Modern Feminism-Good for Society?

anewme

kildare lad wrote: »

Why do you reckon in the real world off the internet , you've never heard anyone mention modern feminisms ??

Because it seems to be a threat here only I suppose.

Leg End Reject

Tell me how wrote: »

The two statements in bold are where you have contradicted yourself within your own post and are wrong in pretty much everything within your post.
Nearly impressive to be so wrong in so many different ways.

No, if you meet an asshole call them out on it.

No need to turn a few assholes of either gender into a gender war.

*Asshole is intended as a gender-neutral term*

anewme

anewme wrote: »

There is no oath people take to declare themselves feminist or not.

Certainly, but when surveyed women explicitly and repeatedly reject the label of "feminist", then it is at best an attempt at agency-stripping to assert that they must be. And if a feminist, or feminists in general, continue to assert that they have the full force of all women behind them when in fact it is a minority of women, they ought to be corrected lest the "powers that be" begin making decisions for all women based on what is ultimately a minority subset of women.

anewme wrote: »

Outside of here, I've never heard anyone ever mention modern feminism and waves etc, man or woman, so perhaps the perceived threat of supremacy is an issue for the disenfranchised here only and the reality is there is no threat whatsoever.

Is this directed at me? I've said nothing about "supremacy" in this thread and it is not in any way related to my point.

Tell me how

Wibbs wrote: »

Please in your own time point out any part of the current feminist credo that doesn't paint the patriarchy/toxic masculinity as the reasons for inequality/the oppressor/the boogeyman? It's the very foundation of the politic.

What exactly is 'the current feminist credo'? To me that is the bogeyman in the conversation, the narrative that anyone advocating for an improvement in their circumstance is doing so solely because of and at the direction something they have been instructed to utilise.

No dichotomy required. Where in mainstream Irish politics or media when anything to do with gender is discussed do you hear other voices that aren't filtered through the prism of feminism? It's vanishingly rare. I remember reading an interview with actress Emma Watson where she was saying how can we change the world where only half of the world are invited to the conversation. As usual irony bypass. When do we not hear from self declaring feminists about all the wrongs in the world blamed on patriarchy/toxic masculinity in media and politics when the matter comes up? When do we hear any opposing viewpoints? Again vanishingly rarely. Such viewpoints are very much in the fringes, which is never a good sign. Put it another way; picture any mainstream Irish politician from a mainstream Irish political party coming out with; I'm not a feminist, because I think the politic raises points that require scrutiny and questions and can be divisive in trying to seek true gender equality for all. Would that be political suicide or no?

You mean opposing viewpoints from the likes of Ivan Yates, Ian O'Doherty, David Quinn, Niall Boylan, John McGuirk, Colm Parkinson or George Hook before them or further afield, many of TalkRadios' UK presenters, Piers Morgan, Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson etc. All those notorious shrinking violets who have no platform.

Your point about what an Irish politician might say suggest that if they don't do so, that they are entirely card carrying feminists themselves. Michael Lowry wrote to a previous Taoiseach and referred to a consultant as 'not bad looking' do you think that he is likely to have viewed female colleagues as being equal in standing to male? Holly Cairns was recently referred to dismissively by a member of semi-state board as a 'silly little girl'. Both harmless enough but hardly evidence of a filter of feminism.

I've given plenty of examples of point for point reasons why I think modern feminism is a busted flush that doesn't bear the weight of much scrutiny in a few regards. About your only rebuttal has been to say then why aren't men banding together and fighting their corner.

First off I haven't seen examples which have proven that modern feminism is a busted flush apart from you just declaring it to be so. And I'm sure every edition of feminism was at it's time viewed by those eager for things to continue as they were as being equally worthless, but, thankfully for society, progression as generally been upward. And this is why I am supportive of many feminist motivations, if they aren't happy with something, they continue to strive to get improvements. When the only rebuttal they are met with is a simplistic assessment that their cause is a busted flush then why wouldn't they do so. Maybe if men did advocate where they genuinely feel advances for women will come at an unfair cost to them, then it would be a more productive response for all involved than simply saying these women have no genuine argument for anything.

kildare lad

anewme wrote: »

Because it seems to be a threat here only I suppose.

Look we all have mother's , daughters , sisters , nieces and no self respecting man would like to see them being screwed over just because they're women . What I will argue against is a narrative that " Feminists " push regarding gender pay gap and placements in high paying jobs like CEOs . They'll push a narrative saying women earn 20 per cent less then men or there's only one female ceo, but they'll never quote studies which explain why that its like that.

Look how much better women do when it comes to divorce , how many women have to move back into their parents or rent a box room of someone. I split up with the mother of my child and I've to pay her money even though I have my son just as much as she does . I have him 2 days during the week and every weekend I'm bringing him to all his sports while she's lying in bed hungover . That's why I laugh when I hear feminists go on about the Patriarchy. Some people just wanna be oppressed and in today's SJW climate, it's very popular with a certain set of people who'll jump on every social justice bandwagon going.

anewme

Deleted User wrote: »

Certainly, but when surveyed women explicitly and repeatedly reject the label of "feminist", then it is at best an attempt at agency-stripping to assert that they must be. And if a feminist, or feminists in general, continue to assert that they have the full force of all women behind them when in fact it is a minority of women, they ought to be corrected lest the "powers that be" begin making decisions for all women based on what is ultimately a minority subset of women.


Is this directed at me? I've said nothing about "supremacy" in this thread and it is not in any way related to my point.

Where are these surveys to accept or reject feminism. Again, never come across them either.

No, it's not directed at you at all.

It is related to the person who explained modern feminism as supremacy. Up to that, no one could actually say what it was, so at least it was explained.

Tell me how

kildare lad wrote: »

Look how much better women do when it comes to divorce , how many women have to move back into their parents or rent a box room of someone. I split up with the mother of my child and I've to pay her money even though I have my son just as much as she does . I have him 2 days during the week and every weekend I'm bringing him to all his sports while she's lying in bed hungover . That's why I laugh when I hear feminists go on about the Patriarchy.

And this is a perfect case of where men should be banding together and building a group to have a common voice to raise attention to such things that they feel means that they are being treated unfairly.

It won't be easy, won't happen overnight, won't guarantee quick meaningful change, but it will be a lot more productive than just attacking women who are advocating for their views more so than complaining. And this is just one example. Whatever the cause is, if there is a collective disadvantage which men are experiencing why not advocate for change. This is why there is same sex marriage, legal abortion, divorce, etc, because people created a public voice and then that grew in to the government paying attention.

I hear from feminists going on about the patriarchy ten times less than I hear people complaining about feminists going on about the patriarchy it seems at this point.

Silentcorner

Tell me how wrote: »

And this is a perfect case of where men should be banding together and building a group to have a common voice to raise attention to such things that they feel means that they are being treated unfairly.

It won't be easy, won't happen overnight, won't guarantee quick meaningful change, but it will be a lot more productive than just attacking women who are advocating for their views more so than complaining. And this is just one example. Whatever the cause is, if there is a collective disadvantage which men are experiencing why not advocate for change. This is why there is same sex marriage, legal abortion, divorce, etc, because people created a public voice and then that grew in to the government paying attention.

I hear about feminists going on about the patriarchy ten times less than I hear people complaining about feminists going on about the patriarchy it seems at this point.

What is it with lefties these days, only interested in dividing people up as much as they can using genitals, skin colour and whatever other divisions they can dream up...what ever happened to the days when lefties were all about the working class and poor? When did that change?

Why did ye abandon the poor?

osarusan

kildare lad wrote: »

Why do you reckon in the real world off the internet , you've never heard anyone mention modern feminisms ??

Because, unlike the inhabitants of CA, who crywank themselves into a frenzy about the feminists or the anti-feminists, the religious or the irreligious, the traveller or the settled, the native or the immigrant, the right or the left, the gay or the straight, the woke or the broke, the inhabitants of the real world don't give much of a shit either way.

Tell me how

Silentcorner wrote: »

What is it with lefties these days, only interested in dividing people up as much as they can using genitals, skin colour and whatever other divisions they can dream up...what ever happened to the days when lefties were all about the working class and poor? When did that change?

Why did ye abandon the poor?

Did this make sense as you typed it? Because it's not doing so here.

Silentcorner

anewme wrote: »

When you worry about keeping others down, it reflects only on yourself.

What's wrong with being working class anyway?

Absolutely nothing.

Just wondering why the lefties have abandoned them...US, UK, here in Ireland.

Silentcorner

osarusan wrote: »

Because, unlike the inhabitants of CA, who crywank themselves into a frenzy about the feminists or the anti-feminists, the religious or the irreligious, the traveller or the settled, the native or the immigrant, the right or the left, the gay or the straight, the woke or the broke, the inhabitants of the real world don't give much of a shit either way.

Oh you are hard!! Too cool for this place for sure...

Leg End Reject

Tell me how wrote: »

And this is a perfect case of where men should be banding together and building a group to have a common voice to raise attention to such things that they feel means that they are being treated unfairly.

It won't be easy, won't happen overnight, won't guarantee quick meaningful change, but it will be a lot more productive than just attacking women who are advocating for their views more so than complaining. And this is just one example. Whatever the cause is, if there is a collective disadvantage which men are experiencing why not advocate for change. This is why there is same sex marriage, legal abortion, divorce, etc, because people created a public voice and then that grew in to the government paying attention

This is true, women campaigned for equal rights and better healthcare for women's health.

Family law is one area where men are disadvantaged, but the laws weren't made by women. If men did group together and campaign they would eventually achieve their goal.

anewme

Silentcorner wrote: »

Oh you are hard!! Too cool for this place for sure...

No just a normal person who can see through the pity party here.

It's bang on the money, in fairness.

This persecution complex crap is only perpetuated here. Normal people dont exist waiting for invasion of supremacy women plotting against them.

Leg End Reject

Silentcorner wrote: »

What is it with lefties these days, only interested in dividing people up as much as they can using genitals, skin colour and whatever other divisions they can dream up...what ever happened to the days when lefties were all about the working class and poor? When did that change?

Why did ye abandon the poor?

Working class in Ireland used to mean unskilled or semi-skilled workers. It's now used to describe the long-term or multi-generational unemployed.

I'm from a working class background, my parent's sacrifices have allowed me to meet the metrics of middle class.

anewme

anewme wrote: »

Where are these surveys to accept or reject feminism. Again, never come across them either.

As I said earlier in the thread, I'm not aware of any that have been done in Ireland. Plenty around about the US/UK though.

My point, unrefuted by you, stands.

Leg End Reject

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Family law is one area where men are disadvantaged, but the laws weren't made by women. If men did group together and campaign they would eventually achieve their goal.

The family laws were introduced across much of Europe and the US in the late-19th and early-20th century, after the success of feminist campaigns in the UK. Look up "tender years doctrine". Prior to that, custody of children by default went to the father, who was considered more likely to have the resources to care for them.

osarusan

osarusan wrote: »

Because, unlike the inhabitants of CA, who crywank themselves into a frenzy about the feminists or the anti-feminists, the religious or the irreligious, the traveller or the settled, the native or the immigrant, the right or the left, the gay or the straight, the woke or the broke, the inhabitants of the real world don't give much of a shit either way.

Only enough to come here, read through full threads, and spend the time it takes to be clear about how very above it all they are. Only that much.

Rodin

Feminists are not looking for genuine equality.

anewme

Deleted User wrote: »

Only enough to come here, read through full threads, and spend the time it takes to be clear about how very above it all they are. Only that much.

Its summed up 100 percent accurately.

People are worse to give their wit to the whingers here.

I said earlier no one had heard of this crap outside here.

Lesson learned for me anyway. Every day is a school day.

anewme

anewme wrote: »

Its summed up 100 percent correctly.

People are worse to give their wit to the whingers here.

I said earlier no one had heard of this crap outside here.

Lesson learned for me any way. Every day is a school day.

I've discussed the merits and pitfalls of feminism in a social setting before, when it's been appropriate.

You and the lad are not every person. But by all means, if it's a waste of time you posting here... stop it.

Have a good weekend.

Sarcozies

Tell me how wrote: »

.

I hear from feminists going on about the patriarchy ten times less than I hear people complaining about feminists going on about the patriarchy it seems at this point.

Can you provide me 5 prominent Irish politicians complaining about feminists going on about the patriarchy?

Sarcozies

Leg End Reject wrote: »

This is true, women campaigned for equal rights and better healthcare for women's health.

Family law is one area where men are disadvantaged, but the laws weren't made by women. If men did group together and campaign they would eventually achieve their goal.

Would you say the same thing about the plight of black people under the system.in America? That it's none of the concern of anyone but the black people to do something about it?

What about members of the LGBT community who make of a small segment it the population? Is it just up to them solely to fix it up or should people from the wider community, government and power positions also speak up and pitch a hand?

Leg End Reject

Sarcozies wrote: »

Would you say the same thing about the plight of black people under the system.in America? That it's none of the concern of anyone but the black people to do something about it?

What about members of the LGBT community who make of a small segment it the population? Is it just up to them solely to fix it up or should people from the wider community, government and power positions also speak up and pitch a hand?

I'd say it needs to start with the demographic that experiences discrimination. You need to vocalise and highlight an issue to get others on board.

There's only so many hours in the day and we can't spend them all agonising over the plight of groups that feel marginalised. Being human, it's probable I wouldn't feel motivated to stand up for all of them.

Diemos

Tell me how wrote: »

And for anyone who comes in with cries of the MSM and how they would react to men trying to help themselves and each other, have a look at how one young female activist is treated, her mural didn't last 24 hours before it had a bucket of paint thrown over it and everyone from high profile media people to the President of the United States had a go at her for trying to raise awareness, and yet, she, and others like her persist and don't stop just because someone tells them they should.

You think the mural was destroyed because of her gender?

**Editing to say I'm not defending the destruction, I'm simply asking if you thought her gender was the thing that offended the perpetrator.

Sarcozies

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I'd say it needs to start with the demographic that experiences discrimination. You need to vocalise and highlight an issue to get others on board.

There's only so many hours in the day and we can't spend them all agonising over the plight of groups that feel marginalised. Being human, it's probable I wouldn't feel motivated to stand up for all of them.

Why do you feel the need to segment people who wish to vocalise injustice by certain characteristics like the colour of their skin or what's between their legs?

If you see an injustice or discrimination do you sit silently by and wait for someone who matches the description of the victim of said injustice or discrimination to do something?

Rothko

I honestly can't imagine how anyone (male or female) would be offended by the word boobs. Crazy world we live in.

elstingeo

Feminism in its ideals was a good idea to begin with. Promoting womens rights during a time when women were overlooked or not seen as equal to men.

Unfortunately this new wave of feminism has become a political vehicle for women to now belittle and emasculate men. It is a toxic, hate filled agenda.

If someone is a true feminist then they should respect both genders and their qualities. It should not be normal in today’s society for a woman to mistreat a man and use feminism as an excuse.

Not all men want women to fail or not succeed in life. Many men have brains that allow them to understand women’s value in the world as apposed to the opinions of yesteryear.

Yes it was terrible how women were treated previously but that doesn’t give “feminists” an open licence to belittle and ridicule men.

Due to the social evolution of the world now: men are not allowed to question feminists toxic behaviours or mannerisms for the sake of being called politically incorrect.

Before anyone asks; I have no chip on my shoulder or problem with women being treated as equal or progressing in this world. I do have a problem with toxic, sexist behaviour being labelled as feminism. Anyone should be able to recall such behaviour either in the media or in their own life
It’s a topic that no one dares approach.

Mad_maxx

Tell me how wrote: »

And this is a perfect case of where men should be banding together and building a group to have a common voice to raise attention to such things that they feel means that they are being treated unfairly.

It won't be easy, won't happen overnight, won't guarantee quick meaningful change, but it will be a lot more productive than just attacking women who are advocating for their views more so than complaining. And this is just one example. Whatever the cause is, if there is a collective disadvantage which men are experiencing why not advocate for change. This is why there is same sex marriage, legal abortion, divorce, etc, because people created a public voice and then that grew in to the government paying attention.

I hear from feminists going on about the patriarchy ten times less than I hear people complaining about feminists going on about the patriarchy it seems at this point.

If a group of men tried that , they would be instantly branded misogynistic " straight white male's "by the media and the likes of the NWC or even many politicians who are enthusiastically on the progressive wagon

The gay marriage drive is not a valid comparison, gays are viewed as victims by the WOKE, men viewed as the personification of " privilege "

Silentcorner

anewme wrote: »

No just a normal person who can see through the pity party here.

It's bang on the money, in fairness.

This persecution complex crap is only perpetuated here. Normal people dont exist waiting for invasion of supremacy women plotting against them.

I got a laugh out of that one, white middle class women believing themselves to oppressed by a mythical patriarchy is a persecution complex.

The issue feminism has now, is that it is everywhere, work, media, politics, so everyone is entitled to an opinion on the ideology, and it doesn't take too long to expose the logical inconsistencies, for instance, believing that society doesn't value women whilst living in a society that caters for the massive economic power of those women is a bit rich....and silly to be honest.