Reframing feminism ** mod warning posts 1 and 50 **

silverharp

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

the US seems to be worse than here, even something as basic as recess time is gone from a lot of US schools . Girls can cope with this but the boys cant and the "trouble makers" then get medicated. on an MSN interview this point was raised by Hoff Sommers (a self labelled equity feminist) and the commentator said "but men have more boardroom positions" as if demoralising boys was ok because a small number dominate the top.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sullivlo

Jack Killian wrote: »

A possible interpretation of the points in line with the OPs query would be to rebrand as an actual equality movement in general rather than sticking to the somewhat blinkered "our side is disadvantaged" / "men are bad" / "men in history did this" vibe that a significant (and probably the more vocal, rather than the more numerous) number of the "movement" give off.

It's similar to some of the "gay rights activists" in a way; people not actively campaigning to promote their "side" are viewed as being against them, but they're often so blinkered and extreme that they're impossible to support, and Permabear (I think) correction: Silverharp outlined it above - they don't represent the majority who are actually only looking for equality.

He (or she) who shouts the loudest gets the most attention. Happens across the world. Look in any situation and the person who complains the most, gets their own way the most.

There is a difference between being polite to make a point if you have an issue with something (waiter, my soup is cold, could you heat it up), and being an ass to make a point (here, you, this is freezing, heat it up NOW and I want a discount and to talk to your manager).

I feel, in a way, that it's the same with feminism (or any of the ism's). People can exist in their own world and be a feminist, and they cause zero issues to the rest of the world. But when they start to act like an ass in the name of feminism, it becomes an issue.

It reminds me of a joke. How do you know someone is a vegan? They'll tell you. Replace the word vegan with feminist, and they're the people who are most likely causing the negative aspects of feminism.

(Broadly speaking, there are, of course, exceptions)

ancapailldorcha

sullivlo wrote: »

He (or she) who shouts the loudest gets the most attention. Happens across the world. Look in any situation and the person who complains the most, gets their own way the most.

Indeed. I feel that the shift towards advertising revenue and away from traditional subscriptions is partly to blame. Outlets relying on the latter model are accountable to their subscribers. Those who rely on advertising are accountable to those who purchase advertising space. Thus, the emphasis changes to reaching as many people as possible and this is often achieved through shouting and the use of vitriolic language.

ancapailldorcha

meeeeh wrote: »

I understand what you are saying but what are you suggesting. Positive action? You are criticizing feminists for not doing anything but what should they be doing? You offer coherent analysis but you didn't offer one solution or even a pointer. It's very easy just to criticize others how they are not doing anything.

In fairness, such attempts rarely end well for those who speak up. Kit Harrington, better known as Jon Snow from Game of Thrones was shouted down when he complained about being described as a hunk.

meeeeh

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Wouldn't be some form of positive discrimination needed for that? Which would be a bit hypocritical considering your stance in previous discussion.

BTW personally I am not opposed to some positive discrimination especially in fields like medicine.

silverharp

meeeeh wrote: »

Wouldn't be some form of positive discrimination needed for that? Which would be a bit hypocritical considering your stance in previous discussion.

it depends I guess. I would be crazy to say "I want a male tax adviser" however a parent saying "I want my boys to be taught by male teachers" actually means something if its provable that the boys are happier or get a better education. Maybe let schools actually advertise for male teachers if they want to.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Grolschevik

It's worth noting that even leading feminist theorists noted decades ago that "feminism" could do with a rebrand and refocus.

I'd ask contributors to take a look at the linked (short) article by bell hooks (it's public access on a US university site, so there should be no copyright issue in linking it).

http://www.mcc.osu.edu/posts/documents/sexism-bhooks.pdf

meeeeh

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

How would that increase percentage of male teachers? Unless you go for some form of quotas/positive discrimination?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mzungu

Grolschevik wrote: »

It's worth noting that even leading feminist theorists noted decades ago that "feminism" could do with a rebrand and refocus.

I'd ask contributors to take a look at the linked (short) article by bell hooks (it's public access on a US university site, so there should be no copyright issue in linking it).

http://www.mcc.osu.edu/posts/documents/sexism-bhooks.pdf

I thought the last line was interesting:

Consequently, it is now necessary for advocates of feminism to collectively acknowledge that our struggle cannot be defined as a movement to gain social equality with men, that terms like "liberal feminist" and "bourgeois
feminist" represent contradictions that must be resolved so that feminism will not be continually co-opted to serve the opportunistic ends of special-interest groups.

The point earlier in the article about the 'consensus of opinion' surrounding what it means is important. Maybe it was the lack of consensus that allowed fringe elements to become so prominent, and the Internet of course.

If we take the example of the cotton ceiling theory used earlier in the thread. If you have certain areas of feminist thought that are essentially asking feminists to practice what they are ideologically opposed to, then it will do nothing to endear itself to the mainstream. Plus, I find that flies in the face of the ideals of sexual freedom, itself a core tenet of feminism. In the end attraction is a personal thing, and being told who to include in that just to be viewed as 'inclusive' comes off as a tad authoritarian.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

there is an interesting series , its a 9 part starting today , on basically where feminism went wrong with Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Paglia. It looks like it might be interesting background for this thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXGm9kvgslc

RDM_83 again

Question: Why should most younger men label themselves Feminists rather than just saying they support equal rights.

If they do they are likely to be treated with some level of suspicion about their motivations (IMO rightly in some cases), once passed that issue if they disagree with a key "Feminist" orthodoxy e.g something like Abortion controls aren't about controlling women-they are differences in definitions of human life, they will likely be told they aren't a Feminist.

At the same time they will be members of a demographic (remember this is a younger 1st world man not older/2nd-3rd world) who in nearly all of the important metrics are doing worse than their counterparts yet they will be part of a movement that often (not all the time) espouses itself as being about equality but won't put any concerted effort into actioning or campaigning on those issues unless they coincide with one that has benefit to woman e.g Paternity Leave.

Basically if Feminism is about Gender equality rather than a advocacy group for women who's desires intersect with the mainstream Feminist movement (example of this is how Thatcher isn't considered a Feminist figure because her socio-political views don't fit with the mainstream) mens voices should be equally valid and even if they point how women could change their behavior to benefit gender equality they should not be dismissed.
In a movement based on actual gender equality- "making it about men" or "asking women" to change would be invalid retorts.

Until those attitudes and actions change within Feminism, why would a younger man identify with it (for honest reasons).

Faith

So, a few days into this discussion, I'm getting the sense that feminism can't be reframed or rethought. It's too deeply engrained in some people (men and women) that it means something other than equality for all.

I think education is a really interesting example of this debate. We put huge effort into improving the outcome of women in education, to the point where we're now outperforming men in a number of areas. The pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, and I agree that it's telling that there's no outcry about that. It doesn't reflect well on the feminist movement that we complain when we're not doing well, but fall suspiciously silent when we have an advantage.

Surely there's a way to balance the approach to education? This would have long-term benefits for both men and women. Spend 50% of time sitting at desks and 50% of time doing active learning and applying knowledge. Encourage creativity and scientific curiosity from a young age, in both sexes. An equal approach to education may lead to an equal split in genders in various careers. Spending time challenging your students to build the highest stable Lego tower may encourage an interest in engineering. Having regular debates on issues important to the students (that lead to actual change, where possible) could lead to a higher proportion of women entering politics without the need for quotas. Real teaching and discussion on areas like emotions and mental health could contribute to more men entering female-dominated areas like psychology. And yes, a more equal gender split across teachers could help encourage more men to enter the field.

But I don't think feminism is the way to get changes like the above enacted. I just don't think it would work. So perhaps the question becomes, how do we make that happen?

mcmoustache

Faith wrote: »

So, a few days into this discussion, I'm getting the sense that feminism can't be reframed or rethought. It's too deeply engrained in some people (men and women) that it means something other than equality for all.

I think education is a really interesting example of this debate. We put huge effort into improving the outcome of women in education, to the point where we're now outperforming men in a number of areas. The pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, and I agree that it's telling that there's no outcry about that. It doesn't reflect well on the feminist movement that we complain when we're not doing well, but fall suspiciously silent when we have an advantage.

Surely there's a way to balance the approach to education? This would have long-term benefits for both men and women. Spend 50% of time sitting at desks and 50% of time doing active learning and applying knowledge. Encourage creativity and scientific curiosity from a young age, in both sexes. An equal approach to education may lead to an equal split in genders in various careers. Spending time challenging your students to build the highest stable Lego tower may encourage an interest in engineering. Having regular debates on issues important to the students (that lead to actual change, where possible) could lead to a higher proportion of women entering politics without the need for quotas. Real teaching and discussion on areas like emotions and mental health could contribute to more men entering female-dominated areas like psychology. And yes, a more equal gender split across teachers could help encourage more men to enter the field.

But I don't think feminism is the way to get changes like the above enacted. I just don't think it would work. So perhaps the question becomes, how do we make that happen?

This thread has been one of the most reasonable ones that I've seen anywhere on this topic. Outside of the part about about quotas, it's clear that the sexes aren't out to oppress members of the opposite sex and people are willing to rationally discuss the problems that actually exist - I mean the places in law and society where one sex might have an advantage or a disadvantage over the opposite sex.

I don't have a solution, but, I think that a good start would be to remove gender pronouns from our constitution. That might sound a bit mad but there's no reason for a woman's place to be in the home, according to a national document. Seriously? In this day and age? I see no reason why there should be any differences before the law.

My background in this probably isn't uncommon. I'm a software dev and my partner is also in the same industry. We earn similar amounts of money and have both ended up at similar levels of respect within our own respective organisations. We're both good at what we do.

From my own perspective, I think it would be nice if we could choose freely how to spend parental leave. If my partner was earning more, it would make sense for me to be the stay-at-home partner. Currently, the law favours me pursuing my career while my female partner's career is secondary, or at least has an expiry date on it. This makes little sense to me given that my partner does what I do and just as well.

I don't have an answer to the rebranding. I think that that ship might have sailed - empty vessels and all that. If I was asked 20 years ago about what I thought about feminism, I'd have said, "Yes, we have a serious problem to address. I support your drive to equality".

Now, the word "feminism" seems to have been hijacked by professional victims. I'm a lefty, socially and believe in equal rights for all. But what I see in click-bait media is all búllshít. I am a feminist, in the older sense of the word. My partner is someone who is in a similar intellectual bracket to myself. We're equal with each other in our relationship. I find it mad, as does she, the nonsense online these days about perceived slights. Only weirdos do, looking for clicks.

The real world isn't binary. I want my partner to have a good life, without discrimination. And I'm sure she wants the same for me. We don't care about who wins the gender war. All we want is not to have a fair shot at things.

The Black Oil

I think there are plenty of reasons to be pro-feminism/t. The Stanford case, Anita Hill whose case I mentioned in 'I need feminism', thread. The problem Hollywood has with women both behind and in front of the camera, which critic Mo Ryan has written about extensively. The lack of empathy from some men across a range of issues. And there are other reasons, not just those that generate a lot of debate or capture the public imagination, where negative things are happening - but the positives too.

On consent classes, I question the execution, not the intent. There's a lot of work to be done here around patchy sex education in Ireland and within the justice system. I would also, as I've said in tGC, take the likes of Niamh Ni Dhomhnail's case and see how men and women can be alerted to the signs of an abusive relationship before it escalates. At the end of her book Louise O' Neill declares "we need to talk about consent". Right, but how - by you, a non-expert, going around promoting a book?

Some of ye have said the movement's been hijacked, others not.

Instead of focusing on the activities of what many women are doing, we're now quite stuck with click bait articles. A glance at Una Mullally's Twitter feed for a few hours and it's very consumed by gender and almost nothing else. In fact, I'd say she's incapable of seeing outside of those blinkers. I agree with her on marriage equality and abortion, but the gender thing, Christ. There's simply an abundance of articles from the likes of her, Valenti et al where it seems to be all about the bad stuff the women experience and little else besides. Listening to a professional media based third wave feminist all day long would be quite irritating, just as much as would be to be trapped in a room with Richard Dawkins or people from the Iona Institute. There's a lot of the blame game going on too, which is a bit toxic, imo. It's become somewhat of a runaway train (reinforced by social media) and it's not clear if anyone can or indeed will have the nerve to apply the brakes. If anyone does question it, they are jumped on.

I read a while back that

For the first time, NASA’s latest class of astronauts is 50 percent female. And, NASA has announced, in 15 years they could all be selected for an inaugural trip to Mars.

That's pretty cool in my book. I'm also a fan of Italian astronaut Sam Cristoforetti, because of her tweets. I don't know enough about NASA to say whether there were any specific barriers to women signing up in the past, but I'd be pretty certain these woman were selected because they worked damned hard. See http://women.nasa.gov/ for more.

I doubt Una Mullally will bother her arse to interview the women in NASA or indeed the two who passed Army Ranger training in the US. Doesn't fit the oppression narrative.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

The Black Oil wrote: »

The problem Hollywood has with women both behind and in front of the camera, which critic Mo Ryan has written about extensively.

Out of curiosity what problem? I quickly scanned one of her articles (never heard of her) but she would strike me that "equality" has to mean outcome. If more men want to be directors than women then naturally that would mean men will dominate the field. wouldn't part of "reframing feminism" be an acknowledgment that men and women tend to herd into certain fields?

The Black Oil

silverharp wrote: »

Out of curiosity what problem? I quickly scanned one of her articles (never heard of her) but she would strike me that "equality" has to mean outcome. If more men want to be directors than women then naturally that would mean men will dominate the field. wouldn't part of "reframing feminism" be an acknowledgment that men and women tend to herd into certain fields?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98117616&postcount=181

http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/john-landgraf-tv-diversity-fx-network-1201635349/

The lack of diversity narrows the breadth of creative stories being told (imo), as does who is at the top and what studios are willing to green light and take risks on. I don't expect the industry to be 50/50, but money as a deciding factor aside, one would hope, it improves through a mixture of more female boots on the ground and at the corporate level.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

The Black Oil wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98117616&postcount=181

http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/john-landgraf-tv-diversity-fx-network-1201635349/

The lack of diversity narrows the breadth of creative stories being told (imo), as does who is at the top and what studios are willing to green light and take risks on. I don't expect the industry to be 50/50, but money as a deciding factor aside, one would hope, it improves through a mixture of more female boots on the ground and at the corporate level.

its the nature of the film business , its a winner takes all, a small number of hits pay for a bunch of films that will lose money. its a financially driven business and they will not want to take additional risks promoting an unknown director/producer just because they are a woman. Again I am back to my herding, I assume a lot of interests start in teenage years, are teenage boys or girls more likely to develop an interest in film making? I'm going to say boys.
Even in theatre land , I read a piece by an English producer who reads scripts that come in. firstly 3/4 were from men and secondly the ones that were submitted by woman were of a lower quality because they tended not to write the driving characters very well. apparently the men and women that submitted sub standard stuff seemed to make consistent errors based on their sex.

mzungu

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That kind of stuff is beginning to get a foothold here too. Just look at the UCD debacle a few months back. Somebody publishes a rumour in the college newspaper and before you know it the usual outrage brigade (spearheaded by Una Mullally & Louise O'Neill - their income depends on pushing this stuff) are writing "We told you so, Ireland has a rape culture". As a result the national media join in with the lynch mob, all without a shred of evidence. Everybody toed the line, afraid of being labelled "part of the problem" and incurring the wrath of the right on brigade.

Even when the entire 'scandal' was found to have been started by baseless rumour, no apology was forthcoming from those who leading the mob. Instead, a hasty retreat to the safety of their social media echo chambers where the consensus was "No evidence is still not proof it didn't exist' or mad stories like the those 200 young lads were able to enforce a code of omertà upon each other whilst getting rid of all the evidence.

I don't buy their arguments of seeking "equality", the reality is that it more like a thinly veiled hate campaign than anything else.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mzungu

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Absolutely. It is a major issue and needs to be tackled. No arguments there. I was referring to the campus feminism part, as opposed to the two cases you mentioned in that post.

However, my gripe is with the aforementioned click bait journalists (who talk about equality) jumping in to form the lynch mob before any facts are even known (talking about UCD case here). I agree that sexism and sexual assault is a major issue affecting women, but I find it a bit much when I see it being used to propagate the whole 'rape culture' myth. RAINN have come out and said that trying to tie sexual assault into ideology does more harm than good.

So, just to clarify, I wasn't trying to imply that sexual assault doesn't happen, quite the opposite. My view is that it is a major problem, I just don't agree with the click bait mob with all the answers dictating how to go about solving it. Especially when it leads to cases like UCD.

Also, when I said this:

I don't buy their arguments of seeking "equality", the reality is that it more like a thinly veiled hate campaign than anything else.

I just meant those leading the UCD Ag Sci mob, and not anyone else.

That said, when a young woman voluntarily comes back to the room of the man who allegedly just raped her, and spends the entire night cuddling naked in bed with him, or when a young woman messages her "rapist" the next day thanking him for a "wonderful time," or when she waits an entire year before making a complaint -- well, I have to say that these are gray areas for me, where I'm seeing a lot more confusion than criminality.

I am unfamiliar with the case. But playing devils advocate, maybe the judge had heard more evidence than was released in the papers?

Feminists are also guilty of fudging statistics and creating panic about a "campus rape culture" for political gain. The more hysteria they can drum up, and the greater the concern they can create over the need to keep women students safe, the more money they can secure from politicians and university administrators for women's centers, women's studies departments, more women faculty, rape crisis centers, consent training programs, etc. It's mostly about politics, financing, and "jobs for the girls" at the end of the day.

According to the official DOJ statistics in the US, about 6 in 1,000 women college students are raped or sexually assaulted per year, which is lower than for the non-student female population, and significantly lower than the "1 in 4" claimed by activists. Campus feminists would have people believe that college is a very dangerous place to be a woman -- in fact, it's fairly safe, statistically speaking.

This would be a big gripe of mine. But fear and hysteria are a nice money earner. Aside from that, I think it is very unhealthy message to be sending out to college age girls and boys. The first step on the road to adulthood and you have one side being told to live in fear and the other is demonised as being potential perverts.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.