Is the new Feminist movement damaging male female relationships?

ceadaoin.

cantdecide wrote: »

Selected the following point at random to see for myself...



Source:
https://blue-stocking.org.uk/2017/08/31/race-class-and-the-demographics-of-the-british-suffragette-movement/





I'm going to bed so for now, the takeaway I have from your post is...

The suffragettes included many women from working class backgrounds, women from all social classes fought for the vote. You know the saying, if you want something done, do it yourself. But yeah, if you want make the point that Pankhurst and therefore all sufragettes didn't care about the working class, just pretend those people didn't exist.


https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2018/02/suffragettes-women-100-years-working-class

cloudatlas

cantdecide wrote: »

Selected the following point at random to see for myself...



Source:
https://blue-stocking.org.uk/2017/08/31/race-class-and-the-demographics-of-the-british-suffragette-movement/





I'm going to bed so for now, the takeaway I have from your post is...

Yes 'selected' is the right word but I'd use the word cherry picked and you didn't give any context for the fracture but that's unsurprising. Hopefully when you are refreshed after your sleep in the morning you'll be able to address my other points aswell.


All political parties/ organisations have fractures so it's important to find out why things happen rather than just cherry picking quotes.

"The three Pankhurst women were all members of the Independent Labour Party (ILP) but Emmeline and Christabel became disillusioned with the way the ILP never gave priority to the women’s issue, despite its claim to support gender equality. When they resigned from the ILP in 1907, Sylvia was deeply upset. She wanted to link the WSPU to the socialist movement. Sylvia subsequently portrayed her sister in The Suffragette Movement as an evil Svengali who led their easily swayed mother away from the true path of socialism. She labelled separatist feminist Christabel a Tory.

The ideological differences between the Pankhurst women didn’t end there. Sylvia sought to fuse her feminism and socialism by forming, in 1913, a working-class grouping in the East End of London. Her East London Federation of the Suffragettes, although formally linked to the WSPU, followed its own independent line. It would not attack the Labour party nor Labour parliamentary candidates unsympathetic to women’s suffrage. Such a policy was too much for her mother and Christabel to stomach. In early 1914, Sylvia was expelled from the WSPU, a bruising encounter that she describes in great detail in The Suffragette Movement. She painted the WSPU as elitist and unattractive to working-class and socialist women."

https://theconversation.com/pankhurst-sisters-the-bitter-divisions-behind-their-fight-for-womens-votes-91086

The Pankhurst's were very much inspired by the plight of working class women.

Sleep well

py2006

I wonder what the original feminists would think of today's obnoxious and entitled ones?

silverharp

peak whining entitled feminism?

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10692

A University of Wisconsin-Madison instructor warns in a new academic journal article that "digital manspreading" is a form of "online misogyny" that silences female scholars.

A feminist professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison is warning against “digital manspreading” on the Internet, calling it a form of “online harrassment.”

Brandi Easter, a doctoral candidate who also teaches literature classes, argues in the March issue of Feminist Media Studies that “digital manspreading” happens because men are socialized to “take up space”—not just on public transit, but online too.

"This silencing calls for feminist scholars to attend seriously to the everyday spatial, material, and embodied structures and forces of online misogyny." Tweet This

Digital manspreading, she explains, “is an act of privilege, entitlement, and toxic masculinity” due to the fact that men’s interactions with “online space, made through the affordances of digital infrastructures, are gendered, material, and embodied.”

Well, it's a good thing that women can't be sexist, or I might get worried by such beliefs. :rolleyes:

Mountainsandh

Hello ? Could you guys stop manspreading ? I can't post !

KyussB

I mean just look at the waste of space/attention this entire discussion generates - the majority of the point of gender based topics these days, is to prevent people having any kind of focus on things that actually matter...

Most of the gender based things that matter at all still, are relatively well known - the rest is just FUD used to keep people occupied with bullshit, to prevent them from having any real political concerns.

Politics is boring and unpopular to have an opinion about, in many respects, for a lot of people - social issues bullshit, particularly the kind which makes you blind to the root issues underlying most social issues, is todays 'socially acceptable' form of political discussion - it allows people to have a 'postmodernish' i.e. bullshit-based pretence of having intellect and depth to their knowledge, over political issues - it's fairly 'safe'/protected - while being largely ignorant of real and actually complex/contentious political issues (stuff that actually matters...), which is not as 'safe', socially.

It's encouraged so much in news and online media, because it's one of the classic avenues of 'divide-and-conquer' based distraction - exaggerating and FUDdying conflict between the genders, to create excessive focus on this, at the expense of focus on other more pressing issues (which often actually underlie the few real gender issues...).

kunst nugget

cloudatlas wrote: »

Appledream who sounds like someone who has been abused in life and has a good heart,

I don't know what she's gone through in life but the fact that she demonises all men in Ireland woudn't be what I consider someone with a good heart.

py2006

kunst nugget wrote: »

I don't know what she's gone through in life but the fact that she demonises all men in Ireland woudn't be what I consider someone with a good heart.

Also we are responding to text on a screen. Peoples personal lives and background should not be guessed or assumed. Nor should posters attempt to vilify others for not making that guess.

givyjoe

py2006 wrote: »

Also we are responding to text on a screen. Peoples personal lives and background should not be guessed or assumed. Nor should posters attempt to vilify others for not making that guess.

But we're not assuming it. The poster, many times, has detailed events from their personal life here.

py2006

givyjoe wrote: »

But we're not assuming it. The poster, many times, has detailed events from their personal life here.

I meant generally speaking but I wasn't aware of any particular individual

givyjoe

meeeeh wrote: »

Why some. Police and judiciary (for now) are predominantly populated by middle class men. Prisons are mostly filled by men or women to lesser extent from disadvantaged areas. So I would guess you are probably right demographic (white middle class man) to explain why you are so discriminatory at imprisoning people.

Just to add, I think the problem is a lot more complex and I don't actually know how to solve it but at the stage of sentencing is probably too late. However I am getting sick of people picking a random problem and demanding those feminists explain it although it has nothing to do with them.

I think you're missing the point, the current wave of feminists only seem to want equality when it suits them, or is desirable.

givyjoe

givyjoe wrote: »

But we're not assuming it. The poster, many times, has detailed events from their personal life here.

And it's your choice whether to believe them or not. It's still the internet, an open discussion board, and people can pretty much say whatever they like about themselves. At the end of the day, it comes down to your reputation here on boards based on the manner/content of your posting over time. Why "over time"? because then people can see whether your personal statements match up across threads. But if you continually post sexist remarks, the excuses don't matter, you're still a sexist.

meeeeh

givyjoe wrote: »

I think you're missing the point, the current wave of feminists only seem to want equality when it suits them, or is desirable.

No I'm not missing the point. A lot of the feminist groups are also pointing out inequalities in general in society and are often aligned with left wing parties. The whole prison argument is just a ridiculous case of whataboutery.

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

I think you're missing the point, the current wave of feminists only seem to want equality when it suits them, or is desirable.

It’s such a trivial point to get so stuck on. I wouldn’t expect MRAs to do a lot for women’s rights either. But I wouldn’t expect anyone to need so much time to come to terms with it as you seem to need

cloudatlas

kunst nugget wrote: »

cloudatlas wrote: »

Appledream who sounds like someone who has been abused in life and has a good heart,

I don't know what she's gone through in life but the fact that she demonises all men in Ireland woudn't be what I consider someone with a good heart.

'All men' I'd say that's a gross exaggeration. I'll tell you what I don't like. What I don't like is bullying, revisionist history and distortion of historical fact.

givyjoe

meeeeh wrote: »

No I'm not missing the point. A lot of the feminist groups are also pointing out inequalities in general in society and are often aligned with left wing parties. The whole prison argument is just a ridiculous case of whataboutery.

I wasn't thinking specifically of that, I was thinking the teaching profession for example and I'm sure there are plenty of other desirable professions with far greater numbers of women populating them.

givyjoe

cloudatlas wrote: »

'All men' I'd say that's a gross exaggeration. I'll tell you what I don't like. What I don't like is bullying, revisionist history and distortion of historical fact.

All IRISH men, I believe is what the poster in question referred to.

Zulu

cloudatlas wrote: »

What I don't like is bullying, revisionist history and distortion of historical fact.

I'd say we're in agreement on that point, so there's a good start.

However, I'm sensing that the above is an implication of whats happening on this thread - is it? I'm not seeing it myself, but that's not to say it's not happening...

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’s such a trivial point to get so stuck on. I wouldn’t expect MRAs to do a lot for women’s rights either. But I wouldn’t expect anyone to need so much time to come to terms with it as you seem to need

So you're comparing the current wave of feminists with MRA's, interesting comparison.

Come to terms with what exactly?

cloudatlas

givyjoe wrote: »

cloudatlas wrote: »

'All men' I'd say that's a gross exaggeration. I'll tell you what I don't like. What I don't like is bullying, revisionist history and distortion of historical fact.

All IRISH men, I believe is what the poster in question referred to.

Again no context a lot of you AH lads don't like context do you.

givyjoe

cloudatlas wrote: »

Again no context a lot of you AH lads don't like context do you.

Go read Appledreams posts! Plenty of context to be had!

Maxpfizer

cloudatlas wrote: »

No, absolutely nobody was schooled by that post, also you added nothing to Outlaw Pete skewed logic you only supported Outlaw Pete's s extreme bias and poor historical knowledge by posting a 'yaaaah boooooo' counter post in a sad attempt to bully Appledream who sounds like someone who has been abused in life and has a good heart, why don't you try to inform and educate yourself instead of jumping on bandwagons.

"men stopped women from voting 100 years ago, denying them their basic human right". OOoooh there was a lot more than the right to vote at stake. Ill respond best I can to all the points Outlaw Pete made. I'll put them in point form so you can understand easily

Context: Status of women at the time

There was tremendous inequality apart from lack of voting rights.
1. 1860's problems that women faced when you married- you lost your legal right to be independent, your husband took over your legal independence.
2. You had no property of your own your husband owned your property.
3. Divorce was rare, expensive and only available to rich men.
4. Women were ill equipped to enter higher education because the standard of education in girls schools was so low the expectation was that they would not go on to education. Cambridge didn't offer women degrees that were in parity to women until 1947.
5. Your husband could leave you out of a will, remember he owns your property, so he can legally leave you with nothing if he dies.
So suffragism was not just about votes there were much wider issues namely improvement of women's status and position.

The Suffragettes hated men

Feminists helped to get John Stuart Mills elected by campaigning for him, they supported a man to get elected. He supported feminists and he presented a petition to parliament that got over 1499 signatures. They were reasoned. The reasons they didn't admit men to their party: Pankhurst decided women had been talking for too long, sitting on committees she founded a woman only political organisation as she believed that women had to form a back bone of their own and that men would never voluntarily give up their own power so they needed to be forced to give up power. Geeee, What gave her that idea I wonder?

Pankhurst didn't care about working class women

Suffragettes were cross classed, working class, middle class and upper class.
Emmiline pankhurst worked as a registrar of births and death after her husband died, she was heartbroken at the working class women in poverty coming to register, the births of several children, little girls of 12 coming to register the births of a baby where the father was the girls own father or an uncle. When she founded the movement she said it was for women of all political persuasions it didn't matter if you were liberal, conservative, socialist, it was for women of all social classes. She tried to form a movement that was above party politics. She had first hand experience of how working class women were treated also first hand experience of how women were treated in the law.

Militant Behaviour

They did exactly what men did to get the vote but because women were doing it it was considered outrageous. Does anybody seriously believe other than Outlaw Pete that Universal manhood suffrage didn't provoke/ cause revolution death and violence?! Because there was a lot of disruption and killings around elections in the U.K. over this very issue.

The Suffragettes carried out large demonstrations where they were physically and sexually assaulted by police, they interrupted cinema and theatre. When arrested they carried out hunger strikes (oh by the way women who went on hunger strike were force fed by the vagina and the rectum so the abuse didn't stop, their human rights were taken at every stage). They burnt 'rights for women' on men's golf greens which I think is quite impressive actually. With the outbreak of war they suspended their militancy.

In summary:
1. Pankhurst was sympathetic and inspired by the plight of working class women. She isn't on Royal Mail stamps for no good reason.
2. Both men and women were involved in militant behaviours in connection with suffrage.
3. Women were far more disadvantaged than men in society in terms of property, education, status, legal property, voting.
4. Feminists supported men, they helped to get John Stuart Mills elected.

I appreciate the post but I was referring specifically to "men stopped women from voting 100 years ago, denying them their basic human right" and Outlaw Pete's excellent rebuttal to that specific point.

"OOoooh there was a lot more than the right to vote at stake."
"There was tremendous inequality apart from lack of voting rights."

Let me just stop you right there. I was talking about voting rights. Not anything "more than the right to vote". Not anything "apart for lack of voting rights".

You are listing things completely unrelated to voting rights. So what am I supposed to say? My whole thing was around the false belief on women's and men's voting rights and the pretty outstanding rebuttal to that false belief.

You're taking things unrelated to voting rights to try and undermine facts regarding voting rights? I don't get it.

I appreciate the time you spent here but it's been time wasted.

I was commenting on the false belief that "men stopped women from voting 100 years ago, denying them their basic human right" and praising the excellent rebuttal to that specific point.

I was also bemoaning the fact that upon having the facts so clearly laid out in a post that would have taken some effort to put together the poster who was in the wrong is just willing to change the approach (to 80% of men in government) and ignore the facts.

Whether someone's heart is in the right place or not remains to be seen. If I were a gambling man I would expect to see the same posters bringing back the "men stopped women from voting 100 years ago" approach at a later date.

Or maybe more will try your approach.

Sure we got it TOTALLY wrong on that men stopped women from voting 100 years ago thing but what about THIS and what about THAT and what about X and Y and Z.

"Men stopped women from voting 100 years ago, denying them their basic human right" - DEBUNKED.

But what about 1860's problems that women faced when you married- you lost your legal right to be independent, your husband took over your legal independence? Nothing to do with the point that was debunked.

Buh but what about having no property of your own your husband owned your property? Nothing to do with the point that was debunked.

B-b-b-but what about divorce being rare, expensive and only available to rich men? Nothing to do with the point that was debunked.

Bu bu buuut what about women being ill equipped to enter higher education because the standard of education in girls schools was so low the expectation was that they would not go on to education? Cambridge didn't offer women degrees that were in parity to women until 1947! Nothing to do with the point that was debunked.

WAAAAAH BUUUUUUT what about the fact that your husband could leave you out of a will, remember he owns your property, so he can legally leave you with nothing if he dies? Nothing to do with the point that was debunked.

And here was me thinking all this time that Feminists hated "whataboutery"...

Still, at least you've now wasted both our time. How's that for equality?

meeeeh

Maxpfizer wrote: »

wall of text

Oh so some women were able to vote before?

FixdePitchmark

Deleted User wrote: »

It's already been addressed. Men are more aggressive than women, and men commit more crimes than women. Naturally, the sentencing of crimes is ignored, but ultimately, men deserve to be locked up.

So does that mean men and women are different ?
Does it mean the forces at play here - play a role in other parts of life ?

How do we make men the same as women ?
Treatment ?

Zulu

meeeeh wrote: »

Dismissive something

You could engage with the poster, but instead you're choosing to be dismissive - why is that? Is it because you've got nothing to add? Is it because you simply can't refute their point?

It's a pretty sad route you're choosing to go down.

asteroids over berlin

Social media is the root cause of a lot of this, too many stupid people voicing opinions, dopey bloggers thinking they know it all, young people getting mixed up listening to said stupid people. There is simply too much opinionated crap circulating the world. The world is turning into a zombie nation addicted to smartphones, we are hanging in there because there is an older generation who won't conform/adapt due to being too old, knowing better i.e. remembering how the world was without such technologies. What happens when they are gone?? it is only going to get worse, proposals for drones, autonomous vehicles, AI - everybody needs to chill out and relax and enjoy life. Technology has it's uses but to a certain degree. Be careful out there peeps, stay safe and open that mind - you may be surprised!

meeeeh

Zulu wrote: »

You could engage with the poster, but instead you're choosing to be dismissive - why is that? Is it because you've got nothing to add? Is it because you simply can't refute their point?

It's a pretty sad route you're choosing to go down.

Actually I just didn't want to quote the whole post which was just above mine because I was making a short reply.

It was men who were in power setting laws. They kept some men from voting and all women. No matter how much mental gymnastics you make, all women were kept from voting. Men were in power.

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

So you're comparing the current wave of feminists with MRA's, interesting comparison.

Come to terms with what exactly?

Yes of course. MRAs campaigning for fathers rights or more parental leave for example.

And the rape crisis centre does damn all for cancer research. And the heart foundation doesn’t care a jot about homelessness, the arseholes.

To answer your question, it sees to be taking you far too much time to come to terms with the fact that special interest groups focus on their own special interest. Mad eh?

What exactly is your point anyway?

Maxpfizer

meeeeh wrote: »

Oh so some women were able to vote before?

This is more of exactly what I was calling out in the wall of text.

Do you believe that women were simply not allowed to vote at all?
Do you believe that it was "Men" who were stopping women from voting?
Do you believe that all men were all allowed to vote while all women were prevented from voting?

In the UK:

Only 58% of the adult male population was eligible to vote before 1918.

In 1918 the Representation of the People Act was passed which allowed women over the age of 30 who met a property qualification to vote. Although 8.5 million women met this criteria, it only represented 40 per cent of the total population of women in the UK.

The same act abolished property and other restrictions for men, and extended the vote to all men over the age of 21. Additionally, men in the armed forces could vote from the age of 19. The electorate increased from eight to 21 million, but there was still huge inequality between women and men.

It was not until the Equal Franchise Act of 1928 that women over 21 were able to vote and women finally achieved the same voting rights as men. This act increased the number of women eligible to vote to 15 million.

So am more accurate statement might be that for a 10 year period between 1918 and 1928 men and women had unequal voting rights with only 40% of women being able to vote in that 10 year period.

So the obvious question is "were women able to vote before 1918"?

To which the answer is "yes".

In the UK women had the right to vote and to hold office in a range of local and parish institutions from their foundation since many of the voting rights were linked to land ownership or payment of taxes etc.

Look, it's complicated and I would be pretty daft to argue that there was equality across the board. There obviously wasn't and I'm sure we could play "whatabout" all day long to make that point.

At least we can agree that the simplistic notion that men stopped women from voting and this only changed when women fought for and won the right to vote in 1928 can be put to rest?

Beasty

Just in case anyone is wondering why a number of their posts may have disappeared, they were quoting our "regular" re-reg troll, and all his posts have been deleted also

meeeeh

Beasty wrote: »

Just in case anyone is wondering why a number of their posts may have disappeared, they were quoting our "regular" re-reg troll, and all his posts have been deleted also

That's unfortunate, I spent at least 45 minutes per post compiling detailed and well reasoned response.

Zulu

meeeeh wrote: »

Actually I just didn't want to quote the whole post which was just above mine because I was making a short reply.

Fair enough, although it came across dismissive.

It was men who were in power setting laws. They kept some men from voting and all women. No matter how much mental gymnastics you make, all women were kept from voting. Men were in power.

Well, to be fair, the real "mental gymnastics" here is assigning blame to "men" in general. It wasn't "men" it was the aristocracy; it was "a tiny few". It was society, and that society was a collection of men and women. Just as in todays society the richest aren't "men", it's a "tiny few"; it's the "1%".

Blaming "men" for the actions of the few is incredibly disingenuous, prejudiced, and ultimately sexist.

"Men", the vast majority, have suffered along side women through out history. Now granted, as Cloudatlas has pointed out, women were certainly more disadvantaged in certain respects (although I'd rather have been a women than a man when it came to war time, which was fairly frequent), and the actions of the first feminists isn't to be dismissed outright, but laying the blame squarely at the feet of "men" is lazy, ill-conceived and divisive. It's certainly not the commentary or thinking of an egalitarian.

meeeeh

Maxpfizer wrote: »

At least we can agree that the simplistic notion that men stopped women from voting and this only changed when women fought for and won the right to vote in 1928 can be put to rest?

I agree with that and there were also plenty of women who were against the sufragette movement. There were also a lot of interconnected movements accross Europe but first demand by women for right to vote started with French revolution and way predate 20th century or Sufragette movement.

harr

Just a little funny little situation I witnessed at the weekend...I was in a popular bar over in the West when a small stag party arrives in..as far as stags go this group were quite and middle aged about 6 guys in total all well dressed.
After about half an hour an novelty t shirt was put on the stag , it had a plastic pair of tits on the front..all still well behaved.
A couple of minutes later the manager asked group to leave as a group of woman had complained about the offensive t shirt.. stag removed it and they stayed.. the particular group of ladies that made complaint were on a hen weekend and sure enough they were all adorned with plastic willes , earrings, straws and hats..
This was pointed out to management who in turn asked them to remove the stuff and they wet mad at him saying it was only a bit of fun and what harm were they doing .. they left the pub still giving out stink.

ArthurDayne

Going back to to the OP, I'm not sure if I would say that the current wave of feminism is damaging male-female relationships, but I do think that they are now defining misogyny so widely that they risk alienating those men who are actually supportive of gender equality and female liberation. Sexual identity is one area where this seems to be pronounced.

One strange phenomena I've noticed is that many in the feminist movement seem to see a correlation between the suppression of male sexuality with the liberation of female sexuality. To me, this is the wrong approach. Of course, there is a particular responsibility on males (as the generally physically stronger gender) to exercise self-control in their sexual conduct, but the movement of feminist discourse towards suppressing the way men talk and think about sex is to me counter-productive. Many in the feminist movement seem to forget that pontification on morality and decency was one of the very forces that suppressed female sexual liberation for centuries -- and still does in many countries. They seem to see sexual liberation as a kind of arm-wrestle, where the sexual identity of one gender can only succeed to the detriment of the other -- i.e. that only by making men moderate their tone and feelings regarding sex can we ever eliminate sexual misogyny. To me, it would seem better that we try to reach a stage where women feel as confident in their sexual identity as men generally seem to be (whether they are sexually promiscuous or of the most timid nature) -- rather than move towards a paradigm where both sexes, equally but unduly, repress their sexual identities.

None of this is to say there isn't a problem with male sexuality -- guys can get genuinely creepy when it comes to the opposite sex and this is a problem that needs addressing. But current feminism is, strangely, seeming to move towards moderation in individual morality -- and is in essence turning into the very thing which has kept feminism suppressed down through the years.

joe40

If feminism means equal opportunities regardless of gender then I'm absolutely all for that.

What exactly does the "New feminist movement mean" I have some idea but I would be interested to hear a succinct definition. It would be interesting to see if  people actually agree as to what this new "movement" entails and how much influence it can exert.
I appreciate it is complex issue

na1

joe40 wrote: »

If feminism means equal opportunities regardless of gender then I'm absolutely all for that.

If men and women have equal rights, why men are not allowed in women's changing rooms?

Appledreams15

What is a feminism movement, and how does one be part of it.

No woman I know talk about feminist movements. I only see the term on boards.ie by men.

It's like they think that we have an army or something.

You'd have to laugh, at the fear in men!

meeeeh

harr wrote: »

Just a little funny little situation I witnessed at the weekend...I was in a popular bar over in the West when a small stag party arrives in..as far as stags go this group were quite and middle aged about 6 guys in total all well dressed.
After about half an hour an novelty t shirt was put on the stag , it had a plastic pair of tits on the front..all still well behaved.
A couple of minutes later the manager asked group to leave as a group of woman had complained about the offensive t shirt.. stag removed it and they stayed.. the particular group of ladies that made complaint were on a hen weekend and sure enough they were all adorned with plastic willes , earrings, straws and hats..
This was pointed out to management who in turn asked them to remove the stuff and they wet mad at him saying it was only a bit of fun and what harm were they doing .. they left the pub still giving out stink.

That's a prime example why stag and hen parties should be banned on the basis of lack of taste.

Appledreams15

I was just thinking, it must have been a man who came up with the term 'feminism'.

I looked it up, and indeed, I was right!

It was a man that came up with the word. And it is still men today, who use the word.

So ask yourselves, why are you so afraid of women?

MayoSalmon

I would'nt in a million years go out with one of these new age feminist

MayoSalmon

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I was just thinking, it must have been a man who came up with the term 'feminism'.

I looked it up, and indeed, I was right!

It was a man that came up with the word. And it is still men today, who use the word.

So ask yourselves, why are you so afraid of women?

ArthurDayne

Appledreams15 wrote: »

What is a feminism movement, and how does one be part of it.

No woman I know talk about feminist movements. I only see the term on boards.ie by men.

It's like they think that we have an army or something.

You'd have to laugh, at the fear in men!

Appledreams -- it's used for want of a better term -- if you want to get into a dissection on terminology then fair enough but there's no deep-seated psychological reason I used the term (for what it's worth, I googled 'feminist movement' and found plenty of articles where women use this term too).

As always though Appledreams, you seem to interpret all posts as an attack on women and delve into meaningless theatrics. I was speaking about female sexuality -- you have an opportunity here to educate at least one man on your thoughts on the matter. Why don't you just take a few deep breaths, recognise that I'm trying to be sincere with you, and actually say something meaningful rather than repeating soundbites ad nauseum?

Zulu

Appledreams15 wrote: »

...It's like they think that we have an army or something.

You'd have to laugh, at the fear in men!

Appledreams15 wrote: »

...
So ask yourselves, why are you so afraid of women?

I can't speak for everyone but I'm not afraid of women. I do fear for us all when morons go unchecked an a baying mob is allowed to hound and harass people, is allowed to bully people based on their gender; is allowed to dismiss people because of things that happened generations ago.

Now that you're back on-line, care to revise your "men opressed women for centurys" comment or address the rebuttal of your ignorance?

No?? Just prefer to make inane comments about people being afraid??? Ok so.

LLMMLL

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Going back to to the OP, I'm not sure if I would say that the current wave of feminism is damaging male-female relationships, but I do think that they are now defining misogyny so widely that they risk alienating those men who are actually supportive of gender equality and female liberation. Sexual identity is one area where this seems to be pronounced.

One strange phenomena I've noticed is that many in the feminist movement seem to see a correlation between the suppression of male sexuality with the liberation of female sexuality. To me, this is the wrong approach. Of course, there is a particular responsibility on males (as the generally physically stronger gender) to exercise self-control in their sexual conduct, but the movement of feminist discourse towards suppressing the way men talk and think about sex is to me counter-productive. Many in the feminist movement seem to forget that pontification on morality and decency was one of the very forces that suppressed female sexual liberation for centuries -- and still does in many countries. They seem to see sexual liberation as a kind of arm-wrestle, where the sexual identity of one gender can only succeed to the detriment of the other -- i.e. that only by making men moderate their tone and feelings regarding sex can we ever eliminate sexual misogyny. To me, it would seem better that we try to reach a stage where women feel as confident in their sexual identity as men generally seem to be (whether they are sexually promiscuous or of the most timid nature) -- rather than move towards a paradigm where both sexes, equally but unduly, repress their sexual identities.

None of this is to say there isn't a problem with male sexuality -- guys can get genuinely creepy when it comes to the opposite sex and this is a problem that needs addressing. But current feminism is, strangely, seeming to move towards moderation in individual morality -- and is in essence turning into the very thing which has kept feminism suppressed down through the years.

Well if you take something like #metoo and elements of the Belfast trial as emblematic of modern feminist concerns then yes you do have an effort to moderate individual morality i.e. trying to get individuals to modify their ****ty behaviour.

I personally don't believe calling women "Belfast sluts" or the kind of groping/harassing found in #metoo is the suppression of male sexuality. I think men will still be able to express their sexuality without doing things like that.

Maxpfizer

meeeeh wrote: »

I agree with that and there were also plenty of women who were against the sufragette movement. There were also a lot of interconnected movements accross Europe but first demand by women for right to vote started with French revolution and way predate 20th century or Sufragette movement.

Right and don't you think it's a little strange that when we start talking about Women's Rights in 2018 that stuff from 100 years ago gets brought up?

And when it is brought up the people pushing the "men wouldn't let women vote" narrative don't REALLY know what they are talking about?

My grandparents weren't even born when women weren't allowed to vote but we're still coming back to this sticking point, talking point, whatever.

Is there an element of Feminism that is really about a kind of reparations for women in 2018 based on what women from 1918 to 1928 went through.

Since voting is apparently such a huge deal in this, are there places in the world now where women (or even just regular people like us) cannot vote?

meeeeh

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Right and don't you think it's a little strange that when we start talking about Women's Rights in 2018 that stuff from 100 years ago gets brought up?

And when it is brought up the people pushing the "men wouldn't let women vote" narrative don't REALLY know what they are talking about?

My grandparents weren't even born when women weren't allowed to vote but we're still coming back to this sticking point, talking point, whatever.

Is there an element of Feminism that is really about a kind of reparations for women in 2018 based on what women from 1918 to 1928 went through.

Since voting is apparently such a huge deal in this, are there places in the world now where women (or even just regular people like us) cannot vote?

I don't know.

I don't know what I am supposed to argue here. That we shouldn't mention history? I don't have time today.

Malayalam

It serves no purpose to fight battles that have already been won.

Most reasonable rational people in humane parts of the world are all for egalitarian treatment between the sexes. There is certainly heinous discrimination against females in certain cultures and this holds my attention, whereas manufactured discrimination in this part of the world does not. I have always been able to do whatever I WANTED to do in this society, and any (rare) old boy sexism I ever encountered felt more to be pitied than abused.

Also, no amount of endless warring between the sexes, or disruptive social policy making, or PC censorship of opinions, is going to demolish the human evolutionary traits. Evolutionary ''sex differences pervade our entire psychology.'' (Helena Cronin). Some things are just real.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7Q9GvR1Mnk

cloudatlas

Lol you were absolutely beside yourself and triumphant over out law Petes post that was about more than voting rights and I'm not surprised you chose to ignore my post in its entirety. So you don't agree with everything your mate Pete had to say?!