How do you view Feminism in Ireland?

Middle Man

Sleepy wrote: »

Why not simply make the results visible? Or are you just trying to boost your postcount / keep bumping this thread?

The results are not visible because I selected an option which I misinterpreted - it has been a while since I conducted a poll and I find the setup very restrictive. There will be one update tonight and such will be weekly (Wed) thereafter.

Middle Man

Poll Update: Wed 6th Sep 2017 @ 23:00

How do you perceive Feminism in Ireland? (Total votes: 100 (+5))

13.00% (13 votes (+1)) - Promotion of female supremacy;

37.00% (37 votes (+1)) - Misandristic + Disregard for men;

17.00% (17 votes (+1)) - Exclusive and somewhat misandristic;

15.00% (15 votes (=)) - Female-centric, but somewhat inclusive;

18.00% (18 votes (+2)) - Inclusive, fair and balanced.

Regarding the secondary poll ‘How relevant to you is the controversy over feminism?’, two of the options therein will be included for the final calculations of this poll after both polls conclude:

29 votes (=) - Neither concerned nor interested - has no real effect on me;

0 votes (=) - Not sure.

Note: At least one person has voted on the secondary poll, but not this one - there has been feedback from a couple of users relating to the complexity of the options and how it mightn’t fit all opinions - this I have noted and will consider in future polls. If anyone else would like to make constructive observations regarding the poll, please feel free. Due to the surge of interest in the secondary poll, the results for all the options therein are published as follows:

How relevant to you is the controversy over feminism? (Total votes: 62 (+2))

4.84% (3 votes (=)) - Very concerned as I’ve been intimately affected (bad relationship etc.);

12.90% (8 votes (=)) - Quite concerned as I’ve been affected somewhat (in family, public etc.);

24.19% (15 votes (+1)) - Not greatly affected, but concerned for the future (for me and others);

11.29% (7 votes (+1)) - Not very concerned, but nonetheless interested (curiosity/research etc.);

46.77% (29 votes (=)) - Neither concerned nor interested - has no real effect on me;

0.00% (0 votes (=)) - Not sure.

Note: The next poll update will be Wednesday 13th Sept…

py2006

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

Male feminists are generally geeks and dorks who were never good at sports and were unapologetically rejected by attractive women.
They therefore want to sneak their way into the pants of blue haired harpies because nobody else will have them.

Jeepers, thats a bit much now. I would probably tick one or two of those boxes but i sure as HELL am not a male feminist.

lazybones32

I see feminism in Ireland as a dangerous ideology and movement.
Those driving the lobby want money and power as far as i can make out. And they are getting it.

Feminism has never been about Rights. Many women might call themselves feminist but nearly every woman will have a different definition of what her feminism means, and will reject a sizeable portion of the other aspects of feminism.

It is bad for the adherent and bad for those on the receiving end of its reforms.

silverharp

py2006 wrote: »

Jeepers, thats a bit much now. I would probably tick one or two of those boxes but i sure as HELL am not a male feminist.

its more an attitude, the stereotype is that male feminists are males that cant compete with other men at any level so have little chance of getting laid so they schneak their way into feminists circles as an "ally" . They then join the feminist in trying to take down the men that out compete them.
If you are a man that knows he has to compete in life and you expect you will slot yourself in somewhere based on hard work and what not then feminism wont appeal to you

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

its more an attitude, the stereotype is that male feminists are males that cant compete with other men at any level so have little chance of getting laid so they schneak their way into feminists circles as an "ally" . They then join the feminist in trying to take down the men that out compete them. If you are a man that knows he has to compete in life and you expect you will slot yourself in somewhere based on hard work and what not then feminism wont appeal to you

Lol. Is that based on anything except your own personal prejudice?

lazybones32

silverharp wrote: »

its more an attitude, the stereotype is that male feminists are males that cant compete with other men at any level so have little chance of getting laid so they schneak their way into feminists circles as an "ally" . They then join the feminist in trying to take down the men that out compete them.
If you are a man that knows he has to compete in life and you expect you will slot yourself in somewhere based on hard work and what not then feminism wont appeal to you

That behaviour isn't the reserve of male feminists; guys in the friendzone will try and scupper any other male who comes into contact with his "friend".

El_Duderino 09

lazybones32 wrote:

That behaviour isn't the reserve of male feminists; guys in the friendzone will try and scupper any other male who comes into contact with his "friend".

It's a random collection of what the poster sees as undesirable characteristics. I don't know any lads who talks about being a feminist because I can't imagine it would ever even come up in the real world. I'd bet silverharp and Mickdoyle don't know any feminists either and I'd bet the farm that they don't know enough to make any kind of generalisations about them. It's just the kind of meaningless guff fantasy that all too often passes as fact. Good to see some posters thought to question that kind of assertion.

Middle Man

Poll Update: Wed 13th Sep 2017 @ 23:00

How do you perceive Feminism in Ireland? (Total votes: 116 (+16))

12.07% (14 votes (+1)) - Promotion of female supremacy;

37.93% (44 votes (+7)) - Misandristic + Disregard for men;

17.24% (20 votes (+3)) - Exclusive and somewhat misandristic;

16.38% (19 votes (+4)) - Female-centric, but somewhat inclusive;

16.38% (19 votes (+1)) - Inclusive, fair and balanced.

Regarding the secondary poll ‘How relevant to you is the controversy over feminism?’, two of the options therein will be included for the final calculations of this poll after both polls conclude:

32 votes (+3) - Neither concerned nor interested - has no real effect on me;

2 votes (+2) - Not sure.

Note: At least one person has voted on the secondary poll, but not this one - there has been feedback from a couple of users relating to the complexity of the options and how it mightn’t fit all opinions - this I have noted and will consider in future polls. If anyone else would like to make observations regarding the poll, please feel free. Due to the surge of interest in the secondary poll, the results for all the options therein are published as follows:

How relevant to you is the controversy over feminism? (Total votes: 74 (+12))

4.05% (3 votes (=)) - Very concerned as I’ve been intimately affected (bad relationship etc.);

13.51% (10 votes (+2)) - Quite concerned as I’ve been affected somewhat (in family, public etc.);

21.62% (16 votes (+1)) - Not greatly affected, but concerned for the future (for me and others);

14.86% (11 votes (+4)) - Not very concerned, but nonetheless interested (curiosity/research etc.);

43.24% (32 votes (+3)) - Neither concerned nor interested - has no real effect on me;

2.70% (2 votes (+2)) - Not sure.

Note: The next poll update will be Wednesday 20th Sept…

johnnyskeleton

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lol. Is that based on anything except your own personal prejudice?

There are lots of articles on it, usually from female feminists:

http://www.thecrimson.com/column/femme-fatale/article/2017/3/23/hu-beware-male-feminist/

https://www.buzzfeed.com/lorynbrantz/17-of-the-worst-types-of-male-feminists?utm_term=.tymQPzR3dM#.ohynKPj9vk

https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/08/reasons-to-beware-feminist-men/

http://splinternews.com/meet-the-woke-misogynist-1793859082

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/snl-womens-march-pick-up-line_us_58bbb968e4b0d2821b4eafdc

https://thoughtcatalog.com/christine-stockton/2015/08/thingsfeministmenhavesaidtome-and-the-problem-with-allies/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/19/why-i-wont-date-another-male-feminist

These are all garnered from a google search of "male feminist" and "the problem with male feminists". In relation to the former, it was hard to find a positive result praising or encouraging male feminists. In relation to the latter search, there were a number of other articles about different problems with male feminists, but the narrative that they are only doing it to try to get laid seems to be the most common recurring theme.

Maybe my google searches are geared to give me those results, but it seems like there is a common theme that male feminists are a joke and are only doing it to curry favour with female feminists.

silverharp

^^^

Jordan Peterson on the Joe Rogan Podcast

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7Hez7iYAHo

silverharp

here is another more jokey take on it by Rogan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCN7Rskt_Rw

El_Duderino 09

johnnyskeleton wrote:

These are all garnered from a google search of "male feminist" and "the problem with male feminists". In relation to the former, it was hard to find a positive result praising or encouraging male feminists. In relation to the latter search, there were a number of other articles about different problems with male feminists, but the narrative that they are only doing it to try to get laid seems to be the most common recurring theme.

The narrative that they're only doing it to get laid is an interesting one. Is it in any way true though? If the only evidence is articles with a negative slant, then isn't the sample fairly biased?

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Maybe my google searches are geared to give me those results, but it seems like there is a common theme that male feminists are a joke and are only doing it to curry favour with female feminists.

I imagine that a Google search beginning with 'the problem with' is fairly geared alright but you know that.

As I said, I don't know any lads who talks about being a feminist and I can't really imagine how it would come up in real life. I bet the people with the assertions wouldn't have any real life experience of feminist men and I got a YouTube video and a Google search in response. I take it that was a roundabout way to say they don't in fact have any first hand experience of what they're talking about.

Wibbs

I've met and known a fair few men who would self describe as feminist and know what that meant. I don't mean the guys who would say "sure I'm a feminist, I believe in equality" types. I mean the guys who are well versed in feminist philosophy and would be active to some degree or other in support of it*.

TBH I didn't see any of the "weak men trying to get the leg over" stuff at all. I saw more a political bias going on. More at the "socialist/liberal/progressive" end than background. EG I never met a right wing feminist. Man or woman. They also tended to be more alternative folks. More group orientated. More empathetic in nature. In relationships(which they were all in) they did tend to be the passive one. But nope, never saw the sexual subterfuge suggested above. Ive seen that far more with guys who put themselves in "friend zone", regardless of their political beliefs. I'd probably agree with the vids above in that cohort alright. Maybe this is more a US based thing, as so much of this stuff is and it doesn't translate into other cultures? That because they see "gender war"/Right/Left they apply this idea to men on the other side. I don't necessarily disagree with the central notions espoused by the vids above, but I would see it as something going on beyond male feminists.







*I've observed a similar breakdown with women who might identify as feminist. Most would be of the "of course I believe in equality" types, with a smaller number being more "card carrying" feminists fully up on the philosophy.

silverharp

there is a left/right thing for sure. I remember some conservative rep on Sky saying that she couldn't identify as a feminist and that it doesn't represent women on the right. Similar with men I guess, If you see yourself in more individual terms then you don't want to your hard earned overly redistributed and you don't want to be unfairly hobbled in the workplace or by the legal system.

the thing is and in a bit of cartoonish terms, if its male feminists aligning with a subset of women to take "the man" down, while it might make some selfish sense for these men, they are kind of turkeys voting for xmas because they are agreeing to more transfers from men to women which in turn will make some women less dependant on men, meanwhile the successful men will "get the girls" anyway as they are more attractive then what the state has to offer.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

there is a left/right thing for sure. I remember some conservative rep on Sky saying that she couldn't identify as a feminist and that it doesn't represent women on the right. Similar with men I guess, If you see yourself in more individual terms then you don't want to your hard earned overly redistributed and you don't want to be unfairly hobbled in the workplace or by the legal system.

the thing is and in a bit of cartoonish terms, if its male feminists aligning with a subset of women to take "the man" down, while it might make some selfish sense for these men, they are kind of turkeys voting for xmas because they are agreeing to more transfers from men to women which in turn will make some women less dependant on men, meanwhile the successful men will "get the girls" anyway as they are more attractive then what the state has to offer.

No need to highlight that you've switched track from your original assertions.

This bit stands out; 'if its male feminists aligning with a subset of women to take "the man" down'. Is that really how you view it?

lazybones32

Wibbs wrote: »

... EG I never met a right wing feminist. Man or woman.

How could you? Feminism has its roots so deep in Marxism that they are inseperable. Replace 'bourgeoise' with 'patriarchy' and it's the same hymn-sheet. All the big name fem's were radical Lefties...their quotes are scary!

Marxism, Communism and Feminism want women to find their freedom and fulfillment in work; being a married mother is abhorrent to them all. Modern feminist rhetoric will exclude the bits they find disagreeable but the poison is still there, just diluted.

El_Duderino 09

lazybones32 wrote: »

How could you? Feminism has its roots so deep in Marxism that they are inseperable. Replace 'bourgeoise' with 'patriarchy' and it's the same hymn-sheet. All the big name fem's were radical Lefties...their quotes are scary!

Marxism, Communism and Feminism want women to find their freedom and fulfillment in work; being a married mother is abhorrent to them all. Modern feminist rhetoric will exclude the bits they find disagreeable but the poison is still there, just diluted.

I think you're making the definition so specific that you might be in danger of excluding everyone from it.

How does any of that relate to actual experience of feminism in Ireland? It's fine to make the definition as scary as you want, but then there might be nobody to be scared of. And then what would you do?

ancapailldorcha

lazybones32 wrote: »

How could you? Feminism has its roots so deep in Marxism that they are inseperable. Replace 'bourgeoise' with 'patriarchy' and it's the same hymn-sheet. All the big name fem's were radical Lefties...their quotes are scary!

Marxism, Communism and Feminism want women to find their freedom and fulfillment in work; being a married mother is abhorrent to them all. Modern feminist rhetoric will exclude the bits they find disagreeable but the poison is still there, just diluted.

It's more than this. Take your younger types, who tend to be more liberal, left leaning and socially active and compare them to even thirtysomethings with jobs who are probably thinking about mortgages and financial security who just don't have the time to worry about manspreading when their credit rating is occupying so much of their time. You end up with younger people who are desperate to change something. The only way that they can enact their all-too-often insane wishlists of policies is via the machinery of the state. The same state will also need to swell in size drastically as there are only so many Irish Times and Guardian sinecures going for your average gender studies graduate.

lazybones32

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think you're making the definition so specific that you might be in danger of excluding everyone from it.

How does any of that relate to actual experience of feminism in Ireland? It's fine to make the definition as scary as you want, but then there might be nobody to be scared of. And then what would you do?

You have crossed wires there, i think. I wasn't offering any definition. I was pointing out the roots of the feminist movement and the attempt to put the left shoe on the right foot - which is succeeding but could have disastrous effects.

Are you saying there is no feminist movement or lobby groups in Ireland? Are you seriously saying that? If you are that naiive, you shouldn't be posting in any thread about feminism. Go to the natl women's council of ireland webpage. Look at their partners. There's no excuse for ignorance in the internet age.

El_Duderino 09

lazybones32 wrote: »

You have crossed wires there, i think. I wasn't offering any definition. I was pointing out the roots of the feminist movement and the attempt to put the left shoe on the right foot - which is succeeding but could have disastrous effects.

Are you saying there is no feminist movement or lobby groups in Ireland? Are you seriously saying that? If you are that naiive, you shouldn't be posting in any thread about feminism. Go to the natl women's council of ireland webpage. Look at their partners. There's no excuse for ignorance in the internet age.

Im not saying there aren't any feminist groups in Ireland. But I can safely say I've never heard anyone of any persuasion with the philosophy you outlined above. I don't know anyone who abhors the idea of married mothers instead of workers. I doubt many people (or any?) would meet that standard.

If that's what you call a feminist then I'd doubt there are any feminist groups in Ireland.

johnnyskeleton

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The narrative that they're only doing it to get laid is an interesting one. Is it in any way true though? If the only evidence is articles with a negative slant, then isn't the sample fairly biased?

Honestly, I dont know but its not as if people have never pretended to be interested in something to try and gain the approval of members of the opposite sex. So Id say yeah there probably are men who are or act like they are feminists to attract women.

As I said, I don't know any lads who talks about being a feminist and I can't really imagine how it would come up in real life. I bet the people with the assertions wouldn't have any real life experience of feminist men and I got a YouTube video and a Google search in response. I take it that was a roundabout way to say they don't in fact have any first hand experience of what they're talking about.

I'm not sure what exactly you want from people in this regard. I know several men who call themselves feminists, usually, I suspect, to please their girlfriends. I dont know of any men who specifically pretend to be feminists to pick up girls in the same way that I dont know much about what others do to try to pick up girls as I wouldnt be observing them at the time.

Wibbs

lazybones32 wrote: »

Marxism, Communism and Feminism want women to find their freedom and fulfillment in work; being a married mother is abhorrent to them all.

Interestingly one could argue that this is also an aim of The Money™ (which tends to be overwhelmingly Right leaning). Monetising a housewife isn't so easy, especially if it's shared money with her partner. However push women into the workforce as a "freedom" and you double the number of consumers and the workers required to fulfil their needs. Now we regularly hear of the glass ceiling and not enough women at the very top and how this is a very bad thing, but I would argue not that why are so few women at the top, but why so many men choose that path and all its attendant sometimes extreme effort and fallout on a personal level. Now if someone wants to work every hour god sends almost to the exclusion of the rest of one's life, then fine and I'm glad some do, as it generally drives humanity forward, even at a cost to the individual, but is it a healthy aspiration for the vast majority who are told that it is? A vast majority that won't reap the benefits of such a trajectory.

Look at how women are increasingly delaying starting a family to keep their career on track, all too often rushing into marriages to start one in their 30's. Some can end up not being able to find someone in time. Now it is what it is, but again is it particularly healthy? I can think of three women I know that had/have good careers that they worked damned hard to foster, who went through a few relationships in their 20's, some of which may have had legs, some of which didn't, but who then settled(and usually with much haste) with men that I know they wouldn't have chosen in their 20's and I've seen the low level disgruntlement in both sides in the aftermath of the weddings and births.

Now I'm just shooting the breeze here, nothing amounting to much serious consideration on my part TBH, but it is a question I've asked myself off and on down the years, knowing very clever and high performing women and watching their life paths unfold. And I think it's a question we should be asking in a wider context. IE are the modern world's measures of success worth revisiting and questioning? For both men and women.

Wibbs

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I know several men who call themselves feminists, usually, I suspect, to please their girlfriends.

Maybe. I can just go on my own albeit small sample group and in that group of men who self defined as and were well acquainted with the ideals feminists, they were in that frame before and outside of their current girlfriends. As I say they tended towards more "liberal" leaning, generally brighter, often much brighter than background and more empathic and more society focussed rather than individualistically focussed(which might be as good a definition as any for Left V Right philosophies).

They did tend to admire, even worship women just for being women. I did notice that. If anything they were more gender focussed in an odd way.

"Traditional male" pursuits were mostly absent and more "nerdy" pursuits were more in play(when that whole "gamer gate" sh1te kicked off I was surprised as every hard core gamer I ever personally met was both left leaning and a feminist to some degree. That might be an age/culture thing though).

In relationships they did tend to be the more passive one. I don't mean "the women wore the trousers" cliche, just more passive(I have actually found that cliche much more in action in outwardly so called "manly men").

Regarding success in attracting and keeping a girlfriend , which seems to be a large part of those above vids "argument", they were pretty much the same as background. Some guys were better at that than others. The did seem to sustain relationships for longer compared to background alright. Of actual "players" there were none among the group.

I'm a obsessive observer of people, to the point of going full Sheldon Cooper at times so take with a pinch of NaCl and your milage may vary.

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe. I can just go on my own albeit small sample group and in that group of men who self defined as and were well acquainted with the ideals feminists, they were in that frame before and outside of their current girlfriends. As I say they tended towards more "liberal" leaning, generally brighter, often much brighter than background and more empathic and more society focussed rather than individualistically focussed(which might be as good a definition as any for Left V Right philosophies).

They did tend to admire, even worship women just for being women. I did notice that. If anything they were more gender focussed in an odd way.

"Traditional male" pursuits were mostly absent and more "nerdy" pursuits were more in play(when that whole "gamer gate" sh1te kicked off I was surprised as every hard core gamer I ever personally met was both left leaning and a feminist to some degree. That might be an age/culture thing though).

In relationships they did tend to be the more passive one. I don't mean "the women wore the trousers" cliche, just more passive(I have actually found that cliche much more in action in outwardly so called "manly men").

Regarding success in attracting and keeping a girlfriend , which seems to be a large part of those above vids "argument", they were pretty much the same as background. Some guys were better at that than others. The did seem to sustain relationships for longer compared to background alright. Of actual "players" there were none among the group.

I'm a obsessive observer of people, to the point of going full Sheldon Cooper at times so take with a pinch of NaCl and your milage may vary.

I know you've caveated your post ny limiting it to your experience so I can't help being drawn to the specifics. You're talking about a group of bright lads, left of centre, worship women, in relationships as the passive partner or feminist generally leftist gamers.

I can safely say I don't know 2 'gamers' and certainly don't know any well enough to draw on them as a sample for anything. As a student I lived with one disgusting creature who stunk and was a compulsive lier about his imaginary girlfriend and was a gamer. I'm willing to assume he's not representative. So I'm pretty sure we're drawing from different samples.

I don't think I know anyone who worships women. What does that look like when you see it?

Of the lads I know who are traditionally masculine in terms of being rugby team mates and work colleagues and mates. I think the ones I know well enough for these topics to have come up in conversations, they tended to be in favour of equality. In rugby circles in particular you see first hand the kind of 'player' stuff that goes on. As I've got older I've had more and more chats with fellas who've seen 'rugby banter' up close and have had time to think about it. The consensus is that uni rugby banter was way beyond the pale. But I know it was completely in line with the social culture in uni.

There seems to be a big separation between normal people who support feminism/men's rights, and people who have all the feminist/men's rights theory and philosophy. Those are fairly abstract compared to the reality as it happens on the ground. So in reality you have a campaign which tries to shun men who are into sexual harassment on the street and some men get offended as a knee jerk reaction as if it was a campaign against all men

I can't help thinking that people can have discrete social groups and think they're dealing with a cross section of society. Our experience of social groups seems to be quite different

The main question I have is; what does it look like when a man worships women and how does it manifest?

lazybones32

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's more than this. Take your younger types, who tend to be more liberal, left leaning and socially active and compare them to even thirtysomethings with jobs who are probably thinking about mortgages and financial security who just don't have the time to worry about manspreading when their credit rating is occupying so much of their time. You end up with younger people who are desperate to change something. The only way that they can enact their all-too-often insane wishlists of policies is via the machinery of the state. The same state will also need to swell in size drastically as there are only so many Irish Times and Guardian sinecures going for your average gender studies graduate.

There will probably be a market opening for analysts, consultants and inspectors to advise corporations on how to have more females in management positions?
Or maybe the people getting their Masters in Gender Studies will end up working for predominantly Govt. funded ngo's? (There are at least 160 different women's groups in Ireland)

lazybones32

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Im not saying there aren't any feminist groups in Ireland. But I can safely say I've never heard anyone of any persuasion with the philosophy you outlined above. I don't know anyone who abhors the idea of married mothers instead of workers. I doubt many people (or any?) would meet that standard.

If that's what you call a feminist then I'd doubt there are any feminist groups in Ireland.

Yeah...read the first paragraph of the post you replied to. Didn't offer a definition or a minimum requirement list for feminism.

El_Duderino 09

lazybones32 wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Im not saying there aren't any feminist groups in Ireland. But I can safely say I've never heard anyone of any persuasion with the philosophy you outlined above. I don't know anyone who abhors the idea of married mothers instead of workers. I doubt many people (or any?) would meet that standard.

If that's what you call a feminist then I'd doubt there are any feminist groups in Ireland.

Yeah...read the first paragraph of the post you replied to. Didn't offer a definition or a minimum requirement list for feminism.

Yeah I get that.

I'll phrase it as a question; do you think there are many (or any) feminist groups like you mentioned above in Ireland? Ones who abhor the idea of married mothers?

Wibbs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't think I know anyone who worships women. What does that look like when you see it? .../... The main question I have is; what does it look like when a man worships women and how does it manifest?

Outside of the men who say they "worship" women, but just see it as a shortcut into their panties, in very basic terms I'm speaking of those everyday men who say they "worship" women but give women far more leeway, all the way to a free pass on whatever behaviour, especially unhealthy, even bad behaviour, a woman might exhibit, just because they're a woman and far more than they would usually countenance if it was a man exhibiting the exact same behaviours.

Try it for yourself. Look back on the crisis points with the women/woman in your life and try to tell me with a straight face that you handled the situations and gave the same leeway the way you would with another man. Though let's face it I doubt you of all people would believe that. Much less admit it.

And this stuff is pretty evident among many men. If anything, it's a large enough majority of men. Though within that a large enough majority of men many, if not most don't even realise they do it.

It is for me ironic, an attitude more sexist in many ways than the same men would care to admit. It's the passive version of "women be crazy, but what are you gonna do?". Bullsh1te I say. I'd even go so far as to say that any man* who says he treats women in his life, particularly his "other half" the exact same way he treats the men in his life is kidding himself.



*caveat; Gay guys. In general they usually do, or are more likely to. They've no "skin in the game".

_Dara_

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

Feminism has no raison d'etre except in countries especially in the Mid East where women are treated as Western women once were in medieval Europe.

There are no barriers to women in the West. None

Radical feminists today are mostly fanatical misandrists - psychologically damaged types who are jealous of beauty because they are overlooked in the dating game.

Being morbidly overweight having blue hair glasses and tattoos and wearing bag like clothes means that the macho confident fit men with lantern jaws six packs and perfect bums will never be theirs.

This is why they invented rape culture and fat shaming and other nonsense to attack healthy heterosexuality. Beauties like Taylor Swift are attacked for having a perfection angry hateful misfits will never reach. Men like Leonardo Di Caprio who have looks wealth and all the beautiful women they desire are "toxic."

Male feminists are generally geeks and dorks who were never good at sports and were unapologetically rejected by attractive women.
They therefore want to sneak their way into the pants of blue haired harpies because nobody else will have them.

This has to be a parody post. The feminists I've known have greatly varied, looks wise. All levels of attractiveness really. As for not being able to attract lantern jawed beef cakes. There's not many of those around and they wouldn't be to everyone's taste anyway.

As for your comments on male feminists - tbh, there's not many of those floating about. How many have you experienced in your life?

Your fixation on almost All-American beauty and handsomeness ideals make me feel like I'm 11 years old and reading a Sweet Valley Twins book again. Hence the post being difficult to take seriously.

Other people on this thread have given much more thoughtful responses.

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't think I know anyone who worships women. What does that look like when you see it? .../... The main question I have is; what does it look like when a man worships women and how does it manifest?

Wibbs wrote: »

Outside of the men who say they "worship" women, but just see it as a shortcut into their panties, in very basic terms I'm speaking of those everyday men who say they "worship" women but give women far more leeway, all the way to a free pass on whatever behaviour, especially unhealthy, even bad behaviour, a woman might exhibit, just because they're a woman and far more than they would usually countenance if it was a man exhibiting the exact same behaviours.

You're adding another layer to the scenario by claiming men say they worship women. I can safely say I've never heard a man say he worships women.

Anyway, assume you're right and men give women far more leeway than they give men in the exact same situation. Can you give me an example of the things you're talking about? You mention unhealthy behaviours and bad behaviours which especially get a 'free pass'. Which behaviours are you thinking of?

Wibbs wrote: »

Try it for yourself. Look back on the crisis points with the women/woman in your life and try to tell me with a straight face that you handled the situations and gave the same leeway the way you would with another man. Though let's face it I doubt you of all people would believe that. Much less admit it.

We give each other all kinds of leeway in a crisis. What exactly do you mean? Do you mean how people handle major crisis in work or a house break in, or bereavement?

Wibbs wrote: »

And this stuff is pretty evident among many men. If anything, it's a large enough majority of men. Though within that a large enough majority of men many, if not most don't even realise they do it.

It is for me ironic, an attitude more sexist in many ways than the same men would care to admit. It's the passive version of "women be crazy, but what are you gonna do?". Bullsh1te I say. I'd even go so far as to say that any man* who says he treats women in his life, particularly his "other half" the exact same way he treats the men in his life is kidding himself.

I definitely don't treat my partner the same as one of the lads. But which one of the lads do you mean? Some lads I meet up with like to sit and smash pints, some mates I go to sports events with, some mates go to the theatre with me, some lads like to chat politics and others don't. I wouldn't claim to treat all my male friends the exact, same let alone claim to treat my partner the exact same as all the lads. Some of the men overlap between those groups and others don't because they're different relationships and I know I treat different people differently.

I'm sometimes romantic with my partner but never romantic with any of my male friends.

If I've missed your point on this last part, feel free to rephrase it.

Anyway, I'm asking about how men worshiping women manifests and you're now claiming that men and women sometimes handle crisis differently and we give men and women different leeway. Is that the evidence of men worshipping women? Maybe it will make more sense when you give some examples of what you mean.

Wibbs

_Dara_ wrote: »

Your fixation on almost All-American beauty and handsomeness ideals make me feel like I'm 11 years old and reading a Sweet Valley Twins book again. Hence the post being difficult to take seriously.

You've hit the nail on the head there D IMHO. It reads near meme for meme, stereotype for stereotype of an American cultural view of feminism, and men and women. This is extremely common to read/hear from Irish folks and not just with regard to the subject at hand. We also see it in the wider political discourse. This is not America(credits to David Bowie ), but too many import wholesale cultural notions and try to fit that square peg into the round hole of the Irish experience. There was always a hint of that, which makes sense given the cultural leakage from the cultural behemoth that is America, but it's gone well beyond a hint of late.

For me "feminism in Ireland" while of course sharing some traits and beliefs with feminism anywhere, just like any political movement, is not the American version, certainly not the stereotypical US college extreme version. Oh I'm sure one could find a couple of carbon copied clones of that in students union bars, but again it's more importation. Like in most political/cultural movements Ireland and Irish people tend to be more middle of the road and less extreme and less polarised. Thankfully. What polarisation tends to be found is mostly found in the media and talking heads within the media. So you have your Louise O'Neill, Una Mulally and Ivana Bacik types. I have met similar in Real Life™, but they were a tiny minority. Maybe they're growing on the back of the wider imported polarisation, but I've personally not encountered them so far.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Maybe it will make more sense when you give some examples of what you mean.

I've grown a large crop of meh with your endless deflection, misdirection, dishonesty with raised points and whataboutery. So nah, I'll not bother anymore TBH.

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

[

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Maybe it will make more sense when you give some examples of what you mean.

I've grown a large crop of meh with your endless deflection, misdirection, dishonesty with raised points and whataboutery. So nah, I'll not bother anymore TBH.

Ah give over with this deflection guff. You made a. Ague point which I acknowledged (people treat different people, differently) and asked you for examples of what you're talking about and how hat links to men worshiping women. You either have examples of what you mean or you don't.

If anyone is deflecting, it don't me. Maybe you're speaking for yourself on this idea of worshipping women I don't see it and you claim to see it in the majority of men. Im asking you for examples of what you're talking about. The poster doth deflect too much, methinks.

silverharp

for the lolz I typed in feminism and UCD.

http://www.universityobserver.ie/features/ucd-a-safe-space-for-feminism/

UCD: A Safe Space For Feminism?

Wibbs

silverharp wrote: »

for the lolz I typed in feminism and UCD.

http://www.universityobserver.ie/features/ucd-a-safe-space-for-feminism/

If anything that shows the gulf between that US college culture and Irish university culture. A similar sized US or Canadian college would almost certainly have a feminist society and an active one. Along with other "social justice"* societies. Again Ireland and the Irish mindset seems more reasonable and middle of the road about such things. We kinda saw that in the marriage referendum. Sure we had the loud hailers on both sides, but enough of a majority went "meh, sure what harm". I'd suspect even the majority of the nays weren't that wound up about it.




*I bloody hate that term. "Progressive" maybe? I'm dubious about using the term liberal as they are all too often anything but.

silverharp

Wibbs wrote: »

If anything that shows the gulf between that US college culture and Irish university culture. A similar sized US or Canadian college would almost certainly have a feminist society and an active one. Along with other "social justice"* societies. Again Ireland and the Irish mindset seems more reasonable and middle of the road about such things. We kinda saw that in the marriage referendum. Sure we had the loud hailers on both sides, but enough of a majority went "meh, sure what harm". I'd suspect even the majority of the nays weren't that wound up about it.




*I bloody hate that term. "Progressive" maybe? I'm dubious about using the term liberal as they are all too often anything but.

its more below the radar and I don't believe for a minute that the blue haired brigade have taken over academia and thankfully they don't have race issues to feed off yet, you are going to sound like a bit of a gobshiite talking about "white privilege" in Ireland but you hear people saying form time to time that it pops up in course work or text books. I'd imagine there are some degrees where you have to "play along" or get marked down.
Also I guess one of the benefits of a catholic led education system is that it puts an anchor in the water that's missing in in the US UK or places like Oz

Pat Mustard

Lads, by all means engage with this El Duderino guy if you want but be aware of the following:

1. He will pretend not to understand what you are talking about.
2. He may accuse you of not engaging in the discussion, if you question him.
3. He will say that he is only having a chat on the Internet and why are we taking it so seriously. See number 7, below.
4. He will assert that you are upset or annoyed about something. He may also assert that you are obsessed with him. He will attempt to needle those who show him up for what he is.
5. He will attempt to say that it is bad form for somebody to draw attention to his extremely dishonest, disingenuous style of posting.
6. Any criticizm of feminism is 'bitching', 'moaning', 'whining', etc. because he cannot stand to see criticism of his own feminist beliefs or for anyone to put a spotlight on his hobby horse.
7. At all times, he will deflect, dodge and avoid questions, all the while posting endless reams of nonsense. He will not engage in serious discussion on any meaningful level.
8. Previously, he has refused to post links or evidence to support his claims, claiming that being on his phone has prevented him from doing so.
9. He will draw conclusions from unsupported claims that he had invented himself, in the first place.
10. Previously, when it was suggested that posters should consider disengaging from discussion with this guy, he characterized those suggestions as some sort of moral cowardice or attempting to silence a legitimate point of view. In fact, posters are bit tired of his extremely dishonest posting, at this stage.

Nobody has a problem with this guy expressing a point of view. The problem is the use of the above tactics, which he uses incessantly. If you want to engage with El Duderino 09, please be aware of the above and perhaps consider not wasting your time with him at all.

ancapailldorcha

lazybones32 wrote: »

There will probably be a market opening for analysts, consultants and inspectors to advise corporations on how to have more females in management positions?
Or maybe the people getting their Masters in Gender Studies will end up working for predominantly Govt. funded ngo's? (There are at least 160 different women's groups in Ireland)

I disagree to be honest. Companies and public sector bodies are already under huge pressure to hire more women and people from BME backgrounds. If there are 160 women's groups then there can't be much room for many more.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Lads, by all means engage with this El Duderino guy if you want but be aware of the following:

1. He will pretend not to understand what you are talking about.
2. He may accuse you of not engaging in the discussion, if you question him.
3. He will say that he is only having a chat on the Internet and why are we taking it so seriously. See number 2, above.
4. He will assert that you are upset or annoyed about something. He may also assert that you are obsessed with him. He will attempt to needle those who show him up for what he is.
5. He will attempt to say that it is bad form for somebody to draw attention to his extremely dishonest, disingenuous style of posting.
6. Any criticizm of feminism is 'bitching', 'moaning', 'whining', etc. because he cannot stand to see criticism of his own feminist beliefs or for anyone to put a spotlight on his hobby horse.
7. At all times, he will deflect, dodge and avoid questions, all the while posting endless reams of nonsense. He will not engage in serious discussion on any meaningful level.
8. Previously, he has refused to post links or evidence to support his claims, claiming that being on his phone has prevented him from doing so.
9. He will draw conclusions from unsupported claims that he had invented himself, in the first place.
10. Previously, when it was suggested that posters should consider disengaging from discussion with this guy, he characterized those suggestions as some sort of moral cowardice or attempting to silence a legitimate point of view. In fact, posters are bit tired of his extremely dishonest posting, at this stage.

Nobody has a problem with this guy expressing a point of view. The problem is the use of the above tactics, which he uses incessantly. If you want to engage with El Duderino 09, please be aware of the above and perhaps consider not wasting your time with him at all.

Lol

Most amusing that a representative of a discussion forum should discourage discussion. You're repeatedly bringing up points from a discussion we had about a year ago. I remember because it was at the start of the rugby season. I was on an android that wouldn't post if I included a link. Posts simply would t upload.

I don't accuse everyone of being obsessed with me, but Pat,the space I occupy on your mind is flattering to a degree, but not necessary.


Above I asked a poster for examples of behaviour they they see as patently obvious and that was called deflection and dishonest. If asking for examples is dishonesty and deflection, then I'm guilty as charged.

I'll just take it that the poster was generalising from their own sense of woman worship rather than anything to do with men in general. I'm

The more of these threads I read the more I see that the people who claim to be Sheldon Cooper-esque keen observers of people, actually don't have a clue about real world relationships.

If you didn't keep posting this kind of off topic personal stuff, then I wouldn't have to invite you to take part in the discussion at hand. Your post above isn't even tangentially related to the discussion. So I'll demonstrate your point by inviting you to post on the topic of how people view feminism in Ireland

LostinBlanch

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Lads, by all means engage with this El Duderino guy if you want but be aware of the following:

1. He will pretend not to understand what you are talking about.
2. He may accuse you of not engaging in the discussion, if you question him.
3. He will say that he is only having a chat on the Internet and why are we taking it so seriously. See number 7, below.
4. He will assert that you are upset or annoyed about something. He may also assert that you are obsessed with him. He will attempt to needle those who show him up for what he is.
5. He will attempt to say that it is bad form for somebody to draw attention to his extremely dishonest, disingenuous style of posting.
6. Any criticizm of feminism is 'bitching', 'moaning', 'whining', etc. because he cannot stand to see criticism of his own feminist beliefs or for anyone to put a spotlight on his hobby horse.
7. At all times, he will deflect, dodge and avoid questions, all the while posting endless reams of nonsense. He will not engage in serious discussion on any meaningful level.
8. Previously, he has refused to post links or evidence to support his claims, claiming that being on his phone has prevented him from doing so.
9. He will draw conclusions from unsupported claims that he had invented himself, in the first place.
10. Previously, when it was suggested that posters should consider disengaging from discussion with this guy, he characterized those suggestions as some sort of moral cowardice or attempting to silence a legitimate point of view. In fact, posters are bit tired of his extremely dishonest posting, at this stage.

Nobody has a problem with this guy expressing a point of view. The problem is the use of the above tactics, which he uses incessantly. If you want to engage with El Duderino 09, please be aware of the above and perhaps consider not wasting your time with him at all.

You forgot no 11. Dishonestly pretending that a link rebutting his argument doesn't exist then attempt to use this "fact" :rolleyes: to denigrate that poster and disregard his rebuttal. When this was pointed out to him and that the link worked for others his reply was along the lines of "Lol, it doesn't work for me."

Now, I have no idea who this poster is, nor do I care. I had no idea they existed until seeing replies on this and other threads on here. I have no idea of their motivation, but when it comes to their debating style and contributions on here, one word that comes to mind is dishonest.

El_Duderino 09

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Pat Mustard wrote: »

10. Previously, when it was suggested that posters should consider disengaging from discussion with this guy, he characterized those suggestions as some sort of moral cowardice or attempting to silence a legitimate point of view. In fact, posters are bit tired of his extremely dishonest posting, at this stage.

You forgot no 11. Dishonestly pretending that a link rebutting his argument doesn't exist then attempt to use this "fact" :rolleyes: to denigrate that poster and disregard his rebuttal. When this was pointed out to him and that the link worked for others his reply was along the lines of "Lol, it doesn't work for me."

Now, I have no idea who this poster is, nor do I care. I had no idea they existed until seeing replies on this and other threads on here. I have no idea of their motivation, but when it comes to their debating style and contributions on here, one word that comes to mind is dishonest.

Dishonest was part of point 10. That was the case with that link. I pressed the link and got an error message.

Earlier today I asked for examples of behaviours the poster claimed was so common that the majority of men do it. And instead of providing any examples, I was accused of deflecting.

There's a problem when any old Finnish is accepted without any need to even provide examples. The claim that the majority of men worship women is a big claim. Providing assertions like women get different leeway in a crisisIs as a manifestation of woman worship. Is it an opinion that lots of poster share? Or just willing to let any old garbage go completely unchallenged?

lazybones32

Wibbs wrote: »

Interestingly one could argue that this is also an aim of The Money™ (which tends to be overwhelmingly Right leaning). Monetising a housewife isn't so easy, especially if it's shared money with her partner. However push women into the workforce as a "freedom" and you double the number of consumers and the workers required to fulfil their needs. Now we regularly hear of the glass ceiling and not enough women at the very top and how this is a very bad thing, but I would argue not that why are so few women at the top, but why so many men choose that path and all its attendant sometimes extreme effort and fallout on a personal level. Now if someone wants to work every hour god sends almost to the exclusion of the rest of one's life, then fine and I'm glad some do, as it generally drives humanity forward, even at a cost to the individual, but is it a healthy aspiration for the vast majority who are told that it is? A vast majority that won't reap the benefits of such a trajectory.

Look at how women are increasingly delaying starting a family to keep their career on track, all too often rushing into marriages to start one in their 30's. Some can end up not being able to find someone in time. Now it is what it is, but again is it particularly healthy? I can think of three women I know that had/have good careers that they worked damned hard to foster, who went through a few relationships in their 20's, some of which may have had legs, some of which didn't, but who then settled(and usually with much haste) with men that I know they wouldn't have chosen in their 20's and I've seen the low level disgruntlement in both sides in the aftermath of the weddings and births.

Now I'm just shooting the breeze here, nothing amounting to much serious consideration on my part TBH, but it is a question I've asked myself off and on down the years, knowing very clever and high performing women and watching their life paths unfold. And I think it's a question we should be asking in a wider context. IE are the modern world's measures of success worth revisiting and questioning? For both men and women.

Will be brief...
I think the aim of The Money is to get people spending it, consuming, and that is the route to happiness as promoted by Captlsm. As brutal as unrestrained Capt. can be, i think i'd prefer it to the alternative.

Women are the drivers of economy in 1st world countries - whether it is her own earned income or her being in charge of husbands while she runs the household. Ever wonder why the majority of advertising is aimed at women? That's not accidental.

We are all chasing one carrot or another in the hope of lasting happiness, contentment or satisfaction. At least in a free society, we choose which carrots we chase*, even if they have previously been shown to be dead-ends or not supplying the feelings they were supposed to.


*using the stick/carrot analogy implies someone is dangling the carrot in front of us, directing or leading us where to go.

lazybones32

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I disagree to be honest. Companies and public sector bodies are already under huge pressure to hire more women and people from BME backgrounds. If there are 160 women's groups then there can't be much room for many more.

BME? What is that?

I see that there is pressure to have more 'diversity' in the workplace but that's a load of crap...unless a gay man has ideas that a straight man can't have, or an Asian woman has a thought that a South American woman is incapable of having. My jibe is that 'gender studies' graduates could be the ones who are recruited and paid handsomely for such pointless 'professional' advice. Either that or working for an ngo salary.

Wibbs

TBH I'm in two minds about diversity programmes. I can defo see the reasoning behind it, when particular groups have been left to the side regardless of their talent for a role, just because they were particular groups. And it would be a damned fool who suggested that this didn't and too often doesn't happen. I have always favoured a society which gives equality in opportunity and diversity programmes are a part of that. Though IMHO they're actually an indicator of the failure of a society to nip that crap in the bud from the start.

Middle Man

Poll Update: Wed 20th Sep 2017 @ 23:00

How do you perceive Feminism in Ireland? (Total votes: 166 (+50))

13.25% (22 votes (+8)) - Promotion of female supremacy;

36.75% (61 votes (+17)) - Misandristic + Disregard for men;

16.87% (28 votes (+8)) - Exclusive and somewhat misandristic;

16.27% (27 votes (+8)) - Female-centric, but somewhat inclusive;

16.87% (28 votes (+9)) - Inclusive, fair and balanced.

Regarding the secondary poll ‘How relevant to you is the controversy over feminism?’, two of the options therein will be included for the final calculations of this poll after both polls conclude:

33 votes (+1) - Neither concerned nor interested - has no real effect on me;

2 votes (=) - Not sure.

Note: At least one person has voted on the secondary poll, but not this one - there has been feedback from a couple of users relating to the complexity of the options and how it mightn’t fit all opinions - this I have noted and will consider in future polls. If anyone else would like to make observations regarding the poll, please feel free. Due to the surge of interest in the secondary poll, the results for all the options therein are published as follows:

How relevant to you is the controversy over feminism? (Total votes: 80 (+6))

3.75% (3 votes (=)) - Very concerned as I’ve been intimately affected (bad relationship etc.);

13.75% (11 votes (+1)) - Quite concerned as I’ve been affected somewhat (in family, public etc.);

23.75% (19 votes (+3)) - Not greatly affected, but concerned for the future (for me and others);

15.00% (12 votes (+1)) - Not very concerned, but nonetheless interested (curiosity/research etc.);

41.25% (33 votes (+1)) - Neither concerned nor interested - has no real effect on me;

2.50% (2 votes (=)) - Not sure.

Note: The next poll update will be Wednesday 27th Sept…

lazybones32

Wibbs wrote: »

TBH I'm in two minds about diversity programmes. I can defo see the reasoning behind it, when particular groups have been left to the side regardless of their talent for a role, just because they were particular groups. And it would be a damned fool who suggested that this didn't and too often doesn't happen. I have always favoured a society which gives equality in opportunity and diversity programmes are a part of that. Though IMHO they're actually an indicator of the failure of a society to nip that crap in the bud from the start.

Equality in opportunity? Anyone can apply for an advertised position but the decision to hire, imo, should be based on their skills and ability to perform the task - not on gender or skin colour or from a desire to show that 'race doesn't matter to me but you got the job because you are not white and we have enough males already'.
To me, diversity programs are based on factors that it is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of.

Wibbs

lazybones32 wrote: »

Equality in opportunity? Anyone can apply for an advertised position but the decision to hire, imo, should be based on their skills and ability to perform the task

I agree 100%. However as I said it would be foolish to believe that people's backgrounds, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, gender(I remember reading that in the US bodyweight was a selection bias) don't have an impact on the selection process. By how much this is the case is the question.

By the time a job application gets to the interview stage personal selection biases are nigh on a given, what with human nature involved. For example it's been shown time and time again that taller, more attractive people get preferences at interview over people who are shorter less attractive, regardless of qualifications.

TBH I dunno how such human factors could ever be taken out of the mix.

silverharp

there is no such thing as equality it only makes sense in the legal or state sense, everything else is competition and hierarchy. its probably one of the most abused term of the last 20 years

Middle Man

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree 100%. However as I said it would be foolish to believe that people's backgrounds, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, gender(I remember reading that in the US bodyweight was a selection bias) don't have an impact on the selection process. By how much this is the case is the question.

By the time a job application gets to the interview stage personal selection biases are nigh on a given, what with human nature involved. For example it's been shown time and time again that taller, more attractive people get preferences at interview over people who are shorter less attractive, regardless of qualifications.

TBH I dunno how such human factors could ever be taken out of the mix.

Perhaps some sort of points system that pertains only to certain skill sets - an online screening process (specialised tests etc) could be used prior to the interview phase hence making personal selection bias more questionable and therefore, more open to litigation. Now I don't know how workable that would be, but I'm just putting out an idea.

lazybones32

Wibbs wrote: »

TBH I dunno how such human factors could ever be taken out of the mix.

They can't, unless a computer programme is invented whereby human decision-making is removed all together from the process. But the software should ideally be developed by a woman of colour...