Unhelpful 'gendering' of social issues

Pawwed Rig

pwurple wrote: »

They do, or at least I do, both as an individual, and as a member of various groups.

I would agree with everything in those articles but this govt has promised alot which I doubt it will deliver on. I will believe this when I see it.

Bah Feckin Humbug! wrote: »

With respect, you will have to do better than that, the gender neutral version of businessman is businessperson. Career woman is a male conceiver term to describe women who break from the male designated stereotype of wife/mother.

With equal respect, I think you are being overly sensitive here. Whether it is a male or female conceived term is irrelevant as it was an accurate term for the point I was trying to make.

Bah Feckin Humbug! wrote: »

You brought up the question of why "WOMENS GROUPS" don't oppose certain unjust practices, consequently the onus is on you to name these groups and indicate the percentage of women in this country who support/are members of said groups.

Womens Aid, The National Women's Council and Ruhama are a few. Lobby groups do not necessarily represent a majority of the people and I believe most women and most men are reasonable people who actually believe in equality. The issue is that the lobby groups are the ones that are heard and represented in the media/government.

Pawwed Rig

Mod note - Guys lets keep it civil. We are debating an important and interesting topic here and the standard of posting has been good to date. Lets keep it that way.

iptba

kunst nugget wrote: »

iptba wrote:

A common reason I have seen some women argue for this is because they felt it would help women with their careers in the long-term. So I don't see this as a good example of women's groups/feminists fighting for an equality issue (i.e. that wasn't about helping women).

There trying to argue what the benefits will be for both parties involved and the long term benefits to the economy. Where's the problem there? It seems to me that no matter what is attempted there, once it's viewed through the prism of feminism and men's rights, nothing will placate some people.

There is no harm in it.

But if the argument is that feminism/feminists is/are sufficient to deal with gender equality, I don't believe this is a good example of this.

In many other situations, changes are designed to help one gender. This doesn't give me any major confidence that women's groups/feminists would bat for something that would solely help men.

pwurple

iptba wrote: »

There is no harm in it.

But if the argument is that feminism/feminists is/are sufficient to deal with gender equality, I don't believe this is a good example of this.

In many other situations, changes are designed to help one gender. This doesn't give me any major confidence that women's groups/feminists would bat for something that would solely help men.

The argument was:

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

So why do womens groups not campaign for equality on that point? It would actually benefit the career woman as would shared maternity/paternity leave, yet they are absolutely silent on the issue.

The response is that... actually they are not silent. With examples as provided above.

I don't believe feminism is sufficient to deal with gender equality. Men's rights groups need to be more vocal, especially on father's rights / relationship breakups. Also with regard to furthering education on what father's are losing by ignoring things like guardianship.

iptba

kunst nugget wrote: »

iptba wrote:

Yes. A lot of it is based on the view that any men who have some sort of power* will use it to help men (over women). I'm not convinced this is the case. Individual men may do things that they feel may help themselves personally; it doesn't mean men act in a majorly partisan way to help other men over women.

*I would argue there are lots of types of power. Politicians are constrained by what will get bad reactions in the media, for example.

This is generally how I feel things are as well but it is interesting to see how we can break down men into individuals but women and feminism seemed to be treated as a hive mind on this forum.

Yes, not all men think the same and not all women think the same.

However, I have seen some evidence that women are more inclined to support women over men versus how men view and support the genders:
e.g.

J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004 Oct;87(4):494-509.

Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: why do women like women more than men like men?

Rudman LA, Goodwin SA.

Abstract

Four experiments confirmed that women's automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men's and investigated explanations for this sex difference, derived from potential sources of implicit attitudes (L. A. Rudman, 2004). In Experiment 1, only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem (A. G. Greenwald et al., 2002), revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference. Experiments 2 and 3 found pro-female bias to the extent that participants automatically favored their mothers over their fathers or associated male gender with violence, suggesting that maternal bonding and male intimidation influence gender attitudes. Experiment 4 showed that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women. In concert, the findings help to explain sex differences in automatic in-group bias and underscore the uniqueness of gender for intergroup relations theorists.

Press Release here:
https://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2004/041213.Goodwin.gender.html

Extract:

Goodwin, also a member of Purdue's Women Studies Program, teamed with Laurie Rudman, professor of psychology at Rutgers University, to conduct four studies measuring implicit attitudes of 379 adults. Their results show that women prefer women, and men, on average, don't have a preference toward either gender. Although men, on average, did not show in-group favoritism, individual men's responses varied widely, with some men showing a preference for women and others showing a preference for men.

For whatever reason, women seem to speak up for, empathise with or wish to support women more than men speak up, empathise with or wish to support men. To take a specific example, I can't for example see a group of men writing a letter like this:

Defending Holles Street head
Tue, Nov 26, 2013, 01:07


Sir, – We young female trainee doctors were appalled at the manner in which Dr Rhona Mahony was vilified in the press over the past week. Complex contract issues of employment were used as an excuse to pursue an anti-female doctor agenda. There is gender bias and discrimination in Ireland. Is Ireland still deeply uncomfortable with women filling senior management positions? Although the debate involved hundreds of individuals in senior management across the Ireland, only Dr Mahony was personally targeted. Both she and her young family were singled out for “special attention” although she has done nothing wrong. The reason is simply that she is a successful young woman.

Dr Mahony is a role model for all female doctors. She leads by example. She cares passionately for the welfare of mothers and their babies, making ambitions for delivering a first-class service real. She is in the hospital before we arrive in the morning and long after we have gone home. She knows us all by name and is mindful and appreciative of what we do. Our doctors’ staff room has no hierarchy. This positive and supportive ethos is fostered from the top down. At a time of a national shortage in non-consultant doctors, positions in our hospital remain highly sought after. She is a major reason why we still work in the Irish health service when our medical school classmates are now working abroad.

The inclusion of her family in the debate should not have happened. The media should not have camped out outside her home. (We acknowledge this did not involve The Irish Times). We feel the exposure of young children to the glare of adverse publicity is always wrong and has the potential to cause them harm. If we aspire to be successful, we wonder how we would protect our families from what Dr Mahony has had to contend with. This past week has brought home to us that in Ireland successful females continue to be treated in a more harsh and personal manner than their male counterparts. Perhaps we should admit that Ireland is not yet happy to see women succeed? The media should exercise more caution before they drive a priceless resource in medical management and clinical expertise off these shores.

– Yours, etc,

Dr EMER RYAN Registrar; Dr NUALA QUINN, Specialist Registrar; Dr MADELEINE MURPHY, Registrar, Dr AISLING STAFFORD, Senior House Officer Dr SARAH MULLIGAN, Senior House Officer; Dr SILVIA SIMON, Senior House Officer; Dr TRISHA PALMAR, Registrar; Dr AEDIN RYAN, Senior House Officer & Dr VICKY O DWYER, Registar,
National Maternity Hospital,
Holles Street, Dublin 2.

http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/defending-holles-street-head-1.1606979

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I would agree with everything in those articles but this govt has promised alot which I doubt it will deliver on. I will believe this when I see it.


With equal respect, I think you are being overly sensitive here. Whether it is a male or female conceived term is irrelevant as it was an accurate term for the point I was trying to make.



Womens Aid, The National Women's Council and Ruhama are a few. Lobby groups do not necessarily represent a majority of the people and I believe most women and most men are reasonable people who actually believe in equality. The issue is that the lobby groups are the ones that are heard and represented in the media/government.

Ruhama is an organization dedicated to assisting those women forced into prostitution (and not open to general membership), and women's aid is an umbrella organization whose main function of its participant groups is to provide shelter to abused women and their kids (and not open to general membership), the National women's Council is a government sponsored quango and not open to general membership. Not one of the organizations you listed is open to general membership, and two of the three have very narrowly defined roles while the third was, if it still exists, a quango.
Again I ask you to provide details of those women's organizations you speak of and to detail their membership as a percentage of Irish women.

GalwayGuy2

This is generally how I feel things are as well but it is interesting to see how we can break down men into individuals but women and feminism seemed to be treated as a hive mind on this forum.

Hmmm, you can't have it both ways. You can't have feminism be an umbrella term for 'equality' and also see it as individuals.

Also, feminism is political theory and ideology, it is not gender. It's kind of funny how anti-feminism is immediately turned into anti-women.

On the movements for paid maternity leave. It's actually an important point to note that the main reason it is supported by feminist groups is that it will improve the life of women and, as a result rather than an aim, also improve the life of men.

Pawwed Rig

Bah Feckin Humbug! wrote: »

Again I ask you to provide details of those women's organizations you speak of and to detail their membership as a percentage of Irish women.

I would have guessed that any organisations I named would be dismissed for one reason or the other. If I named three more then I am sure there would be reasons to discount these too.

If your point is whether these are representative of Irish women as a whole I have already answered that previously. If that is not your point please let me know what is and I can address that.

cantdecide

Bah Feckin Humbug! wrote: »

In this case the law is an ass, and a law passed by a male minister for justice , in a male dominated cabinet, and upheld by a male dominated Supreme Court.
I can't for the life of me find the invisible hand of feminism anywhere in the making or upholding of that particularly offensive piece of legislation.
if anything it looks more like a true act of patronization, that is the determination that "Silly vulnerable girls" need protecting.

So why should I sign up for equality as prescribed by a feminist movement that exists fundamentally exists for the benefit of women as opposed to a government that is supposed to exist fundamentally to benefit everyone?

cantdecide

pwurple wrote: »

I don't believe feminism is sufficient to deal with gender equality. Men's rights groups need to be more vocal, especially on father's rights / relationship breakups. Also with regard to furthering education on what father's are losing by ignoring things like guardianship.

But therein lies the point I make to all proud feminists- we need a debate and a common point from which to move forward, not an adversarial squabble between masculinists and feminists vying for the attention of an apathetic government.

I say this again: feminism is outmoded and no longer relevant and what we need is an egalitarian movement.

old hippy

Ben Shekelberg wrote: »

It's all a bunch of man-hating bs. Blah blah blah lets blames men for all our problems. Lets castrate all men so we won't be oppressed anymore. Like the blacks in America blaming whitey for everything.

Ben Shekelberg wrote: »

By 'racist, misogynist bs' you mean 'unpleasant truths'. Feminism is good, now good back to sleep.

Your "unpleasant truths" are a bunch of lies, Ben. For a New Yorker you have a decidedly closed view on your neighbours.

pwurple

cantdecide wrote: »

But therein lies the point I make to all proud feminists- we need a debate and a common point from which to move forward, not an adversarial squabble between masculinists and feminists vying for the attention of an apathetic government.

I say this again: feminism is outmoded and no longer relevant and what we need is an egalitarian movement.

The squabbling is ridiculously petty I agree. Who cares who the originator of the message is, if it gets through and benefits us all. Equality benefits society at large.


I don't agree on the second point. Feminism will be outmoded and irrelevant when some Irish companies don't have an informal "Don't Hire Women" policy in place. Or when forced prostitution doesn't exist. Or when child brides are not sold to the highest bidder. But it will still have a place until society progresses to that point.

clairefontaine

pwurple wrote: »

The squabbling is ridiculously petty I agree. Who cares who the originator of the message is, if it gets through and benefits us all. Equality benefits society at large.


I don't agree on the second point. Feminism will be outmoded and irrelevant when some Irish companies don't have an informal "Don't Hire Women" policy in place. Or when forced prostitution doesn't exist. Or when child brides are not sold to the highest bidder. But it will still have a place until society progresses to that point.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/maternity-leave-a-concern-for-new-hse-agency-staff-618662.html

Um...hiring women can be something to be concerned legitimately.

As for child brides... isn't that a human rights or child protection issue? How is feminism "needed" to solve that issue? How does the left reconcile its feminist dreams with its stances on ethnocentricity?

cantdecide

pwurple wrote: »

I don't agree on the second point. Feminism will be outmoded and irrelevant when some Irish companies don't have an informal "Don't Hire Women" policy in place. Or when forced prostitution doesn't exist. Or when child brides are not sold to the highest bidder. But it will still have a place until society progresses to that point.

Respectfully, would you say the contents of my trousers affects the validity of my opinion on these issues? Would you say a united egalitarian movement wouldn't approach these serious issues in a way that's acceptable to feminists, even though theoretically they would be half women (probably feminist women)? Wouldn't it be better to have those with a vested interest being heard to say 'those crazy egalitarians' rather than 'those crazy feminists'. What do we want? Radical egalitarianism!!

Pawwed Rig

pwurple wrote: »

I don't agree on the second point. Feminism will be outmoded and irrelevant when some Irish companies don't have an informal "Don't Hire Women" policy in place. Or when forced prostitution doesn't exist. Or when child brides are not sold to the highest bidder. But it will still have a place until society progresses to that point.

I agree with you to the extent in that there is a reluctance to hire women in some sections. I think this can be changed by recognising the father where children are concerned. This would mean the father having the same rights as the mother whether they are married or not with equal mat/paternity leave and benefits (barring recovery time). This would have the effect (in time) of equalising the risk currently associated with hiring a woman with that of a man. This is an equality issue rather than a feminist issue.

The other 2 points as Claire pointed out are human rights issues and are not that prevalent in Ireland despite what religious orgs like Ruhama would have people believe.

None of these issues would require feminism where an egalitarian organisation existed

clairefontaine

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I agree with you to the extent in that there is a reluctance to hire women in some sections. I think this can be changed by recognising the father where children are concerned. This would mean the father having the same rights as the mother whether they are married or not with equal mat/paternity leave and benefits (barring recovery time). This would have the effect (in time) of equalising the risk currently associated with hiring a woman with that of a man. This is an equality issue rather than a feminist issue.

The other 2 points as Claire pointed out are human rights issues and are not that prevalent in Ireland despite what religious orgs like Ruhama would have people believe.

None of these issues would require feminism where an egalitarian organisation existed

Maternity leave is a quagmire of unresolveable issues.

For one thing you have to take into consideration recovery time from birth/c-section, obviously this is confined to the woman.

Secondly maternity leave costs money and services. Take the health services for example, it means they have to get coverage for women on leave from hospitals and doctors offices, that costs money... and if they don't do it then that means a shortage.

I remember my first job out of college, my boss went on maternity leave a week after I started. It essentially left a vaccuum where I had NOTHING to do for ages and her boss had to cover her jobs. This was in the states where maternity leave is really your vacation time plus personal time and whatever free time you have. So the equality bit is covered. No one can claim discrimination on that front, but it still has it's drawbacks even if it is only for six weeks. Where you have for months on end, it ends up being costly and also can leave the public without services. It also becomes a problem because creches wont take babies younger than 3 months.... and the creche raised baby... that is a whole other debate.

Feminism of course takes no responsibility for the problems it has created by pushing women into the workforce. SOme women, some families, some people actually did not want this at all.

I needed a pediatric dentist in IReland and the only one for several counties was on maternity leave!!! It left me kind of high and dry.

Yet I also understand the need for maternity leave....It just seems there are no satisfactory solutions. If you throw paternity leave into the mix, then that complicates it further.

Until men and women move away from the feminist/mens rights model and move towards family centered policy, I don't think anyone will be happy.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I would have guessed that any organisations I named would be dismissed for one reason or the other. If I named three more then I am sure there would be reasons to discount these too.

If your point is whether these are representative of Irish women as a whole I have already answered that previously. If that is not your point please let me know what is and I can address that.

I dismissed nothing, I merely pointed out that none of the three organizations you listed are "WOMENS ORGANIZATIONS" and none of them are open to general membership.
one of my points is that these organizations are not representative of Irish women as a whole and you have singularly failed to provide any evidence that any "women's organizations" as you wish the would exist, in order to legitimise your dubious claims that they do not speak out against perceived anti-male injustice, actually do exist.
Still waiting on you to try and squirm out of your earlier "Career Woman" faux pas, by the way.

Pawwed Rig

clairefontaine wrote: »

Until men and women move away from the feminist/mens rights model and move towards family centered policy, I don't think anyone will be happy.

I agree completely and hoping we will see it in the coming years although I do not it is not something that Ireland can afford at the moment.

clairefontaine

clairefontaine wrote: »

Until men and women move away from the feminist/mens rights model and move towards family centered policy, I don't think anyone will be happy.

"Family-centred" is as unresolvable as anything else. Family with 2 parents or 1 parents? How many kids are there already? Who should get the "greatest" benefit from it?

JRant

More unchecked man bashing on the pat kenny show today (on phone so can't link).

In short men are responsible for the recession and all the bad things.
Women are great and wouldn't have let it happen (all of it).

And my personal favourite,"women have no representation in the Dial". Hadn't realised they all lost the vote!!!

ConFurioso

Yeah it was painful to listen to.

Basically quotas = good. Ugh.

I mean....the irony. A panel of three and all were women.

JRant

ConFurioso wrote: »

Yeah it was painful to listen to.

Basically quotas = good. Ugh.

I mean....the irony. A panel of three and all were women.

No balance in the discussion at all. One of them agreed quotas were a terrible idea but as long as it helps women get what they wanted then all was good.

I've also noticed how when it's only women effected by a lack of rights it becomes a women's right issue. When discussing the inequality men suffer the focus is shifted to a "family" centred approach, whatever that means.

K-9

iptba wrote: »

You sound like you're from the "Shame" school of debate (as a way of shutting people up).

All I said was I have heard it argued that women lose out in their careers because they take more time out for parental leave than men and if this was dealt with, there might be similar outcomes for each gender. And so the move wasn't motivated by a desire simply to help men.

I don't know what is shameful or disgusting about mentioning this.

As previously mentioned, it would benefit both men and women so both sexes would see a benefit.

Somebody asked why don't women campaign for paternity leave and when it is pointed out that yes, a few groups do indeed campaign for that, the retort is basically "sure its in their own interest to do it." For me there isn't much point in anybody asking the question, never mind going to the bother of actually searching for an answer, if it's going to be dismissed so lightly.

newport2

JRant wrote: »

No balance in the discussion at all. One of them agreed quotas were a terrible idea but as long as it helps women get what they wanted then all was good.

I've also noticed how when it's only women effected by a lack of rights it becomes a women's right issue. When discussing the inequality men suffer the focus is shifted to a "family" centred approach, whatever that means.

There is a general stance in the media and in a lot of movement groups that women's issues are society's fault and men's issues are men's fault.

This nicely side steps having to include men's issues in any equality discussions, because supposedly the solution to their problems is in their own hands, whereas the solution to women's problems requires society to change.

iptba

K-9 wrote: »

For me there isn't much point in anybody asking the question, never mind going to the bother of actually searching for an answer, if it's going to be dismissed so lightly.

Yes, I thought it wasn't the best example to ask about (and I didn't bring it up). I thought it was quite well known that the reason or one of the reasons that women's groups were supporting the idea is that it felt it could help women in their careers.

I don't know what is wrong with dismissing it as an example of showing feminism is a force that strives equally for equality for men and women. As has been pointed out, it doesn't do the job of proving feminism strives equally for equality for men and women.

It would certainly be a simpler world if feminism had shown itself to be sufficient for gender equality but there have been lots of examples given in discussions on the tGC forum (probably in this thread) that feminism/feminists and women's groups have not worked particularly hard on disadvantages men get and in fact can sometimes get in the way. The world isn't always as simple as fairy tales and the like one learns about as children.

What frustrates me is people who read all the examples that feminism hasn't shown itself to be sufficient but still take the easier way out by just supporting feminism.

Pawwed Rig

K-9 wrote: »

Somebody asked why don't women campaign for paternity leave and when it is pointed out that yes, a few groups do indeed campaign for that, the retort is basically "sure its in their own interest to do it." For me there isn't much point in anybody asking the question, never mind going to the bother of actually searching for an answer, if it's going to be dismissed so lightly.

Personally I am delighted to see women's group you mentioned campaigning for this regardless of the motivation behind it. The details of any proposed legislation will be telling though. I would love to see a situation where both parents had a obligatory min period of parental leave.

K-9

iptba wrote: »

Yes, I thought it wasn't the best example to ask about (and I didn't bring it up). I thought it was quite well known that the reason or one of the reasons that women's groups were supporting the idea is that it felt it could help women in their careers.

Yep, I mentioned that another poster brought it up, I suppose it's a pet hate of mine from internet forums, somebody asks a question, the answer isn't really what the general gist of the discussion wants so it gets dismissed or swept aside, probably only to be asked again when the topic comes up again.

It stands to sense that women would want it as it's a factor in pay gaps, it also stands to sense that if paternity and more parental leave are taken up by men well, women will be the ones to benefit from that, it's mutually beneficial on many levels.

I don't know what is wrong with dismissing it as an example of showing feminism is a force that strives equally for equality for men and women. As has been pointed out, it doesn't do the job of proving feminism strives equally for equality for men and women.

Not just by itself, no, but I don't think it can be dismissed lightly in a "sure they'd want that anyway as it benefits them" type way. Men wanting equal parenting rights is an issue of equality for me, though I'm sure some out there could dismiss it as a selfish or biased want from me.

It would certainly be a simpler world if feminism had shown itself to be sufficient for gender equality but there have been lots of examples given in discussions on the tGC forum (probably in this thread) that feminism/feminists and women's groups have not worked particularly hard on disadvantages men get and in fact can sometimes get in the way. The world isn't always as simple as fairy tales and the like one learns about as children.

Indeed, I would hope it hasn't got to the cynical stage that women campaigning for fathers rights can be so easily dismissed as just being from an ulterior motive.

donfers

Criado-Perez on newsnight right now, she says everyone in GB grew up in a culture of sexism and misogyny, totally unchallenged as usual

then went on and on about how social media is great for women to discuss things, how women are victims of online bullying etc. etc.

Women, women, women, women - in her world men aren't the victims of online bullying of course, in her world every valid crime must be perpetrated by a man on a woman and every worthwhile pursuit is only worthwhile if carried out by a woman.

This attitude is typical of career feminists as they need to create these artifically constructed gender-goggled worlds to justify their own existences, but as ever they only succeed in entrenching the views of the nutball extremists and alienating the moderate less embittered and more open-minded middle.

They don't realise and have never realised that they are a huge part of why many are embarrassed to embrace feminism or call themselves feminist, so as galling as it is to hear such chauvinistic views go unchallenged yet again just because they come from a woman, in the long-term she is damaging her own cause, and therefore I salute her gargantuan levels of self-interest and ignorance - something she is blissfully unaware of.

The irony of course is that one of the two people convicted for bullying her was a woman; which obviously pained her greatly as she couldn't use the term "men" as loosely as she had "women" during the interview i.e. she couldn't credibly say men were the bad guys all the time, despite this she continued to maintain that only "women" have it bad.

The fact that a woman was convicted ensured she couldn't go ahead with the "men always bad guys - women always the victims" narrative, but of course she explained that the woman who cyberbullied here must have been so brainwashed by the sexist misogynistic culture she grew up in that it became an inherent part of her - these kind of looney tunes idealogies are how a lot of career feminists think, and they do tremendous damage so all of us who are truly interested in equality should speak out against the hate-filled extremists like Criado-Perez

One other irony in her argument was the fact that she banged on and on about how social media was great for women to voice their opinions, not be shouted down, a great platform for free speech for women yet at the same time she wants people put behind bars who abuse her online.

old hippy

"Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings - Cheris Kramare

GalwayGuy2

"Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings - Cheris Kramare

Hmmm, that is one argument.

Although others would argue that the current feminism is conservatism that sees women as potential victims that should be protected. Whether that's saying women shouldn't wear short skirts, or men should be thought not to attack women in short skirts, it still sees women as potential victims rather than human beings.

But, each to their own.

EDIT:

Not just by itself, no, but I don't think it can be dismissed lightly in a "sure they'd want that anyway as it benefits them" type way. Men wanting equal parenting rights is an issue of equality for me, though I'm sure some out there could dismiss it as a selfish or biased want from me.

Yes. I do believe people are only really campaigning because of the benefits for women, but it does have equal benefits for men. So, as much as I disagree with other aims, that would have my full support.

Although, I hope it doesn't lead into a mentality that says a stay at home dad is 'progressive' while a stay at home mother is 'conservative'.