Is feminism a dirty word?

steddyeddy

Lyaiera wrote: »

I could, but I won't. It's a trivial issue which people, on both sides of the issue blew out of all proportion. Also as I've already outlined I don't think conversation on it here is constructive.

No you couldn't. People here have been very reasonable but you haven't operated outside hyperbole.

Lyaiera

steddyeddy wrote: »

What do you mean by the same level of understanding? You haven't explained your points, just made statements. How is the image hyper-sexualised, is "hyper-sexualised" a definition", are images that people find attractive all sexualised and is it wrong to find images of the opposite sex sexy and if so why?

You highlight my point about the same level of understanding. The people I've had brief conversations with on this had no issues with my description of the shirt as hyper-sexualised. They disagreed that this was a bad thing. But we had a common level of understanding on which to base our conversation. That isn't happening here. I'm just constantly having to explain things over and over. There is no common level of understanding. To me this conversation is pointless as I see no end to the questions and no beginning to a constructive discussion for all participants.

KomradeBishop

Venus In Furs wrote: »

Ok, but what about individuals who deem themselves feminist but only in favour of the actual sensible stuff, have no time for the stuff that affects men's rights, and have contempt for the crazy stuff, and have lots of time for men, lots of men in their life, no issue with women looking sexy etc. These people exist - is it still unacceptable for them to deem themselves feminist? Can't feminists be a particular type?

E.g. I believe in elements of socialism - there should be state benefits because not everyone is born on an equal footing, I don't have a problem with private enterprise but I don't believe all services should be privatised either and some should remain the state/people's; I believe in taxes in order for us to be a society working together, rather than a bunch of individuals out on our own.
But that doesn't make me a bolshevist or someone that doesn't roundly condemn/is terrified of hardline communism. It doesn't even make me a socialist. However some of my views would fit under the moderate end of these umbrellas.

Ya good point - there are a lot of posters that would reflexively dismiss you as "Communist!" or "Statist!" for fairly standard views like that (my current username, is a pisstake on me often being randomly labelled a Communist)

hatrickpatrick

Lyaiera wrote: »

You highlight my point about the same level of understanding. The people I've had brief conversations with on this had no issues with my description of the shirt as hyper-sexualised. They disagreed that this was a bad thing. But we had a common level of understanding on which to base our conversation. That isn't happening here. I'm just constantly having to explain things over and over. There is no common level of understanding. To me this conversation is pointless as I see no end to the questions and no beginning to a constructive discussion for all participants.

I'll agree that it was hyper sexualized, and I'll be the first to state that not only do I see it as harmless, I actually see it as very positive. The sooner everyone gets over the stigma surrounding sex and stops speaking of it in hushed tones, the better.

The taboo may or may not have once had noble intentions, but it is no longer relevant and has done society and individuals far more harm than good.

In my view that's still not really the issue though. The issue is that if someone causes you offense, you do not have the right to an apology from them or to ban whatever it is that offended you - which is something that far too many people, not just feminists, have lost sight of in recent years.

jackofalltrades

Lyaiera wrote: »

Every single feminist I know is crying out for their to be more parental rights for fathers, more involvement of fathers in family life, etc.

Given the power and influence of the feminism, I find it hard to believe that there's a single goal that has widespread support, that isn't being worked on or implemented.
Especially given the success of so called "extremists" have had with getting changes made.

I feel if feminists were serious about giving fathers more rights, then it would have been done a long time ago.
In reality it think there is a reluctance to abandon certain female privileges.

Binman may have traditionally been more physical (not so much with the advent of automated bin lorries) and roof tilers are exposed to the elements.

And yet every time when the gender pay gap statistics are used by a feminist group, the fact that men do more physical, dangerous jobs in worse conditions never seems to be brought up.

If you want to get down to the basics of it the reality is that those jobs aren't very prestigious, so they may not fall into many people's ambitions. CEOs and politicians jobs are the positions with power to change society,

Excluding the CEOs of charities, in general CEOs don't have much power to change society.
Especially in comparison to single interest lobby groups.
Politicians in a lot of cases are slaves to the whip system.

The point I've been making all along is I think there's something up when the levels of representation in any industry are so heavily in favour of one gender over the other.

But as you said above this can be explained simply by one gender not wishing to do that role.

Lyaiera

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'll agree that it was hyper sexualized, and I'll be the first to state that not only do I see it as harmless, I actually see it as very positive. The sooner everyone gets over the stigma surrounding sex and stops speaking of it in hushed tones, the better.

The taboo may or may not have once had noble intentions, but it is no longer relevant and has done society and individuals far more harm than good.

In my view that's still not really the issue though. The issue is that if someone causes you offense, you do not have the right to an apology from them or to ban whatever it is that offended you - which is something that far too many people, not just feminists, have lost sight of in recent years.

I broadly agree. I think we need a lot more positive conversation when it comes to ideas surrounding sexuality. I don't think wearing a shirt like that in a worldwide interview is the best place to showcase the need for such discussions. Obviously those discussions can of course come from it, seeing as it happened and nothing can be done about that.

I also generally agree on the idea of offense. There are very few things I would prohibit. And while on the one side you have people looking to censor and ban (a bad thing) you also have people looking to do what they wish without consequence (also a bad thing.) I think people who look to ban things and people who want to be free to do whatever they want without reaction are two sides of the same coin.

KomradeBishop

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...
In my view that's still not really the issue though. The issue is that if someone causes you offense, you do not have the right to an apology from them or to ban whatever it is that offended you - which is something that far too many people, not just feminists, have lost sight of in recent years.

The trouble is though, what is sometimes portrayed as a ban and an attack on free speech etc., often isn't - or is exaggerated hugely, to whip up a controversy, as an excuse for a broad attack on feminism.

It's very common for a tiny event at a university, to be picked out, exaggerated enormously, and then used to generalize/attack feminism as a whole.

Also, what is often portrayed as a free speech issue, actually isn't - if a university offers somebody a platform for a debate, and then renege's on that when they find out that someone holds reprehensible/discreditable views, that the university doesn't want to be seen legitimizing/representing - that's not a free speech issue, nobody is stopping the debate from happening elsewhere.

Everyone has the free-speech right to advocate whatever views they like, but they don't have the automatic right to a platform/soapbox (such as in a university debate), which lends unwarranted legitimacy to their views.

The Corinthian

Lyaiera wrote: »

I've already said that that's how I experience feminism, how I interact with my friends (who are feminists) and how I read and educate myself about feminism. You reject that. What more is there to say?

Try to answer the question I posed:

Can you name a single example of any feminist campaign, since the 1970's, that has advocated any change in society in the interests of gender equality that would negatively affect the rights or interests of women?

If you can't then you might want to rethink your beliefs in feminism being a force for equality. As has been pointed out, you appear to be basing your views on the subject in a bit of an echo chamber, where those core beliefs are never questioned. Do you think that wise, or is holding the belief more important than whether the belief is even true?

Lyaiera

The Corinthian wrote: »

Try to answer the question I posed:

Can you name a single example of any feminist campaign, since the 1970's, that has advocated any change in society in the interests of gender equality that would negatively affect the rights or interests of women?

If you can't then you might want to rethink your beliefs in feminism being a force for equality. As has been pointed out, you appear to be basing your views on the subject in a bit of an echo chamber, where those core beliefs are never questioned. Do you think that wise, or is holding the belief more important than whether the belief is even true?

The campaigns for the right of women to have a career has seen increased pressure on women's role in the home. It's generally termed "The Second Shift."

The Corinthian

Lyaiera wrote: »

The campaigns for the right of women to have a career has seen increased pressure on women's role in the home. It's generally termed "The Second Shift."

What's that got to do with the question? If you don't want or can't answer, then fine, but please don't pretend to and simply use it to change the subject.

Lyaiera

The Corinthian wrote: »

What's that got to do with the question? If you don't want or can't answer, then fine, but please don't pretend to and simply use it to change the subject.

This is what I mean by understanding not being found in this thread. I feel my answer directly addresses the question you raised. You don't.

Cincodemayo

Lyaiera wrote: »

This is what I mean by understanding not being found in this thread. I feel my answer directly addresses the question you raised. You don't.

Your feelings are misguided, your answer was a complete non sequitar, you'd make a good politician.

Lyaiera

Cincodemayo wrote: »

Your feelings are misguided, your answer was a complete non sequitar, you'd make a good politician.

Thanks for your contribution. I'll be sure to evaluate my statement in light of it and will use this valuable feedback to address approaches to future instances of conversation.

The Corinthian

Lyaiera wrote: »

This is what I mean by understanding not being found in this thread. I feel my answer directly addresses the question you raised. You don't.

But your answer does not answer the question; that campaign did not intentionally sacrifice women's rights in the interests of equality, it got them extra rights, not fewer anywhere and the 'second shift' was simply an unintentional, and frankly inevitable, consequence of trying to have your cake and eat it.

And on top of this, ever since, we've seen an attempt to further change society further so that women have more rights (e.g. quotas) so that they can have their cake and eat it.

Sacrificing women's rights would be sacrificing their near monopoly on control of children as they demand more rights in male roles. That has never been done and feminism will never do this because equality is not it's aim, only maximizing rights for women.

Lyaiera

The Corinthian wrote: »

But your answer does not answer the question; that campaign did not intentionally sacrifice women's rights in the interests of equality, it got them extra rights, not fewer anywhere and the 'second shift' was simply an unintentional, and frankly inevitable, consequence of trying to have your cake and eat it.

Wanting equal distribution of work and home responsibilities is a case of "trying to have your cake and eat it?"

And why would you anyone talk of sacrificing rights? I don't think you understand what rights are.

Cincodemayo

Lyaiera wrote: »

Thanks for your contribution. I'll be sure to evaluate my statement in light of it and will use this valuable feedback to address approaches to future instances of conversation.

Time will tell.

Cincodemayo

Lyaiera wrote: »

Wanting equal distribution of work and home responsibilities is a case of "trying to have your cake and eat it?"

And why would you anyone talk of sacrificing rights? I don't think you understand what rights are.

In instances where woman unfairly have more rights than men, anyone who seeks gender equality should either campaign for less rights for women, more for men or a combination.

Lyaiera

Cincodemayo wrote: »

In instances where woman unfairly have more rights than men, anyone who seeks gender equality should either campaign for less rights for women, more for men or a combination.

A lot of women in Ireland are campaigning for the women's rights within the family to be removed from the constitution.

The Corinthian

Lyaiera wrote: »

Wanting equal distribution of work and home responsibilities is a case of "trying to have your cake and eat it?"

But there isn't equal distribution of work and home rights. With regards to children, women have an overwhelming share of rights. So wanting to leave these traditional female roles untouched, but seeking an equal footing with men in traditional male roles is looking to have your cake and eat it.

Has feminism even acknowledged this? Or is it willing to address this inequality that now favours women? If not you cannot claim that feminism seeks equality.

And why would you anyone talk of sacrificing rights? I don't think you understand what rights are.

Clearly I understand better than you. Patriarchy may have favoured men, but to suggest that women did not have rights and privileges assigned to their gender would be grossly dishonest. Women did not have to go to war, women were expected to be financially cared for by men, not the other way around, women would (certainly from the twentieth century) would automatically get custody of children, regardless of whether this was in the child's interest.

If you believe in equality, level the system constructed by patriarchy, then you have to accept that both men and women need to sacrifice their traditional gender based rights and privileges, otherwise you don't want equality, you want to have your cake and eat it.

Lyaiera

The Corinthian wrote: »

But there isn't equal distribution of work and home rights. With regards to children, women have an overwhelming share of rights. So wanting to leave these traditional female roles untouched, but seeking an equal footing with men in traditional male roles is looking to have your cake and eat it.

Has feminism even acknowledged this? Or is it willing to address this inequality that now favours women? If not you cannot claim that feminism seeks equality.

Clearly I understand better than you. Patriarchy may have favoured men, but to suggest that women did not have rights and privileges assigned to their gender would be grossly dishonest. Women did not have to go to war, women were expected to be financially cared for by men, not the other way around, women would (certainly from the twentieth century) would automatically get custody of children, regardless of whether this was in the child's interest.

If you believe in equality, level the system constructed by patriarchy, then you have to accept that both men and women need to sacrifice their traditional gender based rights and privileges, otherwise you don't want equality, you want to have your cake and eat it.

You're saying these are rights but they're also tools of oppression.

And you're ignoring my whole point about women having to work The Second Shift. The whole point of it is that women have to work in a career and at home. That's not more "rights."

You have the right to earn money and do the hoovering. Fantastic.

The Corinthian

Lyaiera wrote: »

A lot of women in Ireland are campaigning for the women's rights within the family to be removed from the constitution.

Firstly, and again, we're discussing feminism, not women and you keep on confusing the two.

Sorry, you mean that silly line about a woman's place in the home? How's that going to change how 92% of custody cases go to the mother? Or 99% of divorce cases the man loses out financially? Lip service, nothing more.

When feminism campaign for quotas on custody cases, I'll take it seriously. Until then, all we've seen is a lot of window dressing and lip service.

Cincodemayo

Lyaiera wrote: »

You're saying these are rights but they're also tools of oppression.

And you're ignoring my whole point about women having to work The Second Shift. The whole point of it is that women have to work in a career and at home. That's not more "rights."

You have the right to earn money and do the hoovering. Fantastic.

Neither men nor women are obligated to hoover. Who does the hoovering in the home is a personal decision between the occupants.

The Corinthian

Lyaiera wrote: »

You're saying these are rights but they're also tools of oppression.

Now you're taking the piss. So a mother who uses access as a weapon against the father is in reality a victim of oppression? No, that crap is frankly borderline misandrist.

And you're ignoring my whole point about women having to work The Second Shift. The whole point of it is that women have to work in a career and at home. That's not more "rights."

No it's extra responsibility for the extra rights you get. Or do you think we should all get rights without strings attached?

Lyaiera

The Corinthian wrote: »

Firstly, and again, we're discussing feminism, not women and you keep on confusing the two.

Sorry, you mean that silly line about a woman's place in the home? How's that going to change how 92% of custody cases go to the mother? Or 99% of divorce cases the man loses out financially? Lip service, nothing more.

When feminism campaign for quotas on custody cases, I'll take it seriously. Until then, all we've seen is a lot of window dressing and lip service.

Again, I say something, and again you refuse to accept it. Women have those "rights" (although I'd say oppression) as put forward by the constitution. Women (and feminism) is campaigning to change it. You constantly change the goal posts. You're in no way willing to discuss the issues.

bodice ripper

Lyaiera wrote: »

You're saying these are rights but they're also tools of oppression.

And you're ignoring my whole point about women having to work The Second Shift. The whole point of it is that women have to work in a career and at home. That's not more "rights."

You have the right to earn money and do the hoovering. Fantastic.

Only if she allows that to happen. Ain't no man getting to have a family without sacrificing his career without the mother letting that occur.

Lyaiera

bodice ripper wrote: »

Only if she allows that to happen. Ain't no man getting to have a family without sacrificing his career without the mother letting that occur.

How do you force someone to do something they don't want? You could just leave them, but what happens if there are children?

ancapailldorcha

Lyaiera wrote: »

Again, I say something, and again you refuse to accept it. Women have those "rights" (although I'd say oppression) as put forward by the constitution. Women (and feminism) is campaigning to change it. You constantly change the goal posts. You're in no way willing to discuss the issues.

I really can't get my head around how you'd see things like women being allocated preference for space on lifeboats, exemption from conscription and victory in the vast majority of custody hearings as oppression.

bodice ripper

Lyaiera wrote: »

How do you force someone to do something they don't want? You could just leave them, but what happens if there are children?

don't have children without negotiating these things.

anonyanony

Lyaiera wrote: »

How do you force someone to do something they don't want? You could just leave them, but what happens if there are children?

Why did you marry them and have the kids if the thing bothered you so much, you should leave the person before it got to it, unless for some stupid reason you thought you could change the person.

The Corinthian

Lyaiera wrote: »

Again, I say something, and again you refuse to accept it. Women have those "rights" (although I'd say oppression) as put forward by the constitution.

Just because you say something doesn't mean it is right, let alone should be accepted. Whatever gave you the belief that that you're entitled to have your opinions accepted? Listened to, absolutely. Assessed, sure. But accepted? LOL.

You call those rights 'oppression', despite the fact that these are rights to one's children that can and are regularly used not to oppress women but men. Women aren't being oppressed when they don't need to go through decades of court just to see their children. Women aren't being oppressed when they are legal strangers to their own offspring. Men are.

How do you reconcile these facts? How can you with a straight face try to turn this on it's head and paint the woman as a victim when it is bloody obvious that the victim is the person who is denied these rights, not the one who gets them on the basis of gender?

Women (and feminism) is campaigning to change it.

Change what? Has feminism suddenly started to campaign that women should not be presumed to get custody of children? Or that women should suffer the same legal punishments as men for the same crimes? Or women should do conscription, just like men? How many of these 'oppressive' traditions are feminism campaigning against?

Lyaiera

The Corinthian wrote: »

Just because you say something doesn't mean it is right, let alone should be accepted. Whatever gave you the belief that that you're entitled to have your opinions accepted? Listened to, absolutely. Assessed, sure. But accepted? LOL.

You call those rights 'oppression', despite the fact that these are rights to one's children that can and are regularly used not to oppress women but men. Women aren't being oppressed when they get oppressed and don't need to go through decades of court just to see their children. Women aren't being oppressed when they are legal strangers to their own offspring. Men are.

How do you reconcile these facts? How can you with a straight face try to turn this on it's head and paint the woman as a victim when it is bloody obvious that the victim is the person who is denied these rights, not the one who gets them on the basis of gender?

Change what? Has feminism suddenly started to campaign that women should not be presumed to get custody of children? Or that women should suffer the same legal punishments as men for the same crimes? Or women should do conscription, just like men? How many of these 'oppressive' traditions are feminism campaigning against?

That's pretty much exactly what I said is happening, and you're ignoring it. Women and feminism are campaigning to remove the line in the constitution about women's role in the family. I'm just repeating myself at this point, and I'm not willing to discuss who gets the cozy seat in a lifeboat.

gozunda

SeanW wrote: »

So you agree that censorhip, on-campus kangaroo courts, "positive" sexism, forced redistribution of pension pots of one gender to the other, and general man hatred are central aspects of what you call the "womens position" and that it necessary, at least in the short term, with objections being irrelevant, but with no determined end other than "it will take some time" ...

Erhh - "general man hatred" lol. You have taken various random events and bizarrely created a mass pandemic type conspiracy that is seeking to emasculate men and achieve global supremacy???

SeanW wrote: »

I belive that a movement should be judged by its objectives and accomplishments - and when both of those are so overwhelmingly negative, it's entirely reasonable to judge the movement as a whole, unless the rest of the movement clearly and unambiguously objects to this and offers an alternative.

So removal of the marriage bar, free availability of contraception, equalisation of wages - that's all negative, is it? As a man I am sick to the teeth of the hysteria been promulgated in the name of men that women hate all men ... There appears to thread after thread of this nonsense been pushed on boards recently. The question is who or what is behind it ...

The Corinthian

Lyaiera wrote: »

That's pretty much exactly what I said is happening, and you're ignoring it.

I challenge you on that. Give some examples otherwise I'm going to assume your argument is bluff.

Women and feminism are campaigning to remove the line in the constitution about women's role in the family.

I already responded there. Address that response rather than ignore it.

I'm just repeating myself at this point, and I'm not willing to discuss who gets the cozy seat in a lifeboat.

You're repeating yourself because you're intentionally ignoring the responses that were made the first time you came out with these lines.

Lyaiera

The Corinthian wrote: »

I challenge you on that. Give some examples otherwise I'm going to assume your argument is bluff.

Assume it's bluff. That's your decision.

I already responded there. Address that response rather than ignore it.

I don't think you have. I think you've shifted the goalposts.

You're repeating yourself because you're intentionally ignoring the responses that were made the first time you came out with these lines.

I've answered the question. You've ignored my answers.

dark crystal

The Corinthian wrote: »

Firstly, and again, we're discussing feminism, not women and you keep on confusing the two.

Sorry, you mean that silly line about a woman's place in the home? How's that going to change how 92% of custody cases go to the mother? Or 99% of divorce cases the man loses out financially? Lip service, nothing more.

When feminism campaign for quotas on custody cases, I'll take it seriously. Until then, all we've seen is a lot of window dressing and lip service.

Are you seriously blaming feminists for drafting those family laws that favour the mother over the father? Is it only female judges that preside over these cases?

By the way, There are feminists involved in the father's rights movement, including Karen DeCrow, who is the former president of the National Organization for Women and Wendy McElroy. Are they just paying lip service?

ancapailldorcha

dark crystal wrote: »

Are you seriously blaming feminists for drafting those family laws that favour the mother over the father? Is it only female judges that preside over these cases?

By the way, There are feminists involved in the father's rights movement, including Karen DeCrow, who is the former president of the National Organization for Women and Wendy McElroy. Are they just paying lip service?

I interpreted the Corinthian's posts as assertions that feminism is solely concerned with gender equality for women while seeking to retain the societal advantages that women have traditionally enjoyed. I don't think he was blaming feminists per se for the disadvantages that men face in family law.

SeanW

Venus In Furs wrote: »

Ok, but what about individuals who deem themselves feminist but only in favour of the actual sensible stuff, have no time for the stuff that affects men's rights, and have contempt for the crazy stuff, and have lots of time for men, lots of men in their life, no issue with women looking sexy etc. These people exist - is it still unacceptable for them to deem themselves feminist? Can't feminists be a particular type?

1. Their positions are closer to egalitarianism, possibly liberal or libertarian egalitarianism, more so than FEMinism. The clue is in the name. FEMinism, by definition, is only interested in women, regardless of anyone else. Egalitarianism, by definition, is for everyone.
2. As feminists, they are not in control of the movement, if we compare feminism to a train, the crazies (Ivana Bacik, Andrea Dworkin etc) are the locomotive engine and the sane ones are the caboose.

gozunda wrote: »

You have taken various random events ...

So, in your mind, concerted government policy = "various random events" how much wilful blindness and dishonesty can there be in one post?

Oh wait, you're about to answer that question below:

So removal of the marriage bar, free availability of contraception, ...

Please show me one post where I objected to any of that?

As a man I am sick to the teeth of the hysteria been promulgated in the name of men that women hate all men

More disingenuousness - I believe I've been explicity clear that women =/= feminism, in the same way that white person =/= Klansman, or straight people =/= Westboro Baptists.

I have always been explicity clear about the difference.

Cincodemayo

dark crystal wrote: »

Are you seriously blaming feminists for drafting those family laws that favour the mother over the father? Is it only female judges that preside over these cases?

By the way, There are feminists involved in the father's rights movement, including Karen DeCrow, who is the former president of the National Organization for Women and Wendy McElroy. Are they just paying lip service?

Feminism should see equal parental rights as one of its priorities in the western world as it is a clear case where there it is far from equal. But feminism as a whole isn't doing much about it which contradicts the goal of gender equality.

gozunda

SeanW wrote: »

...

So, in your mind, concerted government policy = "various random events" how much wilful blindness and dishonesty can there be in one post?

How in name of dodge is 'censorship' 'on-campus kangaroo courts' etc got anything to do with ' concerted goverment policy'???

SeanW wrote: »

...

Please show me one post where I objected to any of that?

Believe it or not of those changes including removal of the marriage bar, availability of contraception etc were driven by those nasty 'men hating' feminists!

Here is your objection to those accomplishments ...

SeanW wrote: »

I belive that a movement should be judged by its objectives and accomplishments - and when both of those are so overwhelmingly negative

SeanW wrote: »

...More disingenuousness - I believe I've been explicity clear that women =/= feminism, in the same way that white person =/= Klansman, or straight people =/= Westboro Baptists.

Then you should know that just like the men's rights movement there isn't a single concensus of thought or idealism. This is patently obvious.

Rather than screeming about the rise of men hating feminists (who according to you cannot be in anyway equivilant with 'women') how about actually doing something practical to improve men's rights. Screaming about how nasty feminists are is really quite redundant a small minority can't be bothered to do something positive for themselves ...

jackofalltrades

dark crystal wrote: »

Are you seriously blaming feminists for drafting those family laws that favour the mother over the father?

It was the feminist Caroline Norton that was the driving force behind the Custody of Infants Act 1839.
This was the beginning of the Tender years doctrine which states that custody of young children in divorce cases should go to the mother.
This principle is still almost uniformly applied by judges in the Irish family law courts.

The Corinthian

Lyaiera wrote: »

Assume it's bluff. That's your decision.

Whatever. Thanks for confirming my earlier observation.

dark crystal wrote: »

Are you seriously blaming feminists for drafting those family laws that favour the mother over the father?

No. Never said that. Try again.

By the way, There are feminists involved in the father's rights movement, including Karen DeCrow, who is the former president of the National Organization for Women and Wendy McElroy. Are they just paying lip service?

Actually many such individuals, such as DeCrow or Warren Farrell begin as feminists but drifted away from and became disillusioned by it. Also as a result of their later stances on men's rights they are often also ostracized or attecked by feminists as a result.

dark crystal

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually many such individuals, such as DeCrow or Warren Farrell begin as feminists but drifted away from and became disillusioned by it. Also as a result of their later stances on men's rights they are often also ostracized or attecked by feminists as a result.

Ah right. So feminists can't do right for doing wrong so.

This is why when the anti feminists ask for examples, then get them, they find ways to discredit those examples. I get ya.

mrkiscool2

Jesus lads, let feminists work on areas in which women are disadvantaged, MRA's can work on areas men are disadvantaged and egalitarians can work with both to ensure gender equality. Also, when feminists refer to any problem as "gender something" (etc "gender violence, gender pay gap") and then don't focus on males being disadvantaged in those areas that's a blatant and disgusting lie that I can't stomach.

hatrickpatrick

Lyaiera wrote: »

I broadly agree. I think we need a lot more positive conversation when it comes to ideas surrounding sexuality. I don't think wearing a shirt like that in a worldwide interview is the best place to showcase the need for such discussions. Obviously those discussions can of course come from it, seeing as it happened and nothing can be done about that.

I also generally agree on the idea of offense. There are very few things I would prohibit. And while on the one side you have people looking to censor and ban (a bad thing) you also have people looking to do what they wish without consequence (also a bad thing.) I think people who look to ban things and people who want to be free to do whatever they want without reaction are two sides of the same coin.

Alright, but so how do you feel about, for instance, the feminists who say "Blurred Lines is offensive to women, therefore we should harass and harangue DJs who perform it until they quit"? Again, they have the right to do this under free speech, but I don't have tp agree with them for doing it, and if they are doing it in the name of feminists and other feminists are OK with that, then I have an issue with feminism because in my view being OK with that isn't OK. Or in other words, I don't want to be part of any movement at all that won't react to those within its ranks championing censorship by saying "hang on, we shouldn't be advocating banning stuff".

This in fact is one of the main reasons I don't fully identify as an MRA either. I considered it for some time, but I've seen too many "fight fire with fire" campaigns on the MRA side - trying to highlight and tackle "Reverse genders" double standards by saying "let's start reporting Facebook pages offensive to men en masse until Facebook starts banning them as much as feminists are making it ban misogynist ones". In my view this is just adding to the problem, and fighting censorship by saying "we're ok with censorship as long as it's applied equally to both genders" is not actually fighting censorship.

I accept that maybe I feel more strongly about unregulated free speech than others - that's not the issue here really. The issue is (a) whether the pro-censorship brigade within feminism is big and powerful enough for people like me to say "I disapprove of feminism because of this particular aspect of it" or not, and (b) whether following from that, someone who says "I disapprove of feminism" should be equated with someone who says "I don't think men and women should be equal" - which is what many feminists seem to think and what I have the biggest issue with in this whole debate.

To make my own position clear, I believe people should be allowed spout whatever vile garbage they want in the name of free speech. I believe that they should be free to do this equally against either gender. So ergo, I'm actually very much pro equality, but also to a certain extent anti feminist, since mainstream feminism seems to believe that some offensive speech should be restricted.

Again, my main issue is that holding this stance (anti-feminism) is equated by many feminists with "anti-equality", and I find this highly insidious, because feminism has many ideologies apart from equality which are objectionable enough to disassociate from the movement without being anti-equality. I no longer believe that equality is the main ideology within feminism - it may once have been, but it seems to have been overtaken by the social justice aspect which believe in things like censorship, affirmative action, privilege, and all that bollocks.

hatrickpatrick

SeanW wrote: »

If we compare feminism to a train, the crazies (Ivana Bacik, Andrea Dworkin etc) are the locomotive engine and the sane ones are the caboose.

You've summed up in one epic analogy what I've been trying to sum up for this entire thread, and I'd usually consider analogies my forte. Well done sir.

Smidge

The Corinthian wrote: »

But there isn't equal distribution of work and home rights. With regards to children, women have an overwhelming share of rights. So wanting to leave these traditional female roles untouched, but seeking an equal footing with men in traditional male roles is looking to have your cake and eat it.

Has feminism even acknowledged this? Or is it willing to address this inequality that now favours women? If not you cannot claim that feminism seeks equality.

Clearly I understand better than you. Patriarchy may have favoured men, but to suggest that women did not have rights and privileges assigned to their gender would be grossly dishonest. Women did not have to go to war, women were expected to be financially cared for by men, not the other way around, women would (certainly from the twentieth century) would automatically get custody of children, regardless of whether this was in the child's interest.

If you believe in equality, level the system constructed by patriarchy, then you have to accept that both men and women need to sacrifice their traditional gender based rights and privileges, otherwise you don't want equality, you want to have your cake and eat it.

And with this comes the overwhelming sense of responsibility.
C'mon now, lets get real here.

In all of the 2 parent working couples I know(and off the top of my head its roughly about 20 couples)only in a couple of cases does the father do "extra" when home(and for this they proclaim it wildly )

Both parties work similar hours(39/40 hours).
But in the real world, she cooks the meal in the evening, does the laundry and ironing(are you really going to tell me that the men are doing the family ironing?)does the homework, baths the kids, puts them to bed(the men go up and say goodnight but do not oversee the teeth brushing, pyjamas getting on, tempers and fits and drinks of water etc, up and down the damn stairs settling the kids even after the story telling)

Sick child?
Who is up and down(mostly) with the Calpol and cleaning up the puke?
Doctors visit? Who mostly attends with the child? The mother.

Parent teacher meetings?
At one this week and the split was 90/10 for women attending and I was there for an hour and a half. All extra duties.

Cleaning ovens and toilets?????
Microwaves and doing the beds laundry?
Mopping out floors and hoovering?
Polishing and general cleaning of the home?

You can throw every damn study at it and it still doesn't make it so.

mrkiscool2

Smidge wrote: »

And with this comes the overwhelming sense of responsibility.
C'mon now, lets get real here.

In all of the 2 parent working couples I know(and off the top of my head its roughly about 20 couples)only in a couple of cases does the father do "extra" when home(and for this they proclaim it wildly )

Both parties work similar hours(39/40 hours).
But in the real world, she cooks the meal in the evening, does the laundry and ironing(are you really going to tell me that the men are doing the family ironing?)does the homework, baths the kids, puts them to bed(the men go up and say goodnight but do not oversee the teeth brushing, pyjamas getting on, tempers and fits and drinks of water etc, up and down the damn stairs settling the kids even after the story telling)

Sick child?
Who is up and down(mostly) with the Calpol and cleaning up the puke?
Doctors visit? Who mostly attends with the child? The mother.

Parent teacher meetings?
At one this week and the split was 90/10 for women attending and I was there for an hour and a half. All extra duties.

Cleaning ovens and toilets?????
Microwaves and doing the beds laundry?
Mopping out floors and hoovering?
Polishing and general cleaning of the home?

You can throw every damn study at it and it still doesn't make it so.

And this is relevant because? Your argument isn't an argument. If the women in these relationships are happy doing this more power to them. Unless the men are physically forcing them to do all of this extra work, then this isn't an issue. If she doesn't ask (or expect her OH) to help out, then this isn't an issue. Also, I'm super amazed you know the ins and outs of 20 couples lives. That's incredible and doesn't sound at all like a load of BS!
For your information, I know 4 women with children. Two are single and the other two share the workload with their OH. So again, just because your (supposed) experiences scream that "the men are lazy" (not oppressive) doesn't mean that all men are.

The Corinthian

dark crystal wrote: »

Ah right. So feminists can't do right for doing wrong so.

This is why when the anti feminists ask for examples, then get them, they find ways to discredit those examples. I get ya.

God forbid that in a discussion people disagree and offer counter arguments! What a bizarre complaint - maybe you should go find a thread on how wonderful feminism is, that doesn't allow dissent?

Thing is that some feminists have seen this flaw in feminism, or have altogether become disillusioned by it and have effectively become MRA's or egalitarians. And unfortunately this has often led to them being attacked for doing this by feminists.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Jesus lads, let feminists work on areas in which women are disadvantaged, MRA's can work on areas men are disadvantaged and egalitarians can work with both to ensure gender equality.

No problem there. The only criticism I've made is that feminism does not represent gender equality, only women's rights and interests. And there's nothing wrong with that, what's wrong is when a movement persistently claims to represent gender equality and does not.

Also, when feminists refer to any problem as "gender something" (etc "gender violence, gender pay gap") and then don't focus on males being disadvantaged in those areas that's a blatant and disgusting lie that I can't stomach.

Is it? Where it comes to domestic violence, there is increasing evidence that this is pretty equally spread, with men suffering violence from their female partners as often as women do from their male partners (not to mention violence in gay and lesbian relationships).

And the gender pay gap? It's only recently that whenever figures on this are released, part time workers are accounted for in the statistics presented, and figures such as childless women in their 40's and 20's out-earning their male counterparts are still never mentioned, preferring to instead paint a picture of a pay gap produced by some sort of discrimination (rather than child care). I'm not all that fond of the intentional misleading that takes place there either.

Smidge wrote: »

And with this comes the overwhelming sense of responsibility.
C'mon now, lets get real here.

In all of the 2 parent working couples I know(and off the top of my head its roughly about 20 couples)only in a couple of cases does the father do "extra" when home(and for this they proclaim it wildly )

That was kinda my point. Attitudes need to change on both sides, but they're simply not going to change much when society and the law persists in saying the opposite. After all, how practical is it for a father to deal with his child's school when he'll be put through the ringer to prove he has any right to do so, while the mother won't even be asked for a single piece of paper (also because she doesn't need them).

Backspinswerve

Smidge wrote: »

And with this comes the overwhelming sense of responsibility.
C'mon now, lets get real here.

In all of the 2 parent working couples I know(and off the top of my head its roughly about 20 couples)only in a couple of cases does the father do "extra" when home(and for this they proclaim it wildly )

Both parties work similar hours(39/40 hours).
But in the real world, she cooks the meal in the evening, does the laundry and ironing(are you really going to tell me that the men are doing the family ironing?)does the homework, baths the kids, puts them to bed(the men go up and say goodnight but do not oversee the teeth brushing, pyjamas getting on, tempers and fits and drinks of water etc, up and down the damn stairs settling the kids even after the story telling)

Sick child?
Who is up and down(mostly) with the Calpol and cleaning up the puke?
Doctors visit? Who mostly attends with the child? The mother.

Parent teacher meetings?
At one this week and the split was 90/10 for women attending and I was there for an hour and a half. All extra duties.

Cleaning ovens and toilets?????
Microwaves and doing the beds laundry?
Mopping out floors and hoovering?
Polishing and general cleaning of the home?

You can throw every damn study at it and it still doesn't make it so.

The allocation of household chores is a personal negotiation between two parties. There is no legal discrimination that takes place.

Then you must also consider who the level of cleanliness both parties find acceptable. If one party is content with say "level 5" cleanliness should they be obligated to meet the requirements of say "level 8" cleanliness because "level 8" cleanliness is what the other party finds acceptable?

To take it to the extreme, if one party wants the bathroom to meet microchip laboratory levels of cleanliness and sterility should the other party obligated to meet those standards. In my opinion the answer is no.

ancapailldorcha

Smidge wrote: »

You can throw every damn study at it and it still doesn't make it so.

Anecdotes trump evidence? Gotcha.

Anyway, most of the families I know would have an even split. I know one where Mum does the laundry while Dad does the ironing. I knew another where Dad did all the cooking. If one party willingly does the work then that's their problem though I'm sure that that'll not stop the likes of Una Mullaly from trying to use it as an example of institutional sexism.