Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Feminism and the emasculation of men
Comments
-
-
Kyuss you're being quite pedantic here I must say. First of all the dictionary definition of a movement is pretty irrelevant, what matters is how it manifests itself in practise, not in theory. Secondly, I would have thought it was obvious how the defintition of seeking equality from one group's point of view means that one can exclude some double standards from the quest for equality without violating that definition. Hence the word "egalitarian", which explicitly spells out that you care about *all* double standards, even the ones from which you arguably benefit. For example, I'm known for arguing for men's rights but I'm also known for attacking the way society views female sexuality and promiscuous women, and for gender-specific legislation and constitutional articles (I really find it hard to believe that our supposedly modern nation has a constitutional reference to a woman's place in the home :eek: ) and so on.
The other issue is that feminism has adopted a bunch of other things which are arguably womens' issues but have nothing to do with "equality". For example let's take the idea of censoring misogyny - it might be a womens' issue but it's not trying to correct a double standard at all so it doesn't fit the definition you're using, yet is widely practised by large and influential feminist groups.
tl;dr - the dictionary definition of something and how it pans out in practise are rarely the same thing.0 -
-
-
KyussBishop wrote: »You explicitly restricted your reading to the bolded part, pointing out the first five words and leaving out the rest - I've shown exactly how the part you picked out, is consistent with equality that can advance both mens rights, and roll-back womens rights where they are unequal.
You're basically now trying to spin this around, and accuse me of what I've already shown you doing.
To highlight again, what you are doing: You're trying to selectively interpret the word 'feminism', to explain-away equality as a part of the very definition of feminism.
I have shown how the definition of 'advocating womens rights in terms of equality', is perfectly compatible with advocating against aspects of womens rights that do not respect equality.
There's no flip-flopping, just your deliberate conflation of the definition of feminism, with the feminist political movement - you're jumping between one and the other, whenever it suits your argument, and you seem to want to generalize from one (fringe parts of the political movement), to the other (feminists in general).
I really *hate* to point this out but...
Only one of us bothered to actually give the dictionary dedinition- that was me!
The other (that was you) spouted on about it but never actually got around to giving it
How exactly can you argue you aren't selectively interpreting a word when you only provide 50% of the definition? Lo and behold when its put on a page you've conveniently managed to omit 50% of the definition- the 50% that invalidates your point
Since then all you've done is apply your own definition and interpretation of terms to try to dig yourself deeper into that hole.
All you've shown definitively is your ability to hang yourself on a logical fallacy and smile at the world while you do it0 -
Advertisement
-
Right so.KyussBishop wrote: »If you claim that feminists are against equality, you have to show this (and with something better than anecdote) - you have to show that they are against it, not that they fail to advocate for mens rights issues (which has other more innocent explanations).
This is from the EU Advisory Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, called "Opinion on Men in Gender Equality":
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fec.europa.eu%2Fsocial%2FBlobServlet%3FdocId%3D6229%26langId%3Den&ei=KJETU-D9L4qI7AaInoDQAg&usg=AFQjCNGFPk4X0OUA-M0PjYFm63EMFyzGAA&sig2=6kbk1WYYYdPZu5yK5Oqf3A&bvm=bv.62286460,d.ZGU
Flick to page 4, Section B:
The primary objective for work on men in gender equality must be to strengthen the role
and contribution of men in challenging and changing the structures, institutional policies
and practices, and culture (including stereotypical attitudes) that generate and sustain
the inequalities experienced by women.
Gender inequality is predominantly experienced by women. It is both widespread and
persistent. Women experience inequalities in the workplace and in access to economic
development. The representation, standing and status of women reflect this inequality.
Women experience inequalities in access to power and decision making roles across a
broad range of sectors including in politics and senior management in business. Gender
inequality also involves relationships with men that involve violence, abuse, being
patronised and disrespect. These inequalities experienced by women are a product of
societal structures, institutional systems and practices, and societal culture and individual
attitudes. These inequalities are also reflected in private and family life. It is important that
work on men in gender equality is, and is perceived to be, supportive to women’s
empowerment and to greater equality for women.
In order words, 'inequality' is a phenomenon experienced by women, and women alone.
Flick forward to page 10, Section D. 'Pitfalls':
It is important to develop this work on men in gender equality with some care. There are
pitfalls facing those involved in designing and implementing this work.
These pitfalls need to be avoided to ensure that work on men in gender equality does not
diminish or limit work on gender equality.
These pitfalls include:
the danger of shifting the focus in gender equality work away from the experience
and situation of women to that of men;
the problems that arise where work on men in gender equality is not felt to be or is not
supportive of women and equality for women or where this work can be experienced
as oppositional to women;
In other words, it is their STATED GOAL to avoid any discussion of inequality suffered by men at all. They object to any work which is oppositional to women.
i.e. 'equality' in their eyes is a one way street.
Incidentally, IIRC that document was written by Niall Crowley, former CEO of the 'Equality' Authority.
Still think it's 'lack of knowledge' rather than by design?
What about domestic violence? Maybe the reason the feminist organisations won't band together with others to form a gender neutral effort to stamp it out is a lack of knowledge or experience?
Well, Rachel Mullen used to be 'Policy Director' or somesuch at Women's Aid, lets see what she says about it:
http://www.amen.ie/theses/Dis%20Rachel%20Mullan.pdf
Specifically, I will offer refutations of
research being put forward by the backlash to support their argument that male and
female intimates abuse one another in equal measure and furthermore I will illuminate
the danger inherent in attempts to de-gender the issue of interpersonal violence.
I was of the opinion that it would be interesting to interview key players of the backlash such as
John Waters and Mary Cleary of AMEN. I then began to consider the nature of
feminist research and what it aspires to do. This led me to revisit one of the key tenets
of feminist research; to enable silenced women to tell their stories. As the backlash
has attempted to silence those of us working to address male violence would my
interviewing of only backlash players be colluding with that silencing? I believed it
would.
Anyway, have a read an tell me if you think WA would be open to a gender neutral egalitarian approach.
What about educational achievement?
Does the underperformance of boys worry feminists, are they unaware or do they willfully obstruct on the issue?
Well, Kathleen Lynch, uber 'Academic Feminist' has this to say:
Does it matter that boys perform more poorly in schools?
On average Girls outperform boys in national examinations (her emphasis)
Boys’ lower performance than girls is not a new phenomenon –moral panic is displaced (What moral panic?)
Boys’ lower performance in education does not disadvantage them in the labour market. (What does that mean? Are we about to hear about the 'Gender Gap'?)
Pay gap is 25% higher for men in terms of gross hourly wages (varies from 15-35%) (Yes we are, hey what happened to On average?)
Is that enough evidence of opposition? Or do Women's Aid, Kathleen Lynch and Niall Crowley not count as 'feminists' in your book?0 -
-
Yep. Explain it to me.
"'In my experience when a man is sexualised it is a big laugh generally with an undertone of 'you go girl', when it's the opposite the man is a pathetic sleaze.'"
Advert A: Man with no shirt and hot abs washes window and secretaries ogle him....
Today's response: Everyone laughs and women thinks it's all great fun.
Advert B: Women walks down the road in mini skirt with long sexy legs, men look after her and ogle her....
Today's response: Women go into a rage and men get pilloried as disgusting and sleazy.0 -
Or like when women have sex with under-age boys, the feminists clamour to howl "Nnnnnnnice!"
Oh wait, they don't. It's other guys who do that.0 -
Femme_Fatale wrote: »Or like when women have sex with under-age boys, the feminists clamour to howl "Nnnnnnnice!"
Oh wait, they don't. It's other guys who do that.
Guys say that about under-age girls????0 -
Advertisement
-
Femme_Fatale wrote: »Or like when women have sex with under-age boys, the feminists clamour to howl "Nnnnnnnice!"
Oh wait, they don't. It's other guys idiots who do that.
Fyp0 -
"'In my experience when a man is sexualised it is a big laugh generally with an undertone of 'you go girl', when it's the opposite the man is a pathetic sleaze.'"
Advert A: Man with no shirt and hot abs washes window and secretaries ogle him....
Today's response: Everyone laughs and women thinks it's all great fun.
Advert B: Women walks down the road in mini skirt with long sexy legs, men look after her and ogle her....
Today's response: Women go into a rage and men get pilloried as disgusting and sleazy.
Thanks for explaining.
While technically true, I think the latter does sound more sleazy - the first is more annoying. I say this as a bloke. There are definitely areas where females shouldn't just be looking for equality where it suits, but there are still differences between the sexes. For men to be complaining about big bad feminism breaking them down makes me laugh I got to be honest - it just smacks of being butthurt and wanting an excuse. Pretty much any guy, even gay ones, wouldn't mind being 'oggled' by women at all (unelss they are really ugly). The same can't be said the other way round most of the time.0 -
I don't agree. I think it's still a double standard. Not all guys would like it.Thanks for explaining.
While technically true, I think the latter does sound more sleazy - the first is more annoying. I say this as a bloke. There are definitely areas where females shouldn't just be looking for equality where it suits, but there are still differences between the sexes. For men to be complaining about big bad feminism breaking them down makes me laugh I got to be honest - it just smacks of being butthurt and wanting an excuse. Pretty much any guy, even gay ones, wouldn't mind being 'oggled' by women at all (unelss they are really ugly). The same can't be said the other way round most of the time.
I don't like when some feminists whinge about lads' mags etc - the women in question choose to do it and are paid well. But you'd swear they've caused an end to women's sexuality on display and that it has been taken over by men's sexuality on display.
The former is the more prominent one - and I'm not saying it's a bad thing but I am saying it's wrong to imply the feminists are so powerful there aren't strip-clubs and imagery of topless women anymore. There's probably never been more of it.0 -
Femme_Fatale wrote: »Or like when women have sex with under-age boys, the feminists clamour to howl "Nnnnnnnice!"
Oh wait, they don't. It's other guys who do that.
Can you be a bit more specific?0 -
-
I'm really not intending to be pedantic about it, but I think that the details of what I'm pointing out are really important distinctions - for example, I think that the way the word 'equality' is being used/interpreted is completely wrong.hatrickpatrick wrote: »Kyuss you're being quite pedantic here I must say. First of all the dictionary definition of a movement is pretty irrelevant, what matters is how it manifests itself in practise, not in theory. Secondly, I would have thought it was obvious how the defintition of seeking equality from one group's point of view means that one can exclude some double standards from the quest for equality without violating that definition. Hence the word "egalitarian", which explicitly spells out that you care about *all* double standards, even the ones from which you arguably benefit. For example, I'm known for arguing for men's rights but I'm also known for attacking the way society views female sexuality and promiscuous women, and for gender-specific legislation and constitutional articles (I really find it hard to believe that our supposedly modern nation has a constitutional reference to a woman's place in the home :eek: ) and so on.
The other issue is that feminism has adopted a bunch of other things which are arguably womens' issues but have nothing to do with "equality". For example let's take the idea of censoring misogyny - it might be a womens' issue but it's not trying to correct a double standard at all so it doesn't fit the definition you're using, yet is widely practised by large and influential feminist groups.
tl;dr - the dictionary definition of something and how it pans out in practise are rarely the same thing.
When you get past the debating over the word feminism and equality, much of what I'm arguing against, is peoples tendency to generalize about all feminists - and my arguing over the definition of feminism and how it encompasses equality, is to show that:
1: Feminists are much more widely present in the population than people assume, and
2: The fringe groups are a lot less representative than people think.
So this is why, I have a problem with people taking those fringe parts of the feminist movement, and generalizing them to feminism overall; the fringe movements may be among the most politically active feminists, but that doesn't necessarily mean they proportionately represent feminists overall - which is why generalizations are so harmful.
To be honest, I think it's a pretty minor distinction - so I don't know why it's generating this much debate (and the amount of debate it's generating, seems to be causing this point to get lost); it seems to me, that some posters are trying to redefine feminism itself, to rule out equality.0 -
Femme_Fatale wrote: »This thread and the numerous ones like it that crop up every time there's a story about a female teacher having sex with her male teenage student, sometimes underage.
That's because lots of guys would have liked to have had sex with an attractive female teacher.0 -
You're spouting assertions here as if to claim 'definitive victory' as such, yet the criticism you're placing on me is precisely the one I put on you.I really *hate* to point this out but...
Only one of us bothered to actually give the dictionary dedinition- that was me!
The other (that was you) spouted on about it but never actually got around to giving it
How exactly can you argue you aren't selectively interpreting a word when you only provide 50% of the definition? Lo and behold when its put on a page you've conveniently managed to omit 50% of the definition- the 50% that invalidates your point
Since then all you've done is apply your own definition and interpretation of terms to try to dig yourself deeper into that hole.
All you've shown definitively is your ability to hang yourself on a logical fallacy and smile at the world while you do it
The definition of feminism is about equality, and whether that equality comes from the starting point of womens rights or not, does not mean it reinforces double standards (as hatrickpatrick put it) - it is compatible with fighting feminist double standards (ways womens rights promote inequality), and it is compatible with advocating mens rights - it just does not (within the definition) demand advocation of those things (but the definition does exclude double standards, because supporting them would support inequality).0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »I'm really not intending to be pedantic about it, but I think that the details of what I'm pointing out are really important distinctions - for example, I think that the way the word 'equality' is being used/interpreted is completely wrong.
When you get past the debating over the word feminism and equality, much of what I'm arguing against, is peoples tendency to generalize about all feminists - and my arguing over the definition of feminism and how it encompasses equality, is to show that:
1: Feminists are much more widely present in the population than people assume, and
2: The fringe groups are a lot less representative than people think.
So this is why, I have a problem with people taking those fringe parts of the feminist movement, and generalizing them to feminism overall; the fringe movements may be among the most politically active feminists, but that doesn't necessarily mean they proportionately represent feminists overall - which is why generalizations are so harmful.
To be honest, I think it's a pretty minor distinction - so I don't know why it's generating this much debate (and the amount of debate it's generating, seems to be causing this point to get lost); it seems to me, that some posters are trying to redefine feminism itself, to rule out equality.
That's fine, but people want to discuss the self identifying feminists, not people who technically cam be described as feminsts.0 -
Except what you quote does not say that - it says 'predominantly' inequality is experiences by women, which says the opposite of what you claim, because 'predominantly' means that while women experience most inequality, 'most' means that some other group experiences inequality too.In order words, 'inequality' is a phenomenon experienced by women, and women alone.
So that says the exact opposite of what you claim.
Except it doesn't say that, because it's explicitly talking about avoiding pitfalls when mens rights issues are discussed - not about avoiding talking about mens rights issues.In other words, it is their STATED GOAL to avoid any discussion of inequality suffered by men at all. They object to any work which is oppositional to women.
i.e. 'equality' in their eyes is a one way street.
Incidentally, IIRC that document was written by Niall Crowley, former CEO of the 'Equality' Authority.
There's potentially a case to be made, that the document is biased in an unequal way - but by the way you misrepresent what is said in the document, you inherently harm that case.
Anecdote - this may well be a legitimate issue, but show me some statistics, proving that the feminist movement in general, ignores the issue.What about domestic violence? Maybe the reason the feminist organisations won't band together with others to form a gender neutral effort to stamp it out is a lack of knowledge or experience?
I don't defend Womens Aid - they are one part of an overall movement, and I am rebutting peoples generalizing about feminists overall - people need to provide information backing their generalizations, which isolated cases don't provide.Well, Rachel Mullen used to be 'Policy Director' or somesuch at Women's Aid, lets see what she says about it:
Anyway, have a read an tell me if you think WA would be open to a gender neutral egalitarian approach.
I don't know - do they? (got any stats showing that this is generally true?)What about educational achievement?
Does the underperformance of boys worry feminists, are they unaware or do they willfully obstruct on the issue?
Again one person, not representative of an overall movement.Well, Kathleen Lynch, uber 'Academic Feminist' has this to say:
So, to summarize: You provide nothing to show that these people/documents are representative samples of the feminist movement, since it is only isolated documents/people/organizations being mentioned (I could pluck out any old crackpots from the Atheist movement, to make all atheists look bad, for instance).
People here are speaking in general terms about an entire movement, so the burden is on them to present statistics representative of the entire movement (such as a survey of attitudes from people in the general feminist movement), not cherry picked cases - which rely upon generalizing to the entire movement.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think a lot of those who technically can be described as feminists, would self-identify that way - that's the thing; they just may not be politically active, like some of the fringe inequality-promoting (or other troublesome) parts of the feminist movement are.Incarnations wrote: »That's fine, but people want to discuss the self identifying feminists, not people who technically cam be described as feminsts.0 -
Eh sorry someone who earns €87,000 a year should have to work damn hard for it, be they man or woman. And if they have to do extra hours so be it. Just to point out that salary is over 5 times the Minimum Wage in this country. So I think they really need to suck it up. Men also have to do the extra hours - who would want to be in the Dail or County Council listening to gombeens crapping on? Well if you want to be a politician in this country thats what you have to do. End of story.What percentage of the parliament are women?0 -
Yes both true. The women and the men leave their children safe in the hands of a childminder. In the case of our national politicians they are well-paid enough to do that. If they don't like it, then they should give up politics. Simple as that really.That's not really practical, but in fact sexist. Why punish women for having families? Male politicians have families too?0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »You're spouting assertions here as if to claim 'definitive victory' as such, yet the criticism you're placing on me is precisely the one I put on you.
The definition of feminism is about equality, and whether that equality comes from the starting point of womens rights or not, does not mean it reinforces double standards (as hatrickpatrick put it) - it is compatible with fighting feminist double standards (ways womens rights promote inequality), and it is compatible with advocating mens rights - it just does not (within the definition) demand advocation of those things (but the definition does exclude double standards, because supporting them would support inequality).
Kyuss, its actually getting a bit jaded now. Your argument is smoke and mirrors.
On the one hand you claim a sweeping generalization of what feminism is - your definition. I contend its not supported by the actual definition or by the empirical evidence of what those who actively promote themselves as feminists do. That's not a criticism of feminism as some big bad, its the established view of feminists as to what feminism is. Essentially you're trying to tell the entire history of feminism, who cannot themselves agree on the exact parameters to define what their ideology is, what their movement means and is all about.
On the other hand you dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as being guilty of sweeping generalizations. Yet its all right for you to make the most sweeping generalization of the thread - defining exactly what a feminist should be in your world view and what characterizes a feminist, but woe betide anyone else whose definition differs from yours.
On the one hand you insist that posters provide you with evidence to support their assertions - and in every case dismiss it as some sort of unrepresentative sub niche that doesn't reflect the purity of your definition.
On the other hand you refuse to provide any sort of concrete examples to support your own view. I'm still waiting by the way for an example of feminists actively promoting the removal of women's rights.
On the one hand you want to nit pick the semantics of any counter example you receive. On the other hand you refuse to even notice the vast gaps and weaknesses in your own argument.
On the one hand you argue that feminists are all over the place. On the other hand every self identifying feminist group that's held up as a counter example to you has been decreed by you to not be a pure and true feminist. You seem to think we're all feminists whether we like it or not, whether we realise it or not.
Its pointless offering you statistics or counter examples to negate your point - you simply don't want to hear. Put simply I don't believe you are capable of understanding that there is any argument other than the one you believe to be right. Like I said its all getting a bit jaded.0 -
No it's exactly what I claim, that only one form of inequality is of concern to them.KyussBishop wrote: »Except what you quote does not say that - it says 'predominantly' inequality is experiences by women, which says the opposite of what you claim, because 'predominantly' means that while women experience most inequality, 'most' means that some other group experiences inequality too.
So that says the exact opposite of what you claim.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? The pitfall is discussing men's rights issues. It is advising not to be brought off the topic of women's rightsKyussBishop wrote: »Except it doesn't say that, because it's explicitly talking about avoiding pitfalls when mens rights issues are discussed - not about avoiding talking about mens rights issues.
As opposed to a thesis by the former policy head of WA, advising that the issue be ignored?KyussBishop wrote: »Anecdote - this may well be a legitimate issue, but show me some statistics, proving that the feminist movement in general, ignores the issue.
No, you're defending some imagined body of feminists which exist only in your head, thinking that they render the actual feminists a tiny minority.KyussBishop wrote: »I don't defend Womens Aid - they are one part of an overall movement, and I am rebutting peoples generalizing about feminists overall - people need to provide information backing their generalizations, which isolated cases don't provide.
You don't know? LOL, now it's obvious you're being deliberately obtuse.KyussBishop wrote: »I don't know - do they? (got any stats showing that this is generally true?)
Pick up a newspaper at state exam result time, I predict girls will outperform boys by... oh.. 10%.
Like every other year.
Just the leading academic in the field in the country, responsible for educating/brainwashing probably thousands of students over the years.KyussBishop wrote: »Again one person, not representative of an overall movement.
Yup, just the main Government quango, the most high profile domestic violence campaigning/lobbying organisation and the leading academic in the field of 'Equality Studies'.KyussBishop wrote: »So, to summarize: You provide nothing to show that these people/documents are representative samples of the feminist movement, since it is only isolated documents/people/organizations being mentioned (I could pluck out any old crackpots from the Atheist movement, to make all atheists look bad, for instance).
You'll have to do better I'm afraid.
No they're not 'speaking in general terms about an entire movement', they're speaking about that cohort of self identified feminists who lobby, cajole and advocate on behalf of their constituency.KyussBishop wrote: »People here are speaking in general terms about an entire movement, so the burden is on them to present statistics representative of the entire movement (such as a survey of attitudes from people in the general feminist movement), not cherry picked cases - which rely upon generalizing to the entire movement.
As represented by the examples above, which you were so keen to have.
The only one who doesn't realise this is you, literally spinning around in ever decreasing circles, with your pocket OED.0 -
I do think KyussBishop has a point.
The likes of Bacik gets huge publicity, she's a pretty extreme and far out feminist. I suppose the likes of Bacik or, to go to the opposite extreme, Ronan Mullen and David Quinn get far too much exposure. Is it the press, yep!
But for me, social media and yep, Boards.ie, play a part in giving that exposure to Bacik and Mulen. An extremist is an extremist, not worth much discussion or comment.
Far too much attention is devoted by mens rights activists to hard line feminists, for what gain?
Unfortunately it seems the more moderate opinions spend all their time defending extreme opinions that get conflated with mainline ones. The more extreme mens rights opinions posted on here and the Gentlemans Club seem reactionary nonsense to me.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Thanks for explaining.
While technically true, I think the latter does sound more sleazy - the first is more annoying. I say this as a bloke. There are definitely areas where females shouldn't just be looking for equality where it suits, but there are still differences between the sexes. For men to be complaining about big bad feminism breaking them down makes me laugh I got to be honest - it just smacks of being butthurt and wanting an excuse. Pretty much any guy, even gay ones, wouldn't mind being 'oggled' by women at all (unelss they are really ugly). The same can't be said the other way round most of the time.
Equality is equality, you can't advocate for something to be banned but then expect your own crowd to be allowed to do it. Feminists who believe that any double standard is ever ok are hypocrites - end of story in my view.0 -
I do think KyussBishop has a point.
The likes of Bacik gets huge publicity, she's a pretty extreme and far out feminist. I suppose the likes of Bacik or, to go to the opposite extreme, Ronan Mullen and David Quinn get far too much exposure. Is it the press, yep!
But for me, social media and yep, Boards.ie, play a part in giving that exposure to Bacik and Mulen. An extremist is an extremist, not worth much discussion or comment.
Far too much attention is devoted by mens rights activists to hard line feminists, for what gain?
Unfortunately it seems the more moderate opinions spend all their time defending moderate opinions that get conflated with extreme ones. The more extreme mens rights opinions posted on here and the Gentlemans Club seem reactionary, hate filled nonsense to me.
Again it's because they actually get things done. I wouldn't have any time for blasting the pro-censorship elements of feminism if they hadn't actually succeeded in various campaigns to restrict people's freedom of speech, for example - if they were just spewing hot air and getting nothing in return that'd be one thing, but they are managing to actually change the rules and laws across the board in a variety of ways, so they cannot simply be ignored. Those who oppose them must actually fight them rather than saying "They're just fringe extremists, they'll soon go away."0 -
Not my definition - the dictionary definition, and I've explicitly pointed out multiple times the distinction between feminism 'the word' and feminism 'the collection of political movements'.Kyuss, its actually getting a bit jaded now. Your argument is smoke and mirrors.
On the one hand you claim a sweeping generalization of what feminism is - your definition. I contend its not supported by the actual definition or by the empirical evidence of what those who actively promote themselves as feminists do. That's not a criticism of feminism as some big bad, its the established view of feminists as to what feminism is. Essentially you're trying to tell the entire history of feminism, who cannot themselves agree on the exact parameters to define what their ideology is, what their movement means and is all about.
On the other hand you dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as being guilty of sweeping generalizations. Yet its all right for you to make the most sweeping generalization of the thread - defining exactly what a feminist should be in your world view and what characterizes a feminist, but woe betide anyone else whose definition differs from yours.
On the one hand you insist that posters provide you with evidence to support their assertions - and in every case dismiss it as some sort of unrepresentative sub niche that doesn't reflect the purity of your definition.
On the other hand you refuse to provide any sort of concrete examples to support your own view. I'm still waiting by the way for an example of feminists actively promoting the removal of women's rights.
On the one hand you want to nit pick the semantics of any counter example you receive. On the other hand you refuse to even notice the vast gaps and weaknesses in your own argument.
You're generalizing about feminists yet again: Provide a study surveying the attitudes of feminists in general, to back that up - not unrepresentative samples or anecdote.
It's simple: There's a big distinction between factions within the political movement, and 'feminists' overall - and people should not be generalizing about the feminist movement, based on unrepresentative samples.
You're basically debating in order to defend the ability to make sweeping generalizations: Which, regardless of any of the arguments I've personally made, are logically wrong to begin with anyway - you don't even contest that you are making sweeping generalizations either, just try to accuse me of the same thing.
I'll settle for a study, which proves that any of the generalizations you use, apply just to feminism 'the collection of political movements' - even discarding the dictionary definition.
Can anyone show even that, or is it just the usual unrepresentative samples?
You've never asked for an example, of feminists promoting the removal of womens rights - and find it yourself because all I've argued, is that the dictionary definition of feminism is compatible with that, not that it happens (I didn't make any such claim one way or the other, as to whether or not any feminists do that).
Now you are directly lying about what I have said, as pointing out how examples are unrepresentative samples - i.e. are just a repeat of the same generalization - is pointing out the fallacy of your argument.On the one hand you argue that feminists are all over the place. On the other hand every self identifying feminist group that's held up as a counter example to you has been decreed by you to not be a pure and true feminist. You seem to think we're all feminists whether we like it or not, whether we realise it or not.
You haven't offered any statistics, this is another outright lie from you - all that has been offered are individual examples, none of which provide any statistics on the views of the overall feminist movement.Its pointless offering you statistics or counter examples to negate your point - you simply don't want to hear. Put simply I don't believe you are capable of understanding that there is any argument other than the one you believe to be right. Like I said its all getting a bit jaded.
If you're going to generalize about the entire feminist movement, you need to provide some statistics proving that your generalization is appropriate - and I'll settle for statistics, of the politically active feminist movements (statistics for all of them, or more than a majority subset, not cherry-picked examples).0 -
Advertisement
-
You're either wrong or deliberately misrepresenting - given the quality of debate and continued misrepresentations lately, I'm starting to think more the latter:No it's exactly what I claim, that only one form of inequality is of concern to them.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? The pitfall is discussing men's rights issues. It is advising not to be brought off the topic of women's rights
So, the exact document you put forward, says exactly the opposite of what you claim - and this is now pretty much proven beyond doubt.Identify the implications of a more gender equal society for men and masculinity and strategies to support men in relation to such change.
...
- Access to new roles for men particularly in the caring domain and to a new balance between paid employment and caring work.
- Structures and institutions in society that work more effectively and without discrimination for people- men and women.
- Gender mainstreaming that creates new opportunities for men for example in relation to working time policies.
- More broadly the achievement of gender equality goals will contribute to achieving the Lisbon objectives and will enhance the situation of men and women.
...
- To address issues that are specific to men in areas such as health provision.
...
In Finland the Council for Equality was established to focus on the overall promotion of gender equality in Finnish society. The Council for Equality has set up a subcommittee on men’s issues. This subcommittee has investigated ways of raising men’s interest in gender equality, looked at men’s particular problems from an equality perspective and promoted
men’s studies. The General Secretary of the Council for Equality works at the Gender Equality Unit of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health.
I'm not much impressed by the bullshít some posters are trying to pull here, and it's giving me an impression - especially since many arguments so far rely upon sweeping generalizations - that people should be equally as skeptical (at least) of arguments from the mens rights side of the debate, as they should be from the feminist side.
When I smell bullshít in arguments like this, it's a pretty good way of motivating me to break down the arguments in great detail, until I know the general topic inside out.
Prove any of your claims here, with actual statistics representative of the feminist movement (and that can include, just the politically active movements if you like - forget the dictionary definition) - posters are going to great lengths to try and justify their sweeping generalizations, and (since generalizations are inherently logically fallacious) it smells of utter bullshít, so people are going to have to justify this with some actual stats.As opposed to a thesis by the former policy head of WA, advising that the issue be ignored?
No, you're defending some imagined body of feminists which exist only in your head, thinking that they render the actual feminists a tiny minority.
You don't know? LOL, now it's obvious you're being deliberately obtuse.
Pick up a newspaper at state exam result time, I predict girls will outperform boys by... oh.. 10%.
Like every other year.
Just the leading academic in the field in the country, responsible for educating/brainwashing probably thousands of students over the years.
Yup, just the main Government quango, the most high profile domestic violence campaigning/lobbying organisation and the leading academic in the field of 'Equality Studies'.
You'll have to do better I'm afraid.
No they're not 'speaking in general terms about an entire movement', they're speaking about that cohort of self identified feminists who lobby, cajole and advocate on behalf of their constituency.
As represented by the examples above, which you were so keen to have.
The only one who doesn't realise this is you, literally spinning around in ever decreasing circles, with your pocket OED.
Summary: Back up your generalizations, with actual stats - not unrepresentative cherry-picked samples, actual stats representing the whole (just politically active if you like) movement - otherwise your generalizations should't be treated as anything other than fallacious nonsense.0
Advertisement