suggesting I might not want to take the full leave myself.

Quotas won't work. They are inherently inequitable and doomed to fail before they even start. If you get appointed as a woman under a quota, who is going to take you seriously as a professional? I wouldn't.

There is actually the ability to transfer maternity leave already in place in Ireland. But I have to die during childbirth or the maternity leave for my husband to be able to take it over. If we could just loosen those terms a smidgen, to where I can remain alive for it... that would be awesome.

I doubt I'll see it during my childbearing years though.

Wibbs

The Corinthian wrote: »

while as we've seen recently saying all men are rapists or are associated with rapists has not only been published, but defended by the publisher and seen some level of support too

Well that's a bit of a stretch TC. What daft hack said was along the lines of "all men should be responsible for the potential and actual rapists out there*". Nearly as daft I grant you, but not "all men are rapists".

I have seen similar enough in the mainstream regarding African Americans in the US. Blaming African American men for being layabouts and crap fathers and that more should step up and guide their Black brothers(often enough by their own too). As for "Muslims being terrorists" inference that's very common, though twisted into the less overt BS of "all terrorists are Muslims" to appear non daft and the idea that the vast majority of non nutbag Muslims should clean their own house is also very common in the mainstream media. Fox in the US trawls these depths regularly, never mind the more nutty radio hacks.








*for some reason women who presumably know the same potential rapists in their midst as friends can remain silent on the matter. Handy that...

The Corinthian

pwurple wrote: »

I 100% agree that this is the way forward. I've written to all parties on this issue every few months since 2010, and repeatedly brought it up with my local representatives on creating the ability to SHARE that leave after the birth of a baby. I've only had a response from labour to date saying it is on their agenda for some point in the future. Sounds like a brush off, but I live in hope.

While paternity leave is a positive move, it would also be an impotant one to the greater question of men and women being seen as equal carers to their children, as it does not affect the underlying prejudices and rights twoards those children.

Essentially paternity leave would give a father the right to take time off to care for a child he has few or no rights to. Legally, if unmarried, he would be on a par with a babysitter - lower actually, as a babysitter has the right to get paid. That's not going to change attitudes, least of all those of men.

Unless more men are awarded custody, unless men are afforded the same automatic rights as women and unless men are not simply seen as walking ATM's who's job is to provide for the woman's role as a carer, then women will continue to be seen as the real carers, while men will at best be seen as 'support' and nothing much will change.

Most women I know are all in favour, but I am harangued as a bad mother by some small groups for even suggesting I might not want to take the full leave myself.

Most women would be in favour of having the extra help; but that's bit of a no brainer, TBH. Would most women be in favour of a situation whereby they no longer have all of the rights and custody? I don't know, but certainly feminism doesn't appear too keen on the idea.

Quotas won't work. They are inherently inequitable and doomed to fail before they even start. If you get appointed as a woman under a quota, who is going to take you seriously as a professional? I wouldn't.

No, quotas don't work. But if your ideology wants to solve a problem, but demands that it can only be done if the constituency it represents does not have to give anything up to do so, you're going to come out with ultimately futile solutions that seek to let that constituency have its cake and eat it. Like quotas.

This is the flaw I find in feminism today; it's become wholly biased in favour of one side of the equality debate, yet labours under the delusion that it still represents equality. Problem is that equality requires a lack of bias and that while you may gain rights in some cases, you may need to lose them in others, because it's not always possible to achieve equality where no one loses out.

Wibbs

pwurple wrote: »

Most women I know are all in favour, but I am harangued as a bad mother by some small groups for even suggesting I might not want to take the full leave myself.

Quotas won't work. They are inherently inequitable and doomed to fail before they even start. If you get appointed as a woman under a quota, who is going to take you seriously as a professional? I wouldn't.

+ 1 P. You're by no means the first woman I've known that has mentioned this parental leave thing. One mate of mine is a very high achiever in her field. Real go getter. Her partner is brilliant with the kids(both agree he's the better of the two. She's good too, don't get me wrong but he's the cover of Brill Das monthly), was never much of a career man and his career is one he can afford to dial back a bit, but as you say the way it is now he can't take full parental leave and both suffer, never mind the kids.

The Corinthian

Wibbs wrote: »

Well that's a bit of a stretch TC. What daft hack said was along the lines of "all men should be responsible for the potential and actual rapists out there*". Nearly as daft I grant you, but not "all men are rapists".

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that; I should have qualified the sentence so: "all men are either rapists or are associated with rapists".

I have seen similar enough in the mainstream regarding African Americans in the US. Blaming African American men for being layabouts and crap fathers and that more should step up and guide their Black brothers(often enough by their own too). As for "Muslims being terrorists" inference that's very common, though twisted into the less overt BS of "all terrorists are Muslims" to appear non daft and the idea that the vast majority of non nutbag Muslims should clean their own house is also very common in the mainstream media. Fox in the US trawls these depths regularly, never mind the more nutty radio hacks.

Have you seen such opinions published in the New York Times or Washington Post though? That's what is disturbing, because when respected 'papers of record' (as the IT calls itself) start promoting this sort of stuff, that you have to start worrying.

*for some reason women who presumably know the same potential rapists in their midst as friends can remain silent on the matter. Handy that...

If you read back in this thread, it was rationalized by some on the basis that such men wouldn't listen to a woman's opinion and/or don't have female friends, while they naturally would listen to the opinion of a fellow footsoldier of the Patriarchy...

pwurple

The Corinthian wrote: »

While paternity leave is a positive move, it would also be an impotant one to the greater question of men and women being seen as equal carers to their children, as it does not affect the underlying prejudices and rights twoards those children.

Yes, it would hopefully begin a basic shift in ideology, a positive move towards equality and where roles can be interchanged without prejudice. This would have much more chance of achieving the aims which quota's wish to get towards.

Essentially paternity leave would give a father the right to take time off to care for a child he has few or no rights to. Legally, if unmarried, he would be on a par with a babysitter - lower actually, as a babysitter has the right to get paid. That's not going to change attitudes, least of all those of men.

I actually wouldn't suggest extending paid paternity leave to fathers who were not the legal guardians of the child. Whatever their biological status, putting someone who has no legal link to a child as their primary carer who also receives a govt benefit to do so is liable to all sorts of problems.

I know you and I disagree on marriage. There is already a fix in place for the lack of rights incurred for being unmarried, and that is to have the relationship and the family acknowledged legally, by getting married. I know already your response will be that marriage is to be avoided it in order to avoid ending up supporting and caring for a spouse and children you no possibly no longer care if divorce occurs. But this to me is another prime example of having your cake and eating it. It makes no sense to declare an interest in your child, and a non-interest at the same time.