Equality... NOT Feminism

trixychic

So I am gonna to voice my (most likely to be) very unpopular opinion. Keep in mind that I am a 28yr old young woman and this is my personal opinion.

This new age feminism stuff is a load of bullsh!t!!!

Now don't get me wrong. I believe in EQUALITY! People should get paid the same amount for doing the same job and everyone should have equal rights when making personal decisions and NO ONE should ever be subjected to violence.

But all this crap about "International Woman's day" and having to mention constantly "well done to all women" it's driving me insane.

We want to abolish discrimination but these new age feminists are taking it and flipping it 180 degrees so that they are now discriminating against men.

If they want "equality" as they say, why isn't there an international men's day? Why is there "Its for women" insurance. I can guarantee if there was an insurance company called "it's for men" there would be all out WAR!

As regards to insurance I reckon every person should be given a quote depending on their capabilities and not "because they are male/female".

All this crap about "man-splaining" and how men are being disrespectful by "sitting with their legs apart" is all absolute bull.

Men have now shifted into the position of being discriminated against but if they or anyone else dares to open their mouths about the new inequality that is there they are knocked back and told to shut up and told that they are sexist or racist or some kind of biast against women.

It has gone too far but no-one is standing up and saying "this has to stop!" They are too afraid too.

Anyways. That's my personal opinion on things.

Toto Wolfcastle

trixychic wrote: »

If they want "equality" as they say, why isn't there an international men's day?

There is.

trixychic wrote: »

Why is there "Its for women" insurance. I can guarantee if there was an insurance company called "it's for men" there would be all out WAR!

As regards to insurance I reckon every person should be given a quote depending on their capabilities and not "because they are male/female".

My husband is insured through It's For Women.

trixychic

Toto Wolfcastle wrote: »

There is.



My husband is insured through It's For Women.

I'm not saying that they don't Insure men. I'm trying to say if it was called "it's for men" there would be murder cause it would be seen as discrimination.

To me calling it "it's for women" is discrimination.

trixychic

Toto Wolfcastle wrote: »

There is.

Sorry your right. There is an "International Mens day" but the hype for it isn't there. I believe people are afraid to celebrate it because of the feminists out there.

Delirium

trixychic wrote: »

Sorry your right. There is an "International Mens day" but the hype for it isn't there. I believe people are afraid to celebrate it because of the feminists out there.

It's interesting that a lot of men only seem interested in "International Mens day" on "International Womens day".

B0jangles

If new-age feminism is so powerful and controlling why are women still so underrepresented when it comes to actual power? Most boardrooms are still male-dominated, as are most governments.

The majority of the people who actually get to write and administer our laws are still men, so why would they be writing laws that actively discriminate against themselves?

For me, this is the major sticking point in that argument - it is regularly claimed that the pendulum has swung too far and men are now being actively discriminated against but how are the men-hating feminists able to make this happen?

Angry blog posts and placards can only do so much - legislation still has to be written and administered to make the supposed modern feminist oppression of men a reality, and the majority of those who write that legislation are still men.

If modern feminism is hell-bent on oppressing men, then they are really terrible at it - with all this power they are supposed to have, you'd think they'd have the 8th already repealed and the gender mix of the Dáil switched from being 22% women to maybe only 22% male.

Consider asking yourself why that hasn't happened and what that implies about the actual power wielded by feminism.

seamus

B0jangles wrote: »

If modern feminism is hell-bent on oppressing men, then they are really terrible at it - with all this power they are supposed to have, you'd think they'd have the 8th already repealed and the gender mix of the Dáil switched from being 22% women to maybe only 22% male.

Consider asking yourself why that hasn't happened and what that implies about the actual power wielded by feminism.

This.

There's a lot of noise made about "modern feminism", but just like the OP and just like Veganism, most of this noise is people complaining about feminism, not actual feminists themselves.

I don't think I've ever seen a single thread in After Hours about feminist issues that didn't start out as complaint about feminism.

"To those who are privileged, equality looks like oppression".

Ultimately the issue here is personal protectionism. When someone says, "There's a gender pay gap", people starting thinking about how this affects them - what are they going to lose if the gap is removed. Likewise with gender quotas - people worry about whether they will lose their job to a woman.

I'm egalitarian. Which by definition also makes me a feminist; but I wouldn't concentrate exclusively on equality for women.

As an egalitarian, I have to accept that equality means sacrificing privileges to gain equalities. Unfortunately some people cannot accept this. They want equality in theory, but they also want to hold onto some of the privileges that they gain by virtue of their gender. The two are incompatible.

And that goes for both genders.

B0jangles

trixychic wrote: »

I'm not saying that they don't Insure men. I'm trying to say if it was called "it's for men" there would be murder cause it would be seen as discrimination.

To me calling it "it's for women" is discrimination.

As an aside, this has been done a few times:

trixychic

seamus wrote: »

As an egalitarian, I have to accept that equality means sacrificing privileges to gain equalities. Unfortunately some people cannot accept this. They want equality in theory, but they also want to hold onto some of the privileges that they gain by virtue of their gender. The two are incompatible.

And that goes for both genders.

I think this is the issue I have. Any feminists that I have seen (my sister being one of them) want this "equality" both ways. They are unwilling to give up privileges to gain the equality that is there.

If there is a more fair equality battle going on I'm afraid I am oblivious to it as 90% of the feminist sources I have seen or heard of (and I don't go seeking it out- this is through radio, newspapers and television) has been that "men hating" crap and major emphasis being put on well done women and boo to men kind of attitude. Which is why I am of this opinion.

B0jangles

trixychic wrote: »

I think this is the issue I have. Any feminists that I have seen (my sister being one of them) want this "equality" both ways. They are unwilling to give up privileges to gain the equality that is there.

If there is a more fair equality battle going on I'm afraid I am oblivious to it as 90% of the feminist sources I have seen or heard of (and I don't go seeking it out- this is through radio, newspapers and television) has been that "men hating" crap and major emphasis being put on well done women and boo to men kind of attitude. Which is why I am of this opinion.

It might be worth considering why most media sources prefer to publicize the loudest and most extreme voices rather than the majority who spend their time campaigning for actual equality.

(It's because extremism of any kind tends to generate a lot more page views and page views = ad revenue.)

Compare

"Long-established Feminist group calls for subsidized childcare to help women stay in workforce!"
with
"Otherwise obscure Blogger says all men are rapists!"

Which is going to sell more papers?

trixychic

B0jangles wrote: »

If new-age feminism is so powerful and controlling why are women still so underrepresented when it comes to actual power? Most boardrooms are still male-dominated, as are most governments.

I completely agree that they are still male dominated but are there enough women at the minute to take their places. I think (and hope and encourage) that more women of the present schooling system will go on to more senior roles but the women of lets say from 35yrs old and up were not encouraged enough to go onto these kind of roles.

Which is wrong I itself and I agree that children (regardless of gender) should be encouraged to follow whatever career path that they are interested in and to try make it to the top of said career path If its what they want.

I do agree that there is still some gender inequality going on. Especially in roles of actors or CEOs and this does need to be changed. But I do think that some of he feminists have taken it too far!!!

trixychic

B0jangles wrote: »

It might be worth considering why most media sources prefer to publicize the loudest and most extreme voices rather than the majority who spend their time campaigning for actual equality.

(It's because extremism of any kind tends to generate a lot more page views and page views = ad revenue.)

Compare

"Long-established Feminist group calls for subsidized childcare to help women stay in workforce!"
with
"Otherwise obscure Blogger says all men are rapists!"

Which is going to sell more papers?

That is a very good point. And May be something else that needs to change.

trixychic

trixychic wrote: »

I'm not saying that they don't Insure men. I'm trying to say if it was called "it's for men" there would be murder cause it would be seen as discrimination.

To me calling it "it's for women" is discrimination.

Calling something by a name is not discrimination, maybe you need to look up the definition , if they actually discriminated against men, which they don't, then that would be illegal.

Also, I am currently working with a large number of Europeans overseas, international women's day has been celebrated for years, most of the men I work with see it as a day to let the women in their life know they appreciate them.
One of the guys told me he has bought a rose for his mother every year since he was a child on that day.
Can't see the harm myself........

Do any of ye think that maybe the reason feminism has mutated into something that everyone doesn't necessarily support is that it's built on a masculine concept of power?

B0jangles

Every movement has extremists; why do you judge feminism, which is a global and decentralized movement of millions of women, solely by the occasional extremist you hear about in the mass media?

You say yourself that there is still some gender inequality going on - that is not going to change by itself. No equality movement has achieved its aims by sitting around quietly and waiting for things to get better by themselves. Change happens when people campaign for it.

Gay people campaigned to be treated as equals and our society has changed massively as a result, but there are still hurdles to be overcome and progress to be made, which is why there are still gay rights organizations.
Transgender people are only now starting to make progress in their fight for equality, but there is still a very long way to go.
Black people in the US fought long and hard to be treated as equals in the US and that fight is still ongoing.

Martin Luther King is often held up as a paragon of the 'right' way to fight for equality, not like awful aggressive modern civil-rights campaigners, but he himself was decried as a domestic terrorist by many of his contemporaries.

Women have campaigned to be treated as equals for well over a century - our grandmothers and great-grandmothers campaigned for their right to vote, to own property in the same way as men did, to be paid as much, to keep their jobs after marriage and for many many other things.
The current fight is the right to choose whether or not to remain pregnant.

Progress is not always one way, a right can be taken away as easily as it can be given - it's a mistake to believe that just because things seem ok at the moment that they will stay this way forever.

baby and crumble

I saw an interesting video from Mhari Black (Scottish MP) the other day, in which she makes the very valid point that the structures which bind a lot of society (eg policies, protocols and legislation) were developed 100's of years ago when men made all the decisions and women weren't allowed in the workforce etc.

The push for equality via feminism now feels like an extreme change and "going too far" because it's an example of basically the foundations of major policies needing to be rebuilt, and that's scary.

It's very easy to see why feminism is still needed, and to call it "egalitarianism" in many ways (not all, I hasten to add) nullifies that a lot of the differences that need to be addressed exist for no other reason that sexism.

Western medicine is a prime example. The norms are based upon research and experience of a predominantly male field. The traditonally well-known symptoms of a heart attack, for example- the heaviness of the chest, pain in the left arm, etc- are based around how men experience heart attack. Women tend to feel nausea and other symptoms instead of pain in the heart area. Likewise the pain tolerance scale is based upon male tolerance to pain. Women have been proven time and time again to generally have a higher pain tolerance. So when a man says the pain is at a 7, a woman experiencing the same would say a 4 or 5. Only very recently have we seen medical professionals acknowledge that period pain can be just as painful as a male heart attack. So not being able to function for work a few days per month, when experiencing pain at the level of a heart attack, is not unreasonable yet women are still expected to work through that.

seamus

baby and crumble wrote: »

Western medicine is a prime example. The norms are based upon research and experience of a predominantly male field.

Vehicular safety too. It's a really interesting topic.

Up until the late 1980's all vehicle safety testing was done using a dummy that approximate the average male. Basic safety standards for vehicles took the average man into account and nobody else.

In 1988 a "female" dummy was developed and it wasn't until the late 90's / early 00s that dummies for teenagers, toddlers and babies started being widely used.

In fact, much of our currently technology and data comes from those early tests based off a male model dummy. When clearly smaller and lighter body frames and different internal organs will react differently in crashes and safety equipment needs to account for this.

We're obviously millions of miles ahead of where we were in the 1970s, but it's really interesting to look back at how seemingly simple things were developed purely with "the average man" in mind, and it was never considered necessary to look at anything else, instead it was assumed that what held true for him held broadly true for everyone.

When feminists talk about "patriarchy" or "male-centric", this is the kind of thing they're talking about. The subtle, unintentional biases of society. It's not a case of finger-pointing at men and calling them evil.

And to satisfy the whatabouters, there are subtle, unintentional biases that occur the other way. Such as builders putting baby-changing facilities in or beside the female toilets.

baby and crumble

seamus wrote: »

When feminists talk about "patriarchy" or "male-centric", this is the kind of thing they're talking about. The subtle, unintentional biases of society. It's not a case of finger-pointing at men and calling them evil.

This. I'd say a good 90% of my female friends would strongly identify as feminist, but I don't think any of tus would say that hate men, or wnat to see men doing badly. Most actually are trying to harness feminism to promote better outcomes for men, very much.

Also, "feminism" is a massively misunderstood term. There are so many types of feminism that in reality, it's nearly impossible for people to keep up. It's not a blanket term, at all. There's infighting within feminsm too. You have intersectional feminists who look at feminist issues as they intersect with race, sexuality, class etc. There are others, like TERFs (trans exclusionary radical feminists) who, broadly speaking, are much maligned within the feminst world for their horribly transphobic thinking.

Triceratops Ballet

As someone who self describes as both a feminist and an egalitarian, I think the mistake many people make is judging it as one movement. It's not, there is no monthly feminist meeting where people agree to all of the same ideas, feminism is as broad and diverse as the people part-taking in it. I actively use the term feminist to describe myself, because despite the fact that I don't support the current wave of "man-hating" feminists (for want of a better expression) I'll be damned if I'm going to let them take and destroy the name of feminism, which is still a valid movement and imo still has a place.

If your opinion of feminism is solely based on click bait articles then you're not experiencing it to it's fullest, there are plenty of feminists consistently going to bat for and encouraging women, winning their battles inch by inch.

If you think feminism isn't necessary go an have a read of ANY thread on here about rape (granted rape is not just a female issue) or even on women wanting to keep their own names after marriage. The reason it seems to some men that things are going too far now is that all the top level things are handled, on paper women are equal to men legally, now that this is done women are trying to tackle to social structures that led to these things in the first place, legal change is easy to support because of the relative emotional distance between the person and the law, social change seems overwhelming because it seems to be attacking the very way in which you live your life, but for equality to be real for both genders, it has to permeate society and not just be surface level ie the law.

One eyed Jack

Some very interesting points in this thread, but there's some things that stick out like a sore thumb:

trixychic wrote: »

As regards to insurance I reckon every person should be given a quote depending on their capabilities and not "because they are male/female".

Insurance rates are based upon risk assessment, not on gender, and it just so happens that in assessing an individual for insurance cover, the fact is that young males present as a higher risk, and therefore pay a higher premium. Insurance companies already do take an individuals capabilities into account and that's why an older male driver with a number of years experience will likely pay a lot less for their insurance cover than a young female driver just starting to drive.

trixychic wrote: »

All this crap about "man-splaining" and how men are being disrespectful by "sitting with their legs apart" is all absolute bull.

I dunno is it though. By that I mean for example that here in the Ladies Lounge, it's acknowledged that discussions are encouraged from the perspective of women, and I completely get that, so y'know, often times I might like to contribute to or engage in a discussion, but I feel like "wellll, 'snot really my place to go barging in", and an example of this is one that came up recently when a poster started this thread:

[Question] What can women leaders do to break into executive roles in Ireland?


I have some ideas, but I just thought I'd hold back because, well, again, if you're interested in hearing from women, you're not going to be interested in hearing from men, and that's one of the more important concepts in gender diversity in the workplace. Men and women bring different opinions to the table because their experiences are different, often by virtue of their gender.

I should say at this point that I have absolutely zero interest in gender equality. It does nothing for me, it's not something I could ever be passionate about. Gender diversity on the other hand, that's something I am interested in, and for me the idea of feminism has always been "of women, for women". By that I mean women advocating for their own welfare, creating opportunities for themselves, and promoting themselves. Men are fcuking wonderful at promoting themselves (:pac:); women, unfortunately, on the other hand, not so much, in my experience. I kinda felt bad for the OP of that thread after that the discussion didn't evolve beyond a handful of posts. It gives the impression that women aren't interested in leadership positions, and again, I know from my own experience that simply isn't a fair reflection of the women I know, who are great leaders, motivators, and they inspire the people around them.

trixychic wrote: »

Men have now shifted into the position of being discriminated against but if they or anyone else dares to open their mouths about the new inequality that is there they are knocked back and told to shut up and told that they are sexist or racist or some kind of biast against women.

It has gone too far but no-one is standing up and saying "this has to stop!" They are too afraid too.

Anyways. That's my personal opinion on things.

Oh they haven't, Christ! :pac:

No, I really don't agree with that, at all. Men are, and always have been, perfectly free to open their mouths. The same can't be said for women, so nowadays when women do open their mouths, of course it's going to ruffle a few peacocks feathers. Personally I think that women haven't gone far enough in speaking up for themselves and being assertive.

Generally though, when people do open their mouths to object to we'll say a point of view from a feminist perspective, they really do tend to base their arguments on sexism, racism, or as you put it some other kind of bias against women. I'll freely admit myself to being sexist, as I don't believe in gender equality, and I don't believe it is actually either possible, or beneficial, to either or both sexes. I've never been told to shut up (although I've no doubt some people wish I would :pac:), but there have been a couple of occasions alright where I have been labelled sexist or misogynist on the basis of my opinion. Now, in order for that to be a valid criticism, I would have to take it seriously, which, I don't, and therefore I'm not afraid of being called sexist or misogynist or whatever else. It doesn't bother me. In order for someone to be afraid of something, it has to be something they perceive as a threat, and I've never imagined feminism as any sort of a threat, either to me personally, to men, to women, or society as a whole.

Why not? Because it's a movement that simply has lost any sense of direction as far as I can see, more concerned with appearances, and very little concern with anything of any substance. That's just the impression I get from anyone who identifies themselves nowadays as a feminist, which is why I really don't care one way or the other about their politics - it's become a meaningless label as far as I'm concerned, because it could mean anything.

seamus wrote: »

"To those who are privileged, equality looks like oppression".

Ultimately the issue here is personal protectionism. When someone says, "There's a gender pay gap", people starting thinking about how this affects them - what are they going to lose if the gap is removed. Likewise with gender quotas - people worry about whether they will lose their job to a woman.

That quote works just as much for feminism, as it tends to work against feminism, particularly in the context of intersectional feminism (which is a whole other ball of feminist fun!).

I think there's definitely a part of the opposition to feminism is about personal protectionism, as much as feminism is about self-promotion. By that I mean that it's not so much that people worry about whether they will lose their job to a woman, but that they worry that the meritocratic structure of promotion is being dismantled and being replaced by a structure where the value of a persons worth is solely based upon their gender, and not on their capacity to fulfil the duties of the role in question, regardless of their gender. Typically and historically, the meritocratic system has favoured men, but in modern society the field has been evened out and women are showing themselves to be just as capable of having the capacity to fulfil the duties of the role in question. We still have a meritocratic system, just that now women have more opportunities to engage where they didn't have those opportunities before. I think that's a great thing personally, and I would be against any kind of gender based quota system because it demeans the work ethic of women who have fought just as hard as the small percentage of men, for their position in the C-suite.

seamus wrote: »

I'm egalitarian. Which by definition also makes me a feminist; but I wouldn't concentrate exclusively on equality for women.

This goes back to what I was saying earlier about how someone who identifies as feminist defines feminism, let alone egalitarianism. According to how I would define feminism and egalitarianism, I would see them as completely separate concepts, and so for me someone who identifies themselves as egalitarian, I wouldn't immediately assume they were by definition also a feminist. I do understand though that egalitarianism wouldn't concentrate exclusively on equality for women, I get that an egalitarian would concentrate on equality for men too, which really jars with my concept of feminism that it is "of women, for women". It's kind of a bit like feminists advocating for 'fathers rights'. I'm never going to be able to get my head around that one as parents of opposite sexes have equal rights under the law with regard to their children in Ireland anyway. That's just one example.

seamus wrote: »

As an egalitarian, I have to accept that equality means sacrificing privileges to gain equalities. Unfortunately some people cannot accept this. They want equality in theory, but they also want to hold onto some of the privileges that they gain by virtue of their gender. The two are incompatible.

And that goes for both genders.

You don't have to accept that gaining equality between genders in areas where they aren't equal means sacrificing privileges to gain equalities, and other people shouldn't have to accept it either. Isn't the basis of the argument about inequality that people have privileges which other people don't? Then instead of arguing that people should be willing to give up those privileges which they hold, in order that they become equal with people who don't have those privileges, is effectively a step backwards for both sexes! How does it make any sense in terms of progress in addressing social inequality if the idea is that instead of giving people privilege, we should deny that privilege to the people who already have it? I'm not surprised that people wouldn't want to give up their privilege, it seems like an incredibly foolish thing to do! Certainly your earlier point about personal protectionism then makes sense in that context.

B0jangles wrote: »

Every movement has extremists; why do you judge feminism, which is a global and decentralized movement of millions of women, solely by the occasional extremist you hear about in the mass media?

You say yourself that there is still some gender inequality going on - that is not going to change by itself. No equality movement has achieved its aims by sitting around quietly and waiting for things to get better by themselves. Change happens when people campaign for it.

Gay people campaigned to be treated as equals and our society has changed massively as a result, but there are still hurdles to be overcome and progress to be made, which is why there are still gay rights organizations.
Transgender people are only now starting to make progress in their fight for equality, but there is still a very long way to go.
Black people in the US fought long and hard to be treated as equals in the US and that fight is still ongoing.

Martin Luther King is often held up as a paragon of the 'right' way to fight for equality, not like awful aggressive modern civil-rights campaigners, but he himself was decried as a domestic terrorist by many of his contemporaries.

Women have campaigned to be treated as equals for well over a century - our grandmothers and great-grandmothers campaigned for their right to vote, to own property in the same way as men did, to be paid as much, to keep their jobs after marriage and for many many other things.
The current fight is the right to choose whether or not to remain pregnant.

Progress is not always one way, a right can be taken away as easily as it can be given - it's a mistake to believe that just because things seem ok at the moment that they will stay this way forever.

That's actually one of the problems with feminism, is that it really is a global and decentralised movement of millions of women, all with their own experiences and perspectives that they're bringing to the table. The reason that feminism, and not just feminism, but any movement, any ideology, is judged by it's most extreme elements is simply because they're the most visible, and are therefore judged to be representative of that movement or ideology.

Take your example of Martin Luther King and your point about the current fight being the right to choose whether or not to remain pregnant. Well his niece, Alveda King, is a black civil rights activist, as was her Reverend uncle Martin, and she campaigns against abortion, and seeks to offer alternatives, on the basis that she considers abortion "a racist, genocidal act" (apologies in advance for linking to a Christian website :pac:). She also isn't too fond either of the comparisons drawn between the black civil rights movement, and the gay civil rights movement, and some people do indeed wish she would just shut up (that's about as likely as the second coming of Christ, tbh):

Alveda King’s attempted claiming of the MLK legacy is sad

Even our very own Mary McAleese who has always identified herself as a pro-life feminist and supported the insertion of the 8th amendment into the Irish Constitution, is more concerned with her Church's regard for the role of women within the Church, a position which was misrepresented by the mainstream media and given an entirely different representation:

McAleese did not make pro-abortion remark (again, apologies in advance for the link to a Catholic website, but even a quick google promotes sites that carry the misrepresentation as opposed to the message she actually intended).

B0jangles wrote: »

Progress is not always one way, a right can be taken away as easily as it can be given - it's a mistake to believe that just because things seem ok at the moment that they will stay this way forever.

Progress is of course always one way - forward! The antonym of progressive is regressive, and thankfully it's absolutely not true either that a right can be taken away as easily as it is given, because that would be a regressive step for society, and because the vast majority of people in any given society have a vested interest in seeing society progress, the direction it takes as society moves forward is dependent upon the ideology of the individuals driving it forward. Feminism is still taking a back seat as far as I can see (kudos to seamus for the first time a post about car safety actually makes for a relatable analogy! :pac:), and back seat drivers are terrible at giving directions!

trixychic

Im no way am I here to object to anyone else's opinions. I enjoy reading others opinions too.

Like I said the above is my personal view. And I know I'm not all knowing in these areas but from what i have personally experienced so far this is my take on things.

Pwindedd

My two pennies worth.

I'm lucky that i don't recall ever being hindered in my life because of my gender. Yeh I've had the odd altercation, but nothing noteworthy.

I want equality for women - ALL WOMEN - we're lucky in Western Society. Other women... hmm not so much.

I want better rights for fathers. I think that maternity leave should be completely transferable. I don't want men to feel that we see them as competition. Men and women ARE different. I don't want us to all be the same. But i believe in equality where gender is not a deciding factor. Employment, human rights etc. I don't believe in gender quotas. I liked Matt Taylors shirt. I like when someone holds a door for me, it's a kind thing to do, whether male or female.

But i'm also a little resentful of the way women have been treated in the past. It's human nature to feel empathy for those that went before us and fought for the rights we have now. I don't want to punish men. But I do feel a sting, when i read about Magdalene Laundries, or female circumcisions.

I hate the way feminism has become a dirty word, when the movement made so many leaps forward for us (both men and women). Yes there are extremists, but this is the case in every cause. Anti-racism, anti-terrorism, anti-"anything where humans are not treated with the respect" they deserve.

The majority of women are just getting on with it. The extremists don't represent us, but we shouldn't just rest and say yes we have equality. There are still women in the world who have no choice, no rights, no voice. Feminism may have mutated, be it 2nd or 3rd wave, but i still think it's necessary.

This may seem like a bit of a rant or rambling on, but neither men nor women are entirely comfortable with the progression on equality issues. It's only a century since the suffragette movement - in a history that spans thousands of years. We're not going to get it right all the time. As a species we're going to get it wrong. That's ok. Mistakes are learning experiences. Gender is everything... and nothing. Marriage is no longer confined by gender. People fight tooth and nail to change their gender, to identify as either male or female. But we're striving for equality so why does gender matter if we're all equal ? Tough times but a great time to be alive.

There is no definitive answer - except to be kind, accepting and try our very best to succeed at being us.

For those who believe there would be uproar and outrage if an insurance company with a gender specific name for men existed, I give you this after a 30 second google:

http://www.4thelads.ie

Apparently it's been on the go as long as the womens one.

So, like International Mens Day it does exist and nobody is 'up in arms' over it.

Using extremists to dismiss the concerns of the main body of any group is a well-worn path and it's been a very successful tactic in making the word feminist an insult.

fly_agaric

Candie wrote: »

For those who believe there would be uproar and outrage if an insurance company with a gender specific name for men existed, I give you this after a 30 second google:

http://www.4thelads.ie

Apparently it's been on the go as long as the womens one.

So, like International Mens Day it does exist and nobody is 'up in arms' over it.

From website it looks like a broker that is specialising in finding quotes for the young male pariahs who get refused or hammered with massive premiums.

Being described as a "lad" is not quite the space you want to be in when hunting for low price car insurance.

Would be kind of silly of the gender warriors to gear up for battle to win that booby prize (but you never know)!

ancapailldorcha

Didn't know that this even existed. I even know the owner.

AttentionBebe

Pwindedd wrote:

I want better rights for fathers. I think that maternity leave should be completely transferable. I don't want men to feel that we see them as competition. Men and women ARE different. I don't want us to all be the same. But i believe in equality where gender is not a deciding factor. Employment, human rights etc. I don't believe in gender quotas. I liked Matt Taylors shirt. I like when someone holds a door for me, it's a kind thing to do, whether male or female.

Completely transferrable? Sorry, but no. Partially transferrable sure, but you can't honestly expect women to go immediately back to work after having a baby? Pregnancy and giving birth takes a massive physical toll on the woman's body only and some of that leave needs to remain protected for that purpose. That's before we even get into C-sections, physiotherapy or breastfeeding and the logistics around that.

Neyite

I'm only 43 but I still remember when UK magazines for the Irish market had black censor squares where their family planning adverts would be. I remember condoms going on display for the first time rather than them being something under the counter. I remember when many of my friends refused the contraceptive pill by the town GP because of their religious beliefs. I remember my cousin who had a baby as a teen had to 'go away' for a few months and her child adopted. I remember not being allowed to do metalwork or woodwork or tech drawing because those were 'boys' subjects.

I still see households where a girlfriend or a wife is expected to do the emotional work of the home - the wife work. She's the one expected to remember to book the dentist appointments, organise the birthday cards for both sides of the family or leave work to go to a parent teacher meeting. There's still households where men get OTT praise for being a hands-on-dad, like it's such a novel concept and he's such a hero for actually looking after his own children.

Ireland has come a long way in the last 50 years. It really has. But there are still areas where we could improve things and make it more equal.

Balmed Out

I cant see equality for a few generations.
We are so entrenched in the idea that women are nurturers and men providers. If stay at home fathers, male teachers to young girls, male child care workers, male nurses etc continue to not be considered just as normal as women in these roles then I think the other side of the coin will remain the same too. If predominantly women take time out from work to raise children or feel more responsible for child care and less likely to do overtime etc than their male colleagues then there will be a pay gap, women who take lowly paid but flexible jobs and there will be more men in positions of power in politics etc.

sashafierce

This post has been deleted.

sashafierce

sashafierce wrote: »

. Fair enough but how come then when it comes to consent they want to be treated like little delicate flowers? By this I mean that I read nonsense articles all the time with comments on it saying "Oh hun if you didn't say yes then you didn't consent"
.

Pretty sure when it comes to consent that women actually want to give consent themselves.
Little delicate flowers? Really?

Every article about consent is needed and will continue to be needed until we don't have the utterly shocking sh!te that goes on during every rape case.

sashafierce

This post has been deleted.

sashafierce

sashafierce wrote: »

. It's actually this friend that made me hate feminism

so your friend said something about rape and you now hate feminism?
that makes sense.......

sashafierce

This post has been deleted.

sashafierce

sashafierce wrote: »

Except I never actually said that.

thats exactly what your post says. exactly.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

sashafierce wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Any "ism" or any category of people, once it gets past a certain critical mass, is going to be diverse enough that it necessarily contradicts itself. I quite vehemently disagree with some aspects of feminism (say, the trans exclusionary stuff), really don't care a whole lot about others (emojis etc), deeply care about some (the 8th amendment) and see other arguments as academically interesting even though I'd hope all parties involved see it the same way and not as real life.

One of feminism's strengths is also arguably one of its weaknesses; the fact that it's so polyvalent or diverse. It's a social and political movement with real effects on the ground (effects which range from "I shouldn't have to wear high heels if I don't want to but if I do want to I'm allowed" to "I should be able to read and I shouldn't be genitally mutilated") and it's also an academic discipline or lens which is one of the most significant and influential of the past century.

It's also certainly a victim to the spirit of the times, where all rhetoric, on all fronts is more divisive and absolutist and the most mental voices rise to the top. There are economic factors at play where the more provocative a feminist commentator is, the more profitable she is. Haters gon' hate, Capitalism gon' commodify, and feminism is not immune.

I believe that a woman's life, opinion, experience and rights are not and should not be subservient to that of a man; and that while this is BY FAR the best things have gotten on that front, there's still thousands of years of history and culture to negotiate and examine and move past. I don't believe the sexes are exactly the same, but I believe that an equality of opportunity should be strived for. As far as I'm concerned that makes me a feminist. I'm not going to let the sinister fringe take that away.

Stheno

I often wonder if i grew up in a parallel world. As a secondary student in the 80s i was encouraged to study engineering by my career guidance teacher


I didnt but ended up in IT and with a few exceptions ive rarely encountered true sexism in terms of pay or status.

That said ive chosen not to have children. Perhaps my experience would have been different if i had had children?

joe_99

bubblypop wrote: »

thats exactly what your post says. exactly.

She never said what her friend said made her hate feminism. She said her friend made her hate it.

Neyite

Stheno wrote: »

Perhaps my experience would have been different if i had had children?

Becoming a mother did bring feminism into a sharper focus for me. As the mother of a boy it's important to me that he's reared in a home where his mother works, where his parents share household tasks and who are equal partners in a relationship.

I encounter gender stereotypes every day as a parent. Most of it's harmless but you start to see it, you see it everywhere and you can't unsee it. It's assumed that the mammy is the one that organises the birthday presents for kids parties or gift for teacher, or to remember that it's odd sock day /world book day and send the kid in prepared. There's loads of other wife-work relating to children like appointments, uniforms, playdates that tends to default to mammy to sort out. Aunts (because they buy the gifts!) text me to see what he's into when picking a present for him, not his dad, their brother.

The generic compliment for a boy is that he's a 'grand big lad' when his girl cousin gets told how pretty her dress is. I buy a kinder egg as a surprise and I accidentally pick a pink one. Lego is pink now. My son baulks at playing with 'girl toys' from influences in creche and school or anything that's remotely girly though I tried to aim for gender neutral toys.

sashafierce

This post has been deleted.

sashafierce

sashafierce wrote: »

My friends attitude along with other women's attitudes is what put me off. Bull****e out of people like Louise O Neill and Rosemary MacCabe spouting on about being anti man etc is when I had enough. That whole "women are victims" made me lose interest

well, make up your mind!
you said your friend made you dislike feminism. because of one thing she said....

trixychic

bubblypop wrote: »

well, make up your mind!
you said your friend made you dislike feminism. because of one thing she said....

Hold on. This is part of the reason why people don't feel able to speak up about how they feel.

Because if they voice their opinions they are shot down. Why can't people have their own veiws and opinions without people "calling them out". This poster obviously didn't change her mind "because of one statement" and maybe her beliefs are vast and cover a span of things. But surely we should be allowed to say "ok that's your opinion, but not mine" instead of being told to "make up your mind!!!"

trixychic

trixychic wrote: »

Hold on. This is part of the reason why people don't feel able to speak up about how they feel.

Because if they voice their opinions they are shot down. Why can't people have their own veiws and opinions without people "calling them out". This poster obviously didn't change her mind "because of one statement" and maybe her beliefs are vast and cover a span of things. But surely we should be allowed to say "ok that's your opinion, but not mine" instead of being told to "make up your mind!!!"

no, i have no problem if she made up her own mind, BUT she said said she hates feminists because her friend made one comment about rape & consent.
not a good reason to dismiss feminists, in my view

trixychic

bubblypop wrote: »

no, i have no problem if she made up her own mind, BUT she said said she hates feminists because her friend made one comment about rape & consent.
not a good reason to dismiss feminists, in my view

Ok I get that. Not a good reason IN YOUR VEIW. But do we ever find out the back story to why these people have such veiws and beliefs?? Personally I've found that most of the time people just jump in with "what you said is wrong because...." instead of "Can I ask how you came to that conclusion? It wouldn't be my point of veiw now."

Some people (and im not refering to anyone here... these are personal experiences I've had IRL) just jump straight to agressivly slatingyour beliefs because they don't agree with what you say or how you say it.

I mean once your not being aggressive (verbally, mentally, emotionally etc) towards another person/people aren't we all entitled to our own opinion regardless of how we came to it.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

trixychic wrote: »

Ok I get that. Not a good reason IN YOUR VEIW. But do we ever find out the back story to why these people have such veiws and beliefs?? Personally I've found that most of the time people just jump in with "what you said is wrong because...." instead of "Can I ask how you came to that conclusion? It wouldn't be my point of veiw now."

Some people (and im not refering to anyone here... these are personal experiences I've had IRL) just jump straight to agressivly slatingyour beliefs because they don't agree with what you say or how you say it.

I mean once your not being aggressive (verbally, mentally, emotionally etc) towards another person/people aren't we all entitled to our own opinion regardless of how we came to it.

I don't think that's exclusive to feminism though, that's the plague of the times. It's a model of discourse or rhetoric that's infected everything.

sashafierce

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin

Feminism is about all women. It bugs me when western women say they aren't feminist because they have equality. Well there are women in this country still living a different life, travellers, ethnic minorities, transgender women....and we still don't have full control over what happens to us when we are pregnant. Of course we still need feminism. I'm old enough to remember when women were treated like second class citizens, maybe that's why it's so important to me. My daughter is in her 20's and thinks feminism is redundant, I think she believes we had our rights handed to us, we had to fight for everything we got, we are still fighting.

Neyite

This thread from a few years back is well worth a read if you ignore the initial derailing and whataboutery.

RDM_83 again

baby and crumble wrote: »

Likewise the pain tolerance scale is based upon male tolerance to pain. Women have been proven time and time again to generally have a higher pain tolerance. So when a man says the pain is at a 7, a woman experiencing the same would say a 4 or 5.

Saw this post earlier and since seamus and co have posted I presume this is a open discusion

Woman have a lower or equal pain threshold/perception/tolerance (these are pretty hard to separate experimentally) to men, numerous studies showing lower.


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550857905800427
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304395911007019
http://www.rediviva.sav.sk/55i3/125.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8556902_Gender_differences_in_pain_perception_A_signal_detection_theory_approach

If anybody can highlight a modern study that contradicts the results that pain thresholds are either equal or higher in women I would be curious.

This a prime example of a major issue, the use of anecdote and received wisdom because it sounds good, useful myths as it were, when these are challenged the response often isn't to re-evaluate the opinion itself rather to frame the person raising the issue negatively.

Triceratops Ballet

eviltwin wrote:

My daughter is in her 20's and thinks feminism is redundant, I think she believes we had our rights handed to us, we had to fight for everything we got, we are still fighting.

I think that's not unusual, in my late teens/early 20's I'd probably have thought similar, if you asked me out straight what I thought of feminism but I think as you grow and see more of the world, and it's true colours, your eyes are opened.

Triceratops Ballet

If anyone is interested the science gallery is actually hosting a discussion on Feminism, what it means and it's evolution!

Does it? Come find out!

Feminism isn't just one movement - it's lots of movements! There's a huge variety of theory, politics, and activism in feminism. But what do they all mean? What are those three waves about? What's the difference between radical feminism and intersectional feminism? What does "leaning in" actually mean? What the heck is cyborg feminism and why do some feminists spell things weird?

We'll be hosting a few short talks on different aspects of feminism, plus a knowledge share with the group. Come find out everything you wanted to know about feminism but were too afraid to ask!

We're delighted to have joining us:

Caroline West, a PhD researcher looking at the discourse between feminism and porn. She'll be speaking about the 2nd wave 'sex wars' and the repercussions of that up to the current day.

Shawna Scott of Sex Siopa, who'll be talking about the pros and cons of "Lean in" feminism.

Wendy Lyon, a solicitor specialising in human rights who will be talking about the legal roots of intersectionality.

Maia Boyle, aka Twisteddoodles, cartoonist and illustrator, will speak about her personal route into feminism.

Aoife Martin is a trans woman and outspoken advocate for trans rights, and she'll be speaking about the intersectionality of Irish feminism and the acceptance of trans voices within that sphere.

Watch this space for more fantastic speakers as we announce them!