How do you view Feminism in Ireland?

lazybones32

lazybones32 wrote: »

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.

It's interesting that claims of sexism are so common when women have so much control over spending both their own money, but also of their spouse. The quote above got me thinking. I honestly hadn't thought about it that way.

Oh, I was aware of the heaps of industries out there which have been geared to cater to women as opposed to women. The fashion industry is a prime example. Ever visit the huge department stores in countries like America or in Asia? Maybe half of a floor for men's products, and 6 floors for women's. Go to a shoe shop and the men's shoe area will be in a corner, a small area for children, and a huge area is given over to women. Same with beauty/health products.. one/two shelves for male items, and a lot more for female products like makeup (which will have people to serve them). Even an area for shampoo/conditioners is likely to be bigger than the area for male products.
My hometown has two barbershops, and I think there are as many as 11 hairdressers geared for women.

So when I think of all these claims by feminists. I'm thinking our (male) sexism has provided a rather comfortable environment for them, created by, well, women.

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.

I'm not so sure of that. If you consider both marketing (with the use of psychology, nlp, and serious research/testing), and social conditioning, there seems to be a lot of other forces at work to convince us what our drives should be.

And while there is less in the way of obvious rules or demands for us to behave a certain way, there is still a lot of regulation going on. I noticed this when I lived in China. I was living in what was essentially a police state, and yet, there was less actual direct law applied than in Ireland. (you were only in trouble when the officials focused on you, but that was easily avoided) Everything in Europe has some form of regulation applied to it. for example, I can get wonderful street food in China, but you can't in Ireland because it would never pass the strict hygiene standards required for selling food. All for our benefit.. and yet, it is still a way of controlling how we live our lives.

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

Didn't see this until I'd written the above. Gotta start reading everything before I just in to post.

johnnyskeleton

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh, I was aware of the heaps of industries out there which have been geared to cater to women as opposed to women. The fashion industry is a prime example. Ever visit the huge department stores in countries like America or in Asia? Maybe half of a floor for men's products, and 6 floors for women's. Go to a shoe shop and the men's shoe area will be in a corner, a small area for children, and a huge area is given over to women. Same with beauty/health products.. one/two shelves for male items, and a lot more for female products like makeup (which will have people to serve them). Even an area for shampoo/conditioners is likely to be bigger than the area for male products.
My hometown has two barbershops, and I think there are as many as 11 hairdressers geared for women.

So when I think of all these claims by feminists. I'm thinking our (male) sexism has provided a rather comfortable environment for them, created by, well, women.

You couldn't be more wrong. The increase in comestic, fashion, grooming and sanitary products for women is a sign of the heteronormative patriarchy asserting itself. Fashion magazines are run exclusively by a few men and a lot of women who suffer from internalised misogyny which reinforces the partriarchial message that women should look pretty for their men. They even lie to women with such transparent slogans as "Because I'm worth it" or the suggestion that women dress up for other women instead of doing it to impress men. It's such a subtle conspiracy, you'd be forgiven for thinking it doesn't exist.

But to make matters worse, the massive increase in female centred services has allowed the Pink Tax, whereby the government requires female marketed products to be up to 30% more expensive. Without feminism's help, women wouldn't even realise this and would be under the mistaken impression that men's products are cheaper because they use lower quality ingredients or because less demand = lower price. But if you drill a little deeper into that, you will find that capitalist patriarchal concepts of money, supply and demand are just wrong when you look at them through a feminist perspective.

I'm not one of the extreme feminists however. Some extreme feminists believe that women spending large amounts of money on high heeled shoes is akin to the prisoner gilding his own cage, as the high heels make women less mobile in the urban environment, forcing them to be less able to run away from the men who pursue them in the street and force them to laugh at their jokes and say thankyou when they are bought an oppressive dinner. I don't believe that there is enough evidence for this (subject to my right to not require evidence to back up my views on other issues).

So to conclude, you should never suggest to a woman that she purchased that "must have" handbag or spent 3 hours getting her nails done and face masked voluntarily, because to imply that women have free will is a classic example of how patriarchy denies women their free will. It's basically like the people who talk about free speech only ever want to say horrible things so we shouldn't allow them.

I'm pretty sure that my razor blades are more expensive than the ones women use.

So, in essence, we're damned unless we agree with the extreme feminist ideology? Amazing language btw. Just like the interviews of the black panthers or the communist party meetings. Gosh. Do people really get away with talking that rubbish?

johnnyskeleton

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that my razor blades are more expensive than the ones women use.

There's an answer for that too. #notallrazorblades

So, in essence, we're damned unless we agree with the extreme feminist ideology?

Well there are at least four different and conflicting extreme feminist positions on pretty much every issue, so as long as you pick one of those you'll be fine.

Saruhashi

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well there are at least four different and conflicting extreme feminist positions on pretty much every issue, so as long as you pick one of those you'll be fine.

This is one of my biggest issues with the movement. So many contradictory points being made.

From the more "academic" side of Feminism you have concepts such as looking at things "through a Feminist lens" which are deemed perfectly valid but which would so OBVIOUSLY give rise to contradictions and bias.

They won't admit though that their Feminist "interpretation" of an aspect of society is just and interpretation and not a statement of fact.

The Patriarchy, for example, strives to create an environment that favors men at the expense of women but AT THE EXACT SAME TIME is also the reason why so many men are miserable.

So, thanks to The Patriarchy men have privilege and that privilege comes at a cost to women. Also though The Patriarchy makes men miserable and dysfunctional. So men are the privileged beneficiaries of Patriarchy when it suits but also the victims of Patriarchy when it suits too.

Even the razor blades conversation is full of weirdness. What stops a woman from just buying the razor blades with the "for men" label? If mens blades are cheaper than womens blades then just buy the mens ones.

Are we saying that women are so weak willed that they are afraid to buy razor blades marked "for men" in case they lose face? Or are we saying that they are too dumb to realize that you don't actually have to be a man to buy the "mens" blades?

If the answer is that a woman wants to buy a very specific type of blade then why shouldn't she pay extra?

If a man or woman wants to buy the good old orange bic razors then they can. If you want a razor with 4 or 5 or whatever blades then you pay more. If you want a razor with a curvy handle and lubricating strips in a limited edition Ferrari Red then you have to pay extra.

I'm not understanding the logic going on in the head of a consumer who wants to buy a very specific product, instead of the most basic version of that product, but who wants to pay the same price as a different product in the same category.

On one hand we want to be independent women who go against the system but on the other hand clever marketing forces us to buy the more expensive razors.

Middle Man

Poll Update: Wed 27th Sep 2017 @ 23:00

How do you perceive Feminism in Ireland? (Total votes: 192 (+26))

13.02% (25 votes (+3)) - Promotion of female supremacy;

34.90% (67 votes (+6)) - Misandristic + Disregard for men;

16.67% (32 votes (+4)) - Exclusive and somewhat misandristic;

18.23% (35 votes (+8)) - Female-centric, but somewhat inclusive;

17.19% (33 votes (+5)) - 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 (=) - 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 (=))

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: The provisional poll results will be posted Monday 2nd Oct…

Middle Man

Mon 2nd Oct 2017 (Both Polls Concluded)

How do you perceive Feminism in Ireland? (Total votes: 194 (+2))

12.89% (25 votes (=)) - Promotion of female supremacy;

35.57% (69 votes (+2)) - Misandristic + Disregard for men;

16.49% (32 votes (=)) - Exclusive and somewhat misandristic;

18.04% (35 votes (=)) - Female-centric, but somewhat inclusive;

17.01% (33 votes (=)) - 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 due Wednesday coming:

33 votes (=) - 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 (=))

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many thanks to all who participated in the polls.

Note: The combined poll result will be posted Wednesday 4th Oct…

Sleepy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You couldn't be more wrong. The increase in comestic, fashion, grooming and sanitary products for women is a sign of the heteronormative patriarchy asserting itself. Fashion magazines are run exclusively by a few men and a lot of women who suffer from internalised misogyny which reinforces the partriarchial message that women should look pretty for their men. They even lie to women with such transparent slogans as "Because I'm worth it" or the suggestion that women dress up for other women instead of doing it to impress men. It's such a subtle conspiracy, you'd be forgiven for thinking it doesn't exist.

But to make matters worse, the massive increase in female centred services has allowed the Pink Tax, whereby the government requires female marketed products to be up to 30% more expensive. Without feminism's help, women wouldn't even realise this and would be under the mistaken impression that men's products are cheaper because they use lower quality ingredients or because less demand = lower price. But if you drill a little deeper into that, you will find that capitalist patriarchal concepts of money, supply and demand are just wrong when you look at them through a feminist perspective.

I'm not one of the extreme feminists however. Some extreme feminists believe that women spending large amounts of money on high heeled shoes is akin to the prisoner gilding his own cage, as the high heels make women less mobile in the urban environment, forcing them to be less able to run away from the men who pursue them in the street and force them to laugh at their jokes and say thankyou when they are bought an oppressive dinner. I don't believe that there is enough evidence for this (subject to my right to not require evidence to back up my views on other issues).

So to conclude, you should never suggest to a woman that she purchased that "must have" handbag or spent 3 hours getting her nails done and face masked voluntarily, because to imply that women have free will is a classic example of how patriarchy denies women their free will. It's basically like the people who talk about free speech only ever want to say horrible things so we shouldn't allow them.

One of the finest pieces of satire I've read on Boards.ie

Bravo!

Middle Man

Wed 4th Oct 2017 (Both Polls Concluded)

How do you perceive Feminism in Ireland? (Total votes: 229)

10.92% (25 votes) - 1. Promotion of female supremacy;

30.13% (69 votes) - 2. Misandristic + Disregard for men;

13.97% (32 votes) - 3. Exclusive and somewhat misandristic;

15.28% (35 votes) - 4. Female-centric, but somewhat inclusive;

14.41% (33 votes) - 5. Inclusive, fair and balanced;

14.41% (33 votes) - 6. Neither concerned nor interested;

0.87% (2 votes) - 7. 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.

Statistical Breakdown:

55.02% have a negative view of Feminism in Ireland as they perceive it - of those, 41.05% seem quite concerned about the issue.

44.10% are not very concerned about Feminism in Ireland - of those, 14.41% seem to have quite a positive view of feminism.

Despite the issue of confusion surrounding the polling format and the subject thereof, only 0.87% said they were not sure. However, at least one person voted in the second poll for an option not included in the above analysis but yet didn’t vote in the first poll - the number of people in the same category is unknown.

While some flaws remained in the polling methodology, a clear message that can be taken from the result is that people who are concerned about the issue regarding Feminism in Ireland now have a moral right to have access to a proper discussion on the issue here - no longer can anyone say that nobody really cares about feminism and the topic is unworthy of debate. The poll was made anonymous as I reckoned some men would otherwise be afraid to vote for fear of being found out - the chosen format was intended to allow men to speak without having to identify themselves.

Middle Man

On international men's day, it's a timely to bring back a poll result that clearly shows what many men think of feminism as it is presented in the media etc. - we have a right to highlight our concerns regarding the negativity directed towards males. Not only that, but we should celebrate the achievements of men including such pertaining to the arts, cookery, technological advancement and engineering, both civil and mechanical. We have every right to do so, not as a mark of superiority (that we seriously do not need), but as a mark of meaningful intellectual contribution to society.

In short, men are people!

El_Duderino 09

Middle Man wrote:

On international men's day, it's a timely to bring back a poll result that clearly shows what many men think of feminism as it is presented in the media etc. - we have a right to highlight our concerns regarding the negativity directed towards males.

A load of old guff. Would a poll in a feminist forum, on their views of the men's rights movement, affect your views much? I wouldn't really think so, nor should it.

Middle Man wrote:

In short, men are people!

Of course.
Ah here, you hardly needed a feminist bashing poll to conclude that.

The message of IMD is men's health and issues that affect men. Leave feminism out of the discussion if you give a toss about promoting awareness of men's issues.

Middle Man

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

A load of old guff. Would a poll in a feminist forum, on their views of the men's rights movement, affect your views much? I wouldn't really think so, nor should it.


Of course.
Ah here, you hardly needed a feminist bashing poll to conclude that.

The message of IMD is men's health and issues that affect men. Leave feminism out of the discussion if you give a toss about promoting awareness of men's issues.

The thing is that the negativity directed towards males in the media etc. (feminism as presented in the media) is affecting how men feel including myself - the results of this poll is conducive to this conclusion that I've come to. Given that many men feel let down amid the given social attitudes towards males, IMD is an opportunity to make ourselves heard. I've been on the after-hours IMD thread doing just that...

vetinari

Outside of child custody, men are pretty well represented everywhere else.
We dominate most governments, board rooms and indeed any positions of power.
It's pretty inaccurate to say we've been badly affected by feminism.

Wibbs

Not quite and though this is a common refrain of feminism and western culture in general, the more accurate statement is a tiny minority of men dominate "most governments, board rooms and indeed any positions of power". When we go down to the average where the majority of us live that picture is not nearly so simple. And provably so.

If this male domination was in play men would be the ones who would live longer healthier lives, be better educated, have much lower suicide statistics, much lower workplace injuries and deaths, better divorce outcomes(more an issue outside of Ireland), more medical attention and more social support across the board. But they quite simply don't.

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

If this male domination was in play men would be the ones who would live longer healthier lives, be better educated, have much lower suicide statistics, much lower workplace injuries and deaths, better divorce outcomes(more an issue outside of Ireland), more medical attention and more social support across the board. But they quite simply don't.

That might be true in some cases but it ignores the biological differences. What if men choose riskier jobs, women are more predisposed to sitting and reading textbooks, men choose less healthy hobbies or lifestyles.

Men could be getting what they choose and having lower outcomes. The two aren’t mutually exclusive

silverharp

you could weave the 2 together by saying that men dominate other men, there is no collective attempt by men to dominate women. Men at the top of the hierarchy aren't trawler men or farmers or work construction.
Feminism is a croc for the very reason it pits men versus women in Marxist terms, society is far more complex

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

you could weave the 2 together by saying that men dominate other men, there is no collective attempt by men to dominate women. Men at the top of the hierarchy aren't trawler men or farmers or work construction.
Feminism is a croc for the very reason it pits men versus women in Marxist terms, society is far more complex

So the men at the top are only against other men and not against women as well? If that’s what you’re saying, it’s rubbish.

The people at the top are probably intent on keeping themselves at the top to the exclusion of the rest (e.g. opposing inheritance tax) but there’s nothing in that which affects men and not women.

Imagine your outcry of it was women at the top. Ha! I’ve a sneaking suspicion that you’d see the problem for the other gender (your gender) if that were the case.

You’re talking about a class issues which are valid too. But they’re not the whole problem. Some issues are specific to gender.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So the men at the top are only against other men and not against women as well? If that’s what you’re saying, it’s rubbish.

The people at the top are probably intent on keeping themselves at the top to the exclusion of the rest (e.g. opposing inheritance tax) but there’s nothing in that which affects men and not women.

Imagine your outcry of it was women at the top. Ha! I’ve a sneaking suspicion that you’d see the problem for the other gender (your gender) if that were the case.

You’re talking about a class issues which are valid too. But they’re not the whole problem. Some issues are specific to gender.

you could say an individual man at the top just wants to dominate full stop so gender doesn't matter as such, but if men wanted to dominate women they'd have women working the fields outside of some primitive societies where the men seem to sit around a lot. As such society is run based on having some men being more expendable than others, Army , mining etc. which fall along biological lines.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

you could say an individual man at the top just wants to dominate full stop so gender doesn't matter as such, but if men wanted to dominate women they'd have women working the fields outside of some primitive societies where the men seem to sit around a lot. As such society is run based on having some men being more expendable than others, Army , mining etc. which fall along biological lines.

I agree about the people at the top wanting to stay at the top.

And childcare which tends to fall along biological lines and has the effect of taking women out of the workforce through parental leave, part time working, child related emergencies and ultimately results in pay differences.

Like I said, if there were women at the top instead of men, I suspect you’d see it as a gender problem as well as a social class problem.

I always think it’s interesting how women in politics, have their clothes commented on. Obama emptied his wardrobe and got white shirts, a blue suit and a navy suit and a couple of ties. He had a wardrobe full of the same suits like batman. He did it so there was no decision to make around what to wear. I don’t think anyone really commented on his clothes.

Teresa May has to have a different outfit nearly every day. They have to be different to avoid criticism, and conservative to avoid criticism, and elegant to avoid criticism, not too expensive to avoid criticism, and not too cheap to avoid criticism.

The pressures on men and women at the top, and every other level, are not the same and are not necessarily equal.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I agree about the people at the top wanting to stay at the top.

And childcare which tends to fall along biological lines and has the effect of taking women out of the workforce through parental leave, part time working, child related emergencies and ultimately results in pay differences.

Like I said, if there were women at the top instead of men, I suspect you’d see it as a gender problem as well as a social class problem.

I always think it’s interesting how women in politics, have their clothes commented on. Obama emptied his wardrobe and got white shirts, a blue suit and a navy suit and a couple of ties. He had a wardrobe full of the same suits like batman. He did it so there was no decision to make around what to wear. I don’t think anyone really commented on his clothes.

Teresa May has to have a different outfit nearly every day. They have to be different to avoid criticism, and conservative to avoid criticism, and elegant to avoid criticism, not too expensive to avoid criticism, and not too cheap to avoid criticism.

The pressures on men and women at the top, and every other level, are not the same and are not necessarily equal.

I'd say a lot of that clothes pressure is generated by women? for example there is a whole mini industry in filming female celebs without makeup, the market isnt men.

for biologically essential reasons i would always expect more male than female leaders, if it reversed i'd expect to see men being legally handicapped.

newport2

silverharp wrote: »

I'd say a lot of that clothes pressure is generated by women? for example there is a whole mini industry in filming female celebs without makeup, the market isnt men.

This. And if you wear pretty much the same outfit every day - like most male politicians do - there's nothing to comment on. The reason women's outfits generate a lot more attention is a) a lot of women are interested in them and b) there is a large diversity in what women wear, hence there's more to talk about.

silverharp

newport2 wrote: »

This. And if you wear pretty much the same outfit every day - like most male politicians do - there's nothing to comment on. The reason women's outfits generate a lot more attention is a) a lot of women are interested in them and b) there is a large diversity in what women wear, hence there's more to talk about.

Part of the inspiration for women's fashion is a display of wealth coupled with a lack of practicality, though saying that female power dressing has developed in the last few decades, but otherwise the signal is, not being someone that has to do manual or low paid work or even signalling not having to work at all because they are married to high value men. That is why men don't wear high heels, the signal is we got shiiit do to and have to get from A to B in the quickest time possible

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I agree about the people at the top wanting to stay at the top.

And childcare which tends to fall along biological lines and has the effect of taking women out of the workforce through parental leave, part time working, child related emergencies and ultimately results in pay differences.

Like I said, if there were women at the top instead of men, I suspect you’d see it as a gender problem as well as a social class problem.

I always think it’s interesting how women in politics, have their clothes commented on. Obama emptied his wardrobe and got white shirts, a blue suit and a navy suit and a couple of ties. He had a wardrobe full of the same suits like batman. He did it so there was no decision to make around what to wear. I don’t think anyone really commented on his clothes.

Teresa May has to have a different outfit nearly every day. They have to be different to avoid criticism, and conservative to avoid criticism, and elegant to avoid criticism, not too expensive to avoid criticism, and not too cheap to avoid criticism.

The pressures on men and women at the top, and every other level, are not the same and are not necessarily equal.

I'd say a lot of that clothes pressure is generated by women? for example there is a whole mini industry in filming female celebs without makeup, the market isnt men.

So what if it is generated by women? I don’t think it’s exclusively women btw but even if we grant that it’s primarily women. So what? My point was that men and women face different and not necessarily equal challenges.

silverharp wrote: »

for biologically essential reasons i would always expect more male than female leaders, if it reversed i'd expect to see men being legally handicapped.

Could you explain what you mean by that. It’s an expectation with a hefty belief system behind it so it would be great if you would explain what you mean, why you think it’s true and give a rough estimate of the ratio that you think would naturally result. How much of the difference is biological and how much is social, in your estimation?

You also ignored the response to your claim about men being boxed into gendered roles - women also being boxed into gendered roles e.g. child care which has a knock on effect on work and pay.

johnnyskeleton

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So what if it is generated by women? I don’t think it’s exclusively women btw but even if we grant that it’s primarily women. So what? My point was that men and women face different and not necessarily equal challenges.

So what? Well it basically disproves the suggestion that there is an evil male patriachy that stops women entering politics.

Now that that is established, can we finally move on from feminism and stop attributing blame for every single problem that every woman or indeed any woman has ever encountered to patriarchy?

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Could you explain what you mean by that. It’s an expectation with a hefty belief system behind it so it would be great if you would explain what you mean, why you think it’s true and give a rough estimate of the ratio that you think would naturally result. How much of the difference is biological and how much is social, in your estimation?

as a product of evolution, the most successful males got to pass on more genes more through human history. As a simple experiment, Ill call it an hypothesis but maybe its been done test a sample of leaders in various fields, i would bet my bottom dollar that they would have higher testosterone levels than average. Clearly women can be leaders too but the pool of women that can compete with men at the very top is smaller. And again yes there is a socilisation element and expectation etc but I believe there will be a permanent gender gap unless we end up living in a very authoritarian state where merit is discounted and its all quotas

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You also ignored the response to your claim about men being boxed into gendered roles - women also being boxed into gendered roles e.g. child care which has a knock on effect on work and pay.

what about it?

El_Duderino 09

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So what? Well it basically disproves the suggestion that there is an evil male patriachy that stops women entering politics.

Now that that is established, can we finally move on from feminism and stop attributing blame for every single problem that every woman or indeed any woman has ever encountered to patriarchy?

That’s never been my contention that there’s an evil male patriarchy etc. If that’s all you’re focused on, I can see why you might miss the broader issue.

Triceratops Ballet

silverharp wrote: »

as a product of evolution, the most successful males got to pass on more genes more through human history. As a simple experiment, Ill call it an hypothesis but maybe its been done test a sample of leaders in various fields, i would bet my bottom dollar that they would have higher testosterone levels than average. Clearly women can be leaders too but the pool of women that can compete with men at the very top is smaller. And again yes there is a socilisation element and expectation etc but I believe there will be a permanent gender gap unless we end up living in a very authoritarian state where merit is discounted and its all quotas

I don't understand this point, I mean if we're talking about leadership of a tribe where the physically strongest person is the leader, then sure there is a testosterone advantage, but I don't see how that's applied across intellectual fields?

Sleepy

Testosterone increases the desire to compete. Those that reach the top won't have done so unopposed.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

as a product of evolution, the most successful males got to pass on more genes more through human history. As a simple experiment, Ill call it an hypothesis but maybe its been done test a sample of leaders in various fields, i would bet my bottom dollar that they would have higher testosterone levels than average. Clearly women can be leaders too but the pool of women that can compete with men at the very top is smaller. And again yes there is a socilisation element and expectation etc but I believe there will be a permanent gender gap unless we end up living in a very authoritarian state where merit is discounted and its all quotas

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You also ignored the response to your claim about men being boxed into gendered roles - women also being boxed into gendered roles e.g. child care which has a knock on effect on work and pay.

what about it?

So would you also accept other differences as biological such as men living shorter lives than women, or boys performing less well in education?

Would it take “a very authoritarian state where merit is discounted and its all quotas” for those differences to balance out too?

silverharp

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I don't understand this point, I mean if we're talking about leadership of a tribe where the physically strongest person is the leader, then sure there is a testosterone advantage, but I don't see how that's applied across intellectual fields?

men tend to do dominate innovation , start ups , setting up new businesses. to do this you need to be a risk taker among other things. Its well documented that men take on more risk than women, so that's one element of biology.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So would you also accept other differences as biological such as men living shorter lives than women, or boys performing less well in education?

Would it take “a very authoritarian state where merit is discounted and its all quotas” for those differences to balance out too?

education is an easy one, the system should consider how boys and girls learn. there is no 1 objectively good education system. Going back a bit they seemed to acknowledge the m/f differences by having technical schools which mostly boys would attend. One would think boys dropping out of education is important as the social costs are very high in terms of welfare/crime and not having a functioning adult? so not one to be gloating over winners and losers
As for shorter lives, there maybe an overall biological gap that will never be breached but certainly education and personal choice is a huge factor so one would always expect a public discussion on things like obesity or other heath risks

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

education is an easy one, the system should consider how boys and girls learn. there is no 1 objectively good education system. Going back a bit they seemed to acknowledge the m/f differences by having technical schools which mostly boys would attend. One would think boys dropping out of education is important as the social costs are very high in terms of welfare/crime and not having a functioning adult? so not one to be gloating over winners and losers
As for shorter lives, there maybe an overall biological gap that will never be breached but certainly education and personal choice is a huge factor so one would always expect a public discussion on things like obesity or other heath risks

So why is there an immovable target for leadership, and the target for education can be moved to make sure boys achieve the same overall results as girls?

What if there’s a biological reason for girls to out perform boys in education? If that’s the case, should we also gloss over different gender outcomes education in the way you would like to do with leadership?

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So why is there an immovable target for leadership, and the target for education can be moved to make sure boys achieve the same overall results as girls?

Leadership I'd argue is a free market, I don't care who the leader is once they have competed for it.

I'd didn't say that so no point commenting on it

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What if there’s a biological reason for girls to out perform boys in education? If that’s the case, should we also gloss over different gender outcomes education in the way you would like to do with leadership?

there is no objective education system, its clear some people are more academic than others or some people are more practical than others, some people are more arty than others. The UK system at the end teaches a smaller range of subjects compared to the Irish system, the German system has 3 types of schools based on ability.
At a minimum a school system shouldnt produce failures, if more boys are academically weak then they should be offered something else , or girls that are failing too, acknowledging that their adult options will be in a different direction

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

Leadership I'd argue is a free market, I don't care who the leader is once they have competed for it.

I'd didn't say that so no point commenting on it

there is no objective education system, its clear some people are more academic than others or some people are more practical than others, some people are more arty than others. The UK system at the end teaches a smaller range of subjects compared to the Irish system, the German system has 3 types of schools based on ability.
At a minimum a school system shouldnt produce failures, if more boys are academically weak then they should be offered something else , or girls that are failing too, acknowledging that their adult options will be in a different direction

Is there an objective leadership system that has to have men at the top?

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is there an objective leadership system that has to have men at the top?

that doesn't seem like a serious question

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is there an objective leadership system that has to have men at the top?

that doesn't seem like a serious question

It’s the essence of your argument.

Education doesn’t have an objective standard, so you can play around with the format. Your argument assumes that there is an Objective standard for leadership. Is there, in your opinion?

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’s the essence of your argument.

Education doesn’t have an objective standard, so you can play around with the format. Your argument assumes that there is an Objective standard for leadership. Is there, in your opinion?

I wouldn't have thought so, competing ideas, competing styles , different landscapes. if an entity keeps employing poor leaders they will fail eventually, if leaders are seen as forward thinking etc. people will write books about them and other leaders or potential leaders can learn from their styles and ideas.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’s the essence of your argument.

Education doesn’t have an objective standard, so you can play around with the format. Your argument assumes that there is an Objective standard for leadership. Is there, in your opinion?

I wouldn't have thought so, competing ideas, competing styles , different landscapes. if an entity keeps employing poor leaders they will fail eventually, if leaders are seen as forward thinking etc. people will write books about them and other leaders or potential leaders can learn from their styles and ideas.

Well this brings us back to asking why you drew a distinction between education and leadership on the basis that there’s no objective standard for education.

Your argument to explain your expectation that there should be more male leaders than female has included, biological differences hinging on testosterone and competition and men will naturally win out absent authoritarian state intervention. There’s nothing to be done here.

Conversely when women do better due to biological differences in education, we should do whatever it takes to even the score. You haven’t said explicitly whether or not you think that amounts to authoritarian state intervention, but I presume you think the state intervention to help boys is right and proper. Would that be true?

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well this brings us back to asking why you drew a distinction between education and leadership on the basis that there’s no objective standard for education.

Your argument to explain your expectation that there should be more male leaders than female has included, biological differences hinging on testosterone and competition and men will naturally win out absent authoritarian state intervention. There’s nothing to be done here.

Conversely when women do better due to biological differences in education, we should do whatever it takes to even the score. You haven’t said explicitly whether or not you think that amounts to authoritarian state intervention, but I presume you think the state intervention to help boys is right and proper. Would that be true?

im shocked you cant see the difference

cfuserkildare

From memory,
I recall the fact that it was the older women that told girls/women how to act and behave, not older men!
So why is this even a thing?
Society is shaped by Matriarchs, and yet sooo many people seem to forget this fact!!

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

im shocked you cant see the difference

You shouldn’t be so shocked. You made an assertion, then relied on ‘objective standard’ as the distinction Then you admit neither has an objective standard. So your back to simply making an assertion and being shocked that I don’t agree with you.

The main difference I see is that the one you support helps men and the other doesn’t. That’s par for the course in your arguments. It doesn’t bring you any closer to demonstrating reasons for your original assertion.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You shouldn’t be so shocked. You made an assertion, then relied on ‘objective standard’ as the distinction Then you admit neither has an objective standard. So your back to simply making an assertion and being shocked that I don’t agree with you.

The main difference I see is that the one you support helps men and the other doesn’t. That’s par for the course in your arguments. It doesn’t bring you any closer to demonstrating reasons for your original assertion.

apples and oranges. Failing boys will be a huge societal cost in the future, crime, welfare costs , violence , playing their part in teenage pregnancies. There isn't a utopian solution but making education attractive is a variable and its not a win lose proposition and its not displacing girl's education. its just a good thing to do. You are exactly like the guys in the news piece with Hoff Summers. You do get that these failing boys are never in the CEO target market. its prison versus possible useful member of society. So why wouldn't a state supplied service try to do a better job?

Who ends up being leaders is the market's job to work out, I don't care. If companies run by women do better than ones run by men, then set up a hedge fund and short companies run by men and buy companies run by women assuming the market is wrong. Otherwise I don't care that some women on 200K per year wishes they were on 400K per year, they should make their case when they go for an interview to be a CEO.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

apples and oranges. Failing boys will be a huge societal cost in the future, crime, welfare costs , violence , playing their part in teenage pregnancies. There isn't a utopian solution but making education attractive is a variable and its not a win lose proposition and its not displacing girl's education. its just a good thing to do. You are exactly like the guys in the news piece with Hoff Summers. You do get that these failing boys are never in the CEO target market. its prison versus possible useful member of society. So why wouldn't a state supplied service try to do a better job?

Oh I think the we should improve education. You don’t need to sell that idea to me. The objective is to explain why we should work to improve men’s education outcomes and by extension their job and earning outcomes, and not work to improve women’s outcomes.

If women on lower wages were a more costly problem and societal danger closer to the uneducated men you mention above, then would your attitude to women’s outcomes be the same as it is towards men?

silverharp wrote: »

Who ends up being leaders is the market's job to work out, I don't care. If companies run by women do better than ones run by men, then set up a hedge fund and short companies run by men and buy companies run by women assuming the market is wrong. Otherwise I don't care that some women on 200K per year wishes they were on 400K per year, they should make their case when they go for an interview to be a CEO.

I get that you don’t care but this assumes there aren’t any unnecessary or artificial barriers to women in the workforce -to anyone in the workforce for that matter.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh I think the we should improve education. You don’t need to sell that idea to me. The objective is to explain why we should work to improve men’s education outcomes and by extension their job and earning outcomes, and not work to improve women’s outcomes.

If women on lower wages were a more costly problem and societal danger closer to the uneducated men you mention above, then would your attitude to women’s outcomes be the same as it is towards men?

its why you shouldnt use all men versus all women prisms,its as much a class issue as anything else, remember when the left used to concern itself with such :P

you set up the contrast not me, girls that fail in education will more likely become single others and efforts should be made lower their failure levels after all, working class teenage mothers are more likely to raise the next generation of failing boys (and girls)

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I get that you don’t care but this assumes there aren’t any unnecessary or artificial barriers to women in the workforce -to anyone in the workforce for that matter.

it ends up in very foggy arguments which simply comes down to if there are more men in something good=muh oppressed which lacks any understanding of the complexities of society and what men and women are trying to achieve

flaneur

My view of if is I don't see much difference at all between the the sexes, other than plumbing and child bearing stuff. For the most part to me they're all "the lads" and I've plenty of male and female friends and colleagues and I don't treat them any differently.

I'm a big supporter of the equality aspect of feminism and I will stand up for everyone to get equal opportunities. I'd also advocate way better paternity leave to balance out women taking time out of the work place and I genuinely think it's good for kids to get time with their dad too and good for guys to get to bond with their kids. It's also very unfair to expect women to just do all that stuff automatically - it's got to be shared.

I don't think what sometimes describes itself as feminism, but is actually just like some kind of revenge attack on centuries of sexism against women by attacking men, is really feminism at all. Or, at least it's some kind of extension of it that's stretching three meaning. To me, that's just sexism turned on the opposite gender to the traditional target.

I can appreciate the anger at the patriarchal history, but I'm not part of it, nor do I take any responsibility for it and two wrongs don't make a right.