Is the new Feminist movement damaging male female relationships?

Ak84

I sometimes ask my wife what she thinks about feminism and all this me too Craic and gender this and that.
She couldn't give a monkeys. I think She's too busy getting on with her life to have time to ponder these great questions of our time.
I on the other hand have more spare time than her and have a good look around boards and the newspapers.
I think people have too much time on their hands.

Malayalam

Appledreams15 wrote: »

But then do men ever think of all the cruel abuses and suffering that they put women through in the past?

This is what I don't understand:
Men are afraid of feminism because they feel it will hurt them.

Looks at history: a long string of cruel and savage abuses towards women from men. It wasn't the other way around.

So many civil and human rights abuses of women. So it was okay when it was men doing it to women?

History shows a long string of abuses from the rulers to the ruled.

Ak84

Ak84 wrote:

I sometimes ask my wife what she thinks about feminism and all this me too Craic and gender this and that.

Hopefully this was while she was making you a sandwich? Otherwise you are doing privilege wrong!!!!

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

Worth keeping an eye on though, these bitches be crazy. Let's not have the lunatics run the asylum.

Classy dude.

Grayson

Grayson wrote:

Classy dude.

OK. These abysmal, abhorrent sexist cretins with a horrific agenda are psychopathic individuals.

Not as catchy. Or is it cos I said bitch and you think that's me being sexist?

Sorry, "dude".

FTA69

gw80 wrote: »

When a conquering army take over a nation, women have nothing to lose, the men, on the other hand lose everything.

Yeah those women in Syria and Iraq had a cushy number when ISIS rolled in.

Grayson

LirW wrote: »

Well, first of all politics doesn't work that way of just showing up and saying "I'm here, I'm a politician now".
Parties have a pretty strict hierarchy and when you enter, unless you have mad connections, you are at the very basic level. On that level you'd usually see a good mix of both genders.
But when it comes to progressing within the parties, there are a lot of factors in play. Generally the more conservative a party is, the higher the percentage of men on the top level.
A female candidate has to present conservative to represent the party values, you'd be surprised about how much weight her family values and her views on children have. All that does only marginally apply to male candidates.
Also, and don't get me wrong, a lot of high positions are simply filled with some old gits that see the young girls as good enough to do the dirty work but would never consider them in a higher position. Sexual harassment within parties is still a thing and women in politics have to put up with it if they wanna get somewhere, this exploitation isn't a Hollywood cliche and still happens.
Something that stands out in female candidates is that a lot of them have some kind of political heavyweight in their family already or a partner, that is fairly well known. Of course that applies to male ones too, not denying that but you'd have a lot more men "coming from the bottom level" than women.

Don't get me wrong, politics is a very cut throat environment in general, you have to be cut throat yourself. But you doing well depends on a lot of other factors than simply having the drive to do it.
Was involved in my early 20 in politics a good bit and it's a grim field and wouldn't want to enter that again, ever ever ever.

I keep having to point out that we're 76th in the world when it comes to female participation in politics. And this dail is the highest % women we've ever had. Iraq and Afghanistan are ahead of us. We're definitely doing something wrong.
Suggest changing it though and you're a mad feminist.

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

OK. These abysmal, abhorrent sexist cretins with a horrific agenda are psychopathic individuals.

Not as catchy. Or is it cos I said bitch and you think that's me being sexist?

Sorry, "dude".

Sorry. Stay classy bitch.

Figured I'd lower myself to your level of debate. happy now?

Or do you want to go on a rant about how anyone who's a feminist is mentally ill.

gw80

LirW wrote: »

If an army conquers a country, the chances that she'll be raped, her daughters will be raped and she'll be captured and go through some abuse that you can't even imagine is very high.
Look at the middle east what's happening there and the things women do simply to stay alive. In a lot of cases simply being killed would be the better thing to happen to them.

Sometimes yes, somtimes they submitted and just carried on in life just with different males, while the men not only lost their lives they also lost their genetic line.

LirW

Deleted User wrote: »

I never said it wasn't important. I just don't see this placing women on a pedestal because they choose to have a child. I don't see fathers being raised to the same pedestal.

And this idea that women are going to stop having children.. is silly. Women consistently outperform men in professional workplaces like Finance before they're 30, and then most will stick at lower positions so that they have can have a family and the time to spend with their child. Although, many other women do have children, and still manage to make it to top management positions.

Having children doesn't exclude you from professional success. Wanting to spend extensive time with them does.

You can have a management position and kids that is true. But it might be worth to mention that the majority of women in top positions have their kids when they're already at the top and have the financial means to return ASAP to work by employing a nanny.
I said it before, Ireland is a very progressive country in these regards.
Back home in Austria it's a very different kettle of fish, you'd have to put your kids on your CV, and while questions about kids or family planning are officially not permitted, they get asked and if you refuse to answer, there are plenty of other candidates they can employ. I experienced it myself, even with good childcare arrangements, the way you have to justify yourself is beyond ridiculous.
Women do not get favoured in promotions because if they have a partner they might have kids and are gone. I am not making this up, this is standard over there.

If you are a maternal woman who enjoys every second with their children, you're most likely choose the lower position that gives you a better work-life balance. It's everyone's choice.

I have such an aversion of articles of working power mothers because they give exactly that picture that you can be working as a CEO, run a household, have a football team of kids and maintain an amazing figure and not even looking tired. When you dig a bit deeper you find that kids were only around when the position was already held, the husband is morbidly rich and they have an army of employees to keep house clean, healthy food on the table and have people to drive their children around.
That is far away from the reality of the woman that works 40 hours and has to balance creche opening times, cleaning, laundry and cooking.

It is a substantial choice in life but top manager women as an example are rarely representative.

cantdecide

Grayson wrote: »

I keep having to point out that we're 76th in the world when it comes to female participation in politics.

Do you want to blame men because women won't do what you want them to?

Grayson wrote: »

this dail is the highest % women we've ever had.

Clear progress and still not happy.

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

Suggest changing it though and you're a mad feminist.

Nope. Changing the system is fine. Encouraging parties towards equality, and removing the stereotypes or sexual harassment mentioned earlier is fine.

Implementing quotas is not fine. It does nothing to create a fair system for all. It simply elevates one gender over another.

Will you demand that there is an even 50/50 split in the genders? Do we implement quotas for gay/lesbians? What about Transgender people? or non-binary? Single vs married people? Age differences? Social background quotas?

What if there is a 50% quota in place but there are also more women put into office making it 75%? does that mean that quotas should be removed, or would they still be needed for the future?

It makes sense to improve the actual system, and the way those in politics consider women, than to implement quotas.

Appledreams15

Appledreams15 wrote: »

But then do men ever think of all the cruel abuses and suffering that they put women through in the past?

This is what I don't understand:
Men are afraid of feminism because they feel it will hurt them.

Looks at history: a long string of cruel and savage abuses towards women from men. It wasn't the other way around.

So many civil and human rights abuses of women. So it was okay when it was men doing it to women?

even if this wasnt blatant whataboutery and off topic avoidance of every specific point put to you

which it is

why do you insist that men you are lecturing today had anything to do with what society was like one hundred years ago?

i mean, not only is it irrelevant but the concept of group guilt (let alone chronologically-disconnected group guilt) is regressive, and almost always the tool of laziness at best, tyranny at worst, but honesty never.

LirW

gw80 wrote: »

Sometimes yes, somtimes they submitted and just carried on in life just with different males, while the men not only lost their lives they also lost their genetic line.

Yeah, these nasty nasty whurs. I hope you realize that these women do carry on because they have no choice other than comply or it could mean the end of their family.
I have grandparents and relatives still alive that were on the losing side of WW2 and were under occupation, their stories are pretty much the opposite of ponies and roses.
There are no winners in war.

I will. Thanks.

Anyone who supports modern feminism is deluded or misinformed at best and psychopathic or evil at worst.

Same as people who think that Ireland has a rape culture.

Same as people who believe in gender/race quotas

Same as people who feel that just because "they were not guilty but that doesn't make them innocent".

And same people who don't give women enough credit to be able to think for themselves or achieve what they want and feed them a made-up bogeyman called the patriarchy which explains why they will never be able to succeed.

Oh... And people who use the words "woke", "privilege" "cis" or gender fluid in real life. They are weird too

gw80

LirW wrote: »

Yeah, these nasty nasty whurs. I hope you realize that these women do carry on because they have no choice other than comply or it could mean the end of their family.
I have grandparents and relatives still alive that were on the losing side of WW2 and were under occupation, their stories are pretty much the opposite of ponies and roses.
There are no winners in war.

Whats a a whur?

LirW

LirW wrote: »

You can have a management position and kids that is true. But it might be worth to mention that the majority of women in top positions have their kids when they're already at the top and have the financial means to return ASAP to work by employing a nanny.
I said it before, Ireland is a very progressive country in these regards.
Back home in Austria it's a very different kettle of fish, you'd have to put your kids on your CV, and while questions about kids or family planning are officially not permitted, they get asked and if you refuse to answer, there are plenty of other candidates they can employ. I experienced it myself, even with good childcare arrangements, the way you have to justify yourself is beyond ridiculous.
Women do not get favoured in promotions because if they have a partner they might have kids and are gone. I am not making this up, this is standard over there.

If you are a maternal woman who enjoys every second with their children, you're most likely choose the lower position that gives you a better work-life balance. It's everyone's choice.

I have such an aversion of articles of working power mothers because they give exactly that picture that you can be working as a CEO, run a household, have a football team of kids and maintain an amazing figure and not even looking tired. When you dig a bit deeper you find that kids were only around when the position was already held, the husband is morbidly rich and they have an army of employees to keep house clean, healthy food on the table and have people to drive their children around.
That is far away from the reality of the woman that works 40 hours and has to balance creche opening times, cleaning, laundry and cooking.

It is a substantial choice in life but top manager women as an example are rarely representative.

a brilliant post/perspective imo

being told that you can be ~anything~ if you work hard and have talent and get lucky is a good thing

being told you can be ~everything~ isnt, and as far as i can tell from my peer groups, it genuinely does seem to effect women more than men in terms of their being disaffected, comparing their position on family/career/house/figure versus person x

apropos of nothing really but your post did jog the thought.

Outlaw Pete

Rory28 wrote: »

To say the yanks don't influence us is just burying your head in the sand.

Spot on. This 'Ah, that's just the states' nonsense might have been all well and fine ten years ago, but we are long past that stage now.

In UCC Feminists are currently petitioning for MANDATORY consent classes:

http://trinitynews.ie/ucc-feminist-society-launch-petition-for-mandatory-consent-classes/

Then there's crap like this:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/trinity-college-to-phase-out-use-of-word-freshman-for-genderneutral-term-36360455.html

Not that it's that big a deal (given that the term freshers is what tends to be used) but it shows that pressure is being applied somewhere and the appetite is ripe to yield and pander. To say the least.

LirW

LirW wrote: »

You can have a management position and kids that is true. But it might be worth to mention that the majority of women in top positions have their kids when they're already at the top and have the financial means to return ASAP to work by employing a nanny.

Actually, no. In most cases, the combined incomes of the Husband/wife, can cover the costs of having a nanny... since women in these kinds of professions tend to marry men who are also in the top of their game.

Alternatively, you have situations where the parents choose one member to sacrifice their careers so that they can look after their children themselves. Traditionally, that has been women, but such things have been changing especially with the increase in remote working.

I said it before, Ireland is a very progressive country in these regards.
Back home in Austria it's a very different kettle of fish, you'd have to put your kids on your CV, and while questions about kids or family planning are officially not permitted, they get asked and if you refuse to answer, there are plenty of other candidates they can employ. I experienced it myself, even with good childcare arrangements, the way you have to justify yourself is beyond ridiculous.

Yup. I've lived abroad, and have had to place my marital status on my resume. And while I have gotten jobs because I'm single, I've also been excluded from positions because they preferred a more family orientated employee.

Women do not get favoured in promotions because if they have a partner they might have kids and are gone. I am not making this up, this is standard over there.

I believe you. I've worked as management in various companies with the same practices. There is genuine fear in companies about investing the money & time needed to build a persons career only to see them leave. And not just that they would leave, but that they would stay, but lose focus on their responsibilities in the workplace. Having a child is a time intensive affair with the employee taking extra sick days, leaving for school meetings, etc.

You'll find the same attitude being applied to single parents of both genders too.

If you are a maternal woman who enjoys every second with their children, you're most likely choose the lower position that gives you a better work-life balance. It's everyone's choice.

I have such an aversion of articles of working power mothers because they give exactly that picture that you can be working as a CEO, run a household, have a football team of kids and maintain an amazing figure and not even looking tired. When you dig a bit deeper you find that kids were only around when the position was already held, the husband is morbidly rich and they have an army of employees to keep house clean, healthy food on the table and have people to drive their children around.
That is far away from the reality of the woman that works 40 hours and has to balance creche opening times, cleaning, laundry and cooking.

Yup.. I agree. I've known many women who were in the upper positions, and , usually they were married, they sometimes had children, and many were divorced. I also know two very successful women whose kids never speak to them because they were always working while the children were growing up. Oddly enough, it's very similar to the men in the upper positions. Divorces, chronic illnesses, premature aging, etc.

It is a substantial choice in life but top manager women as an example are rarely representative.

Neither are the men. We're talking about the top % of either gender. They're not "normal". Honestly, I'm amazed that people want to work at such levels. I came close once and backed away from it. Best decision I ever made.

LirW

Neither are the men. We're talking about the top % of either gender. They're not "normal". Honestly, I'm amazed that people want to work at such levels. I came close once and backed away from it. Best decision I ever made.

Just wanted to say, that is in general not a very representative for the general population.
What gives a good picture is the 50% in the middle excluding bottom and top incomes and this represents the struggles of family a lot better.

I have to say though it changed a lot that the family is seen more as a complete unit than just the woman with kids + working father. Can't be a bad thing at all.

FixdePitchmark

LirW wrote: »

Just wanted to say, that is in general not a very representative for the general population.
What gives a good picture is the 50% in the middle excluding bottom and top incomes and this represents the struggles of family a lot better.

I have to say though it changed a lot that the family is seen more as a complete unit than just the woman with kids + working father. Can't be a bad thing at all.

On this - I often wonder are most women genuinely happy watching a 19 year old girl from Spain raising their kids ? Same with the Dads ? maybe the dads are - sorry a bit sexist there

Surely the joy of having kids, is enjoying them, see the world and seeing it with them. You hope you can give them a bit of your life experiences - you hope you can shape them a little and try remove the mistakes you have made. Do you want to have your kids viewing the world from a kid on whatsapp - who is just a kid themselves with little real investment in the kids.

I know the banks decided that it was great that both parents have to work for 30 years to pay off debt that they can't afford.

But are most people genuinely happy with what modern life has offered.

If we were having an honest conversation - I wonder how many parents would love to say - yes I'd love to raise my kids and not just have a weekend relationship with them. How many women are trapped in a rat race and would love the traditional female role.

If you said something like that in some circles - you would be a female oppressor.

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oh, it's reality alright. Just some are choosing to stick their heads in the sand is all.

It's like the aftermath of the Rodney King trial in LA in the early 90's. 

People unhappy with the justice system and getting their own form of justice. Back then it was through riots, now it is through hashtags and pressure applied in the media.

I believe we have a justice system for a reason. People's lives and careers shouldn't be ruined just because they did things you don't agree with. They were found UNANIMOUSLY not guilty by a jury. End of story.

nacho libre

Well to be honest i am second guessing myself these days, if a comment i would have deemed is harmless in the past could now be construed as inappropriate.
I long for the days when you could say show us your elbows without apprehension:(

LirW

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

On this - I often wonder are most women genuinely happy watching a 19 year old girl from Spain raising their kids ? Same with the Dads ? maybe the dads are - sorry a bit sexist there

Surely the joy of having kids, is enjoying them, see the world and seeing it with them. You hope you can give them a bit of your life experiences - you hope you can shape them a little and try remove the mistakes you have made. Do you want to have your kids viewing the world from a kid on whatsapp - who is just a kid themselves with little real investment in the kids.

I know the banks decided that it was great that both parents have to work for 30 years to pay off debt that they can't afford.

But are most people genuinely happy with what modern life has offered.

If we were having an honest conversation - I wonder how many parents would love to say - yes I'd love to raise my kids and not just have a weekend relationship with them. How many women are trapped in a rat race and would love the traditional female role.

If you said something like that in some circles - you would be a female oppressor.

I have to be honest, we're living a very traditional life, me being at home with the kids and him at work. We talked about how we want to do it as a couple and for financial and personal reasons we both decided that way.
We're both quite happy with that decision really, of course there are some sacrifices we need to make but it works for us and any other way would be more uncomfortable.
Will I do it forever? Probably, most likely not. But at the moment I enjoy being at home, getting everything done, preparing home cooked meals and lunches for the family.

But that said, it's my/our choice. I believe that it is about letting the woman have a choice. I'm not shaming women for planning a life without kids, and I don't wanna be shamed for being a stay-at-home.
Of course other factors influence decisions like that like the cost of living, health, career paths but generally I think that every person should live their life the way it suits them.
At the moment within our circle of friends we're the most settled ones and having the most stability (and kids). That might change one day when others earn more and their kids are out of the house but that's fine. We made that choice as a couple and stand by it.

Never ever would anyone tell me that I'm not supporting the image of the modern woman, or they'll get a smack.

FixdePitchmark

LirW wrote: »

I have to be honest, we're living a very traditional life, me being at home with the kids and him at work. We talked about how we want to do it as a couple and for financial and personal reasons we both decided that way.
We're both quite happy with that decision really, of course there are some sacrifices we need to make but it works for us and any other way would be more uncomfortable.
Will I do it forever? Probably, most likely not. But at the moment I enjoy being at home, getting everything done, preparing home cooked meals and lunches for the family.

But that said, it's my/our choice. I believe that it is about letting the woman have a choice. I'm not shaming women for planning a life without kids, and I don't wanna be shamed for being a stay-at-home.
Of course other factors influence decisions like that like the cost of living, health, career paths but generally I think that every person should live their life the way it suits them.
At the moment within our circle of friends we're the most settled ones and having the most stability (and kids). That might change one day when others earn more and their kids are out of the house but that's fine. We made that choice as a couple and stand by it.

Never ever would anyone tell me that I'm not supporting the image of the modern woman, or they'll get a smack.

And if I can dare to be critical of women for a second.

I would suggest that the more judgmental of this would be women ?

professore

LirW wrote: »

I have to be honest, we're living a very traditional life, me being at home with the kids and him at work. We talked about how we want to do it as a couple and for financial and personal reasons we both decided that way.
We're both quite happy with that decision really, of course there are some sacrifices we need to make but it works for us and any other way would be more uncomfortable.
Will I do it forever? Probably, most likely not. But at the moment I enjoy being at home, getting everything done, preparing home cooked meals and lunches for the family.

But that said, it's my/our choice. I believe that it is about letting the woman have a choice. I'm not shaming women for planning a life without kids, and I don't wanna be shamed for being a stay-at-home.
Of course other factors influence decisions like that like the cost of living, health, career paths but generally I think that every person should live their life the way it suits them.
At the moment within our circle of friends we're the most settled ones and having the most stability (and kids). That might change one day when others earn more and their kids are out of the house but that's fine. We made that choice as a couple and stand by it.

Never ever would anyone tell me that I'm not supporting the image of the modern woman, or they'll get a smack.

We did things like you did. Now our kids are older my wife is back working in the family business running a whole side of it herself. When she was a "stay at home mum" there were women who wouldn't talk to her because she was "only a housewife". Never bothered to find out she is a highly qualified engineer - far more than most of those looking down their noses at her - who worked at a high level for several years before choosing to stay at home for a while. Her being logically minded made a rational decision that made financial and family happiness sense. No chaining her to the sink as modern feminists would have you believe.

Malayalam

I stayed home too to raise our children. The only criticism I ever got was from other women, a handful of one time friends. And my mother!

LirW

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

And if I can dare to be critical of women for a second.

I would suggest that the more judgmental of this would be women ?

Yes and no, society as it is is very judgmental, judgement differs between genders.
Whatever your life planning involves, there are tons of judgement, no matter what. And if anything happens out of the ordinary, oh dear.

The truth is, people are bitter because they are unhappy with aspects of their lives. Men hate women for things they might do or get, women hate men for things they might do or get, people hate the rich, people hate the poor, people hate the neighbour with the fancier car.
It's not any different when people have different living arrangements and might do better than one.

It's a pity because I think women could reach so much more if they'd stand together and go into a debate with reason. But there is no unity in women, so there'll always be the conservative, the working women, the oppressed women in the 3rd world, the left women working to destroy patriarchy. Most women agree that there are genuine issues but there is no platform for a reasonable dialogue where it can be debated or solved.
That makes me very sad.

FixdePitchmark

professore wrote: »

We did things like you did. Now our kids are older my wife is back working in the family business running a whole side of it herself. When she was a "stay at home mum" there were women who wouldn't talk to her because she was "only a housewife". Never bothered to find out she is a highly qualified engineer - far more than most of those looking down their noses at her - who worked at a high level for several years before choosing to stay at home for a while. Her being logically minded made a rational decision that made financial and family happiness sense. No chaining her to the sink as modern feminists would have you believe.

And again - to just generalise for a second. I couldn’t see men I know ever, looking down on a woman for being a stay at home mum.

Now you could make a point that – that is because the woman is carrying out the role that a man sees as her natural role. A sort of subconscious sexism. At least the new wave feminism has made men, to have to question their subconscious sexism.

We could be just fooling ourselves in the modern world - and in our deep deep down psychology, biology, and dna - men will always have a subconscious element that sees the mother as a mother.

py2006

Feminists are their own worst enemies