Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Modern Feminism-Good for Society?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
Feminism was originally about lobbying for womens rights to be brought up to be equal to mens. This has been achieved now
Women can enter any career, the wage gap no longer exists, women have bodily autonomy in the western world etc...
Now however those who often call themselves feminists are just dog whistling for being angry at men for their own shortcomings or blaming the boogeyman ‘patriarchy’ for their own failings or in many cases trying to install socialism under the guise of ‘womens rights’0 -
Silentcorner wrote: »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.
Can you explain this bit in bold. What is it you meant exactly?
I presume you are implying that as marketing of many goods is aimed towards women and so that implies that they are valued?
If so, that is completely a false equivalence.
To quote the notorious Clay Davis, from the Wire;
'"I'll take any motherf***er's money if he givin it away"'
Do you think he valued and respected someone just because he had the opportunity to make money from them?0 -
Eric Cartman wrote: »Feminism was originally about lobbying for womens rights to be brought up to be equal to mens. This has been achieved now
Women can enter any career, the wage gap no longer exists, women have bodily autonomy in the western world etc...
Now however those who often call themselves feminists are just dog whistling for being angry at men for their own shortcomings or blaming the boogeyman ‘patriarchy’ for their own failings or in many cases trying to install socialism under the guise of ‘womens rights’
The moniker of 'feminist' seems to be more often doled out by people offended at the thought of a woman speaking up for something.
The inclusion of your reference to socialism is like you're just trying to shoehorn in buzzwords here almost like some form of dogwhistling.0 -
Advertisement
-
Tell me how wrote: »The moniker of 'feminist' seems to be more often doled out by people offended at the thought of a woman speaking up for something.
The inclusion of your reference to socialism is like you're just trying to shoehorn in buzzwords here almost like some form of dogwhistling.
Feminism and marxism in a 3rd wave context are heavily linked, its not me shoehorning , its widely accepted.
Women speaking up isnt half as caustic as you seem to think it is.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »The moniker of 'feminist' seems to be more often doled out by people offended at the thought of a woman speaking up for something.
The inclusion of your reference to socialism is like you're just trying to shoehorn in buzzwords here almost like some form of dogwhistling.
This is such a childish view of the matter, but I'd be a fool to expect anything else from yourself. As usual, it's a view that ignores what comes from the mouths of many feminists, and focuses purely on the fact that they are women.
Feminist says something ridiculous, man responds questioning the soundness of their reason, people like you scream oppression. Yet If I started citing examples of women who disagree with you, you yourself would be very quick to dismiss their opinions. Does that mean that you're a sexist too? If you're looking to be logically consistent, which I doubt, then the only conclusion is that you're a sexist too.“The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it.”-― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov0 -
Eric Cartman wrote: »Feminism was originally about lobbying for womens rights to be brought up to be equal to mens. This has been achieved now
Women can enter any career, the wage gap no longer exists, women have bodily autonomy in the western world etc...
Now however those who often call themselves feminists are just dog whistling for being angry at men for their own shortcomings or blaming the boogeyman ‘patriarchy’ for their own failings or in many cases trying to install socialism under the guise of ‘womens rights’
It has not be achieved. If it had been achieved, leadership of companies would be a 50/50 split for example. It is far off that.
There are still a significant number of Irish companies that have only one woman on their board, and in fact, one ISEQ 20 company in Ireland still has an all male board.
http://www.betterbalance.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Balance-for-Better-Business-Report-Nov-2020.pdf0 -
It has not be achieved. If it had been achieved, leadership of companies would be a 50/50 split for example. It is far off that.
There are still a significant number of Irish companies that have only one woman on their board, and in fact, one ISEQ 20 company in Ireland still has an all male board.
http://www.betterbalance.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Balance-for-Better-Business-Report-Nov-2020.pdf
He was speaking of equality not equity. Your demand for equity is just another example that highlights how feminists want far more than bare equality.“The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it.”-― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov0 -
It has not be achieved. If it had been achieved, leadership of companies would be a 50/50 split for example. It is far off that.
There are still a significant number of Irish companies that have only one woman on their board, and in fact, one ISEQ 20 company in Ireland still has an all male board.
http://www.betterbalance.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Balance-for-Better-Business-Report-Nov-2020.pdf
No they wouldn't. This is a ridiculous thing to suggest. Are men denied opportunities and widely discriminated against in Nursing, teaching or childcare roles because there isn't a 50/50 split in these professions?0 -
Advertisement
-
It has not be achieved. If it had been achieved, leadership of companies would be a 50/50 split for example. It is far off that.
There are still a significant number of Irish companies that have only one woman on their board, and in fact, one ISEQ 20 company in Ireland still has an all male board.
http://www.betterbalance.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Balance-for-Better-Business-Report-Nov-2020.pdf
Equality of outcome is the dumbest target to pursue, women have full equality of opportunity which is true equality, quotas or measuring success by counting the amount of women on a board is just faulty logic.0 -
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 "
You should look at the efforts of many activists which led to the laws eventually being introduced or changes in societal perceptions and the way these people were branded to see whether they just allowed their voices to be silenced.
If things around these topics were going to be changed easily, then there wouldn't have been the need for activism in the first place. Divorce was defeated first time out, The 8th referendum had to be repealed after it was obviously introduced. Even when it was repealed, prominent political parties only campaigned actively in favour of doing so when they saw the way the wind was blowing.
But you do make a valid point in what men who advocate for something are often met with. There have been a number of public commentators who advocated for, amongst other things, improved mental health and suggesting that men should be more open about doing so. They have faced pretty crude dismissal of these messages or more particularly, their role in activating for it from many on social media. Even one prominent person in this respect, has been ridiculed and dismissed as a novelty act on these very Boards by some of the people on this thread. So maybe it isn't the feminists, or the woke media or whatever you think is scaring people off from advocating for their own health and happiness but people ostensibly who should be on the same side as them.
There seems to be an almost phobic aversion to being associated with anything that might be seen as 'woke' or 'progressive' and people are willing to continue to suffer rather than have such terrible titles awarded to them.
John Wall, a terminally ill cancer sufferer has campaigned for terminally ill patients to be automatically granted a medical card and it was announced that this would happen just a few weeks ago. While he saw success, he still seemed to be campaigning in isolation. Fair play to him, at least he persevered and didn't allow the challenges he faced to stop him.0 -
This is such a childish view of the matter, but I'd be a fool to expect anything else from yourself. As usual, it's a view that ignores what comes from the mouths of many feminists, and focuses purely on the fact that they are women.
Feminist says something ridiculous, man responds questioning the soundness of their reason, people like you scream oppression. Yet If I started citing examples of women who disagree with you, you yourself would be very quick to dismiss their opinions. Does that mean that you're a sexist too? If you're looking to be logically consistent, which I doubt, then the only conclusion is that you're a sexist too.
Lol, even in your response, you use the word 'feminist' like its an insult. Find it hard to believe you look at any topic objectively when you are starting from such a prejudiced standpoint.
And I've already said that I'm aware of extreme cases which of course can be used to say that such women are themselves prejudiced so before you try to use examples of women who disagree with me, please try to understand what it is I am saying.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »You should look at the efforts of many activists which led to the laws eventually being introduced or changes in societal perceptions and the way these people were branded to see whether they just allowed their voices to be silenced.
If things around these topics were going to be changed easily, then there wouldn't have been the need for activism in the first place. Divorce was defeated first time out, The 8th referendum had to be repealed after it was obviously introduced. Even when it was repealed, prominent political parties only campaigned actively in favour of doing so when they saw the way the wind was blowing.
But you do make a valid point in what men who advocate for something are often met with. There have been a number of public commentators who advocated for, amongst other things, improved mental health and suggesting that men should be more open about doing so. They have faced pretty crude dismissal of these messages or more particularly, their role in activating for it from many on social media. Even one prominent person in this respect, has been ridiculed and dismissed as a novelty act on these very Boards by some of the people on this thread. So maybe it isn't the feminists, or the woke media or whatever you think is scaring people off from advocating for their own health and happiness but people ostensibly who should be on the same side as them.
There seems to be an almost phobic aversion to being associated with anything that might be seen as 'woke' or 'progressive' and people are willing to continue to suffer rather than have such terrible titles awarded to them.
John Wall, a terminally ill cancer sufferer has campaigned for terminally ill patients to be automatically granted a medical card and it was announced that this would happen just a few weeks ago. While he saw success, he still seemed to be campaigning in isolation. Fair play to him, at least he persevered and didn't allow the challenges he faced to stop him.
The point, surely, is that modern western feminists proclaim to be fighting for equality between the sexes, yet the focus is almost exclusively on issues that affect women, and become more and more frivolous by the day. If equality was there aim as such, surely there would be more of a focus on issues that predominately effect males.
If you want to go out and advocate solely on the behalf of women then so be it, but don't lie to people that your end aim is 'equality'. Equality has been reached (in the West).0 -
Eric Cartman wrote: »Equality of outcome is the dumbest target to pursue, women have full equality of opportunity which is true equality, quotas or measuring success by counting the amount of women on a board is just faulty logic.
Why is it? Is that not the most obvious target by which to measure progress or success. For anyone, male or female. In all walks of life, in all industries, people look at what others have achieved and seek to emulate that.
Now, before you react, I'm not suggesting there should be absolute or mandatory enforcement of quality of outcome through regulation. But, I can see where some regulation around the areas of certain quotas can at least be part of the conversation rather than just assuming that equality will ultimately happen organically, it might, but there is no guarantee and will take much longer than should be accepted by all people.
It is probable that people have ingrained bias as to expectations of who should be in a particular role because they have grown up always seeing such a person in it.
We saw it in the NFL where it was recognized that Black men were not getting the opportunities to coach and so the Rooney rule was brought in even though, in theory it should not have been required given the number of non-white people who have played the sport.0 -
Maybe I am off-tangent here....
Lidl are currently running an ad 'promoting' ladies football. The narrator speaks in a confrontational tone about 'levelling the playing field' and proclaiming it's not over 'until WE say it's over'.
Christ on a bike. What more do they want?
The irony is the current Dublin ladies footballers wouldn't have won all the titles they have if they hadn't ridden on the coat-tails of the success of the men's team.
And its not like women playing sport are being marginalised (or even not being allowed play)- there is more participation and coverage now than ever before.0 -
CtevenSrowder wrote: »The point, surely, is that modern western feminists proclaim to be fighting for equality between the sexes, yet the focus is almost exclusively on issues that affect women, and become more and more frivolous by the day. If equality was there aim as such, surely there would be more of a focus on issues that predominately effect males.
If you want to go out and advocate solely on the behalf of women then so be it, but don't lie to people that your end aim is 'equality'. Equality has been reached (in the West).
It's hard to read that and think that would some would take it as meaning that women, after being prejudiced against for so long, should not pretty much immediately, start to take up the battles for women and devote less of their time to issues which they still see needing to be addressed within their own sphere.
One thing I would feel pretty certain about is, if men start advocating for something which is for the genuine benefit of men, not just an attempt to take something from women, many of the people who would come on board with this would be women in the same way as many supporters for women's rights are men.0 -
castletownman wrote: »Maybe I am off-tangent here....
Lidl are currently running an ad 'promoting' ladies football. The narrator speaks in a confrontational tone about 'levelling the playing field' and proclaiming it's not over 'until WE say it's over'.
Christ on a bike. What more do they want?
The irony is the current Dublin ladies footballers wouldn't have won all the titles they have if they hadn't ridden on the coat-tails of the success of the men's team.
And its not like women playing sport are being marginalised (or even not being allowed play)- there is more participation and coverage now than ever before.
Did you really just type these two sentences one after the other?
That aside, just 2 months ago, one of the womens All Ireland semi-finals had to be moved because a mens team wanted the venue for a training session.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »Why is it? Is that not the most obvious target by which to measure progress or success. For anyone, male or female. In all walks of life, in all industries, people look at what others have achieved and seek to emulate that.
Now, before you react, I'm not suggesting there should be absolute or mandatory enforcement of quality of outcome through regulation. But, I can see where some regulation around the areas of certain quotas can at least be part of the conversation rather than just assuming that equality will ultimately happen organically, it might, but there is no guarantee and will take much longer than should be accepted by all people.
It is probable that people have ingrained bias as to expectations of who should be in a particular role because they have grown up always seeing such a person in it.
We saw it in the NFL where it was recognized that Black men were not getting the opportunities to coach and so the Rooney rule was brought in even though, in theory it should not have been required given the number of non-white people who have played the sport.
Because when equality of outcome eventually isn't met (because it won't be, you are very unlikely to have 50/50 splits across everything), the reasons will undoubtedly be that it is due to some form of discrimination. I contest that any other reasons will be swept/explained away. And ultimately, this always leads to policies of so-called 'positive discrimination', which is just discrimination quite literally with a positive spin.
The Rooney rule (I'd not heard of it before) on the surface doesn't seem like something I'd be completely opposed to for the NHL, but again, how far can you extend this to more 'normal' jobs, and what jobs do you choose and why? Does it apply to skin colour, sex, sexual orientation, all of these things?
I think such a rule, were it to be initiated in Ireland, would only be done so for professions such as being a CEO, jobs that are out of reach of the majority, regardless of your gender, skin colour, or sexuality, and the calls for more and more 'minority' groups who have to be interviewed would only grow and grow.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »It's hard to read that and think that would some would take it as meaning that women, after being prejudiced against for so long, should not pretty much immediately, start to take up the battles for women and devote less of their time to issues which they still see needing to be addressed within their own sphere.
One thing I would feel pretty certain about is, if men start advocating for something which is for the genuine benefit of men, not just an attempt to take something from women, many of the people who would come on board with this would be women in the same way as many supporters for women's rights are men.
Sorry, I can't quite understand what your first paragraph is saying. Can you rephrase/rewrite it please.0 -
Advertisement
-
Tell me how wrote: »Why is it? Is that not the most obvious target by which to measure progress or success. For anyone, male or female. In all walks of life, in all industries, people look at what others have achieved and seek to emulate that.
Now, before you react, I'm not suggesting there should be absolute or mandatory enforcement of quality of outcome through regulation. But, I can see where some regulation around the areas of certain quotas can at least be part of the conversation rather than just assuming that equality will ultimately happen organically, it might, but there is no guarantee and will take much longer than should be accepted by all people.
It is probable that people have ingrained bias as to expectations of who should be in a particular role because they have grown up always seeing such a person in it.
We saw it in the NFL where it was recognized that Black men were not getting the opportunities to coach and so the Rooney rule was brought in even though, in theory it should not have been required given the number of non-white people who have played the sport.
I think theres a big difference between the rooney rule and female board members. Equality of outcome is a bad metric for boardrooms because unlike the NFL where there were many black men who wanted to coach, there will always be less women who want to put in the effort required to be on a board. Being a high level exec often requires decades of persistent over work, hours put in etc.. that many women do not want to participate in particularly after having children.
Any quota system in place in this regard just rides roughshod over those women who choose their career over having children.
The real boardroom gap we have is a lack of primary child carers, a gap that youll never close because it is a choice0 -
Feminists are not looking for genuine equality.
It's the problem with any ideology with a diverse member base.. the ideas become varied, and while the umbrella term of feminism is used, there are often massive differences between their desires.
Many feminists believe that feminism relates to actual equality.. because that's been the media spin for decades. Feminists wouldn't gain as much support as they have had they said honestly, that this was solely about Women's rights, and so, they plugged the line about equality. Except, in every instance where actual equality has been reached, they've sought further changes to protect or entitle women to greater rights.
Because feminism isn't about equality. It's about women's rights, irrespective of whether that establishes equality, or changes the dynamic where women have more rights than men.
For many feminists, the movement is about fear. Fear of the patriarchy. Fear of men as a gender. Rightly or wrongly, due to the experiences of some women, they've extended the negative behavior of some men, on to the whole gender (while excusing women from the same application), because men are the enemy, and need to be punished, or marginalised to the extent where women are completely and utterly safe from the attentions of "men".
All you have to do is look at any of the equality organisations that exist today, whether it's the UN or the EU. The focus is almost entirely on furthering the protection and rights of women. Men, in spite of the glaring inequalities, are given a token reference of needing help, but usually that's somehow connected to how men mistreat women, so the help should be changing the place of males in society.
Meh. Feminism is the poster child of success in western culture, because it has succeeded in being different things to different people while, taking zero responsibility for the consequences of the changes implemented.0 -
To be paid the same as Megan Rapinoe.castletownman wrote: »Maybe I am off-tangent here....
Lidl are currently running an ad 'promoting' ladies football. The narrator speaks in a confrontational tone about 'levelling the playing field' and proclaiming it's not over 'until WE say it's over'.
Christ on a bike. What more do they want?
The irony is the current Dublin ladies footballers wouldn't have won all the titles they have if they hadn't ridden on the coat-tails of the success of the men's team.
And its not like women playing sport are being marginalised (or even not being allowed play)- there is more participation and coverage now than ever before.0 -
castletownman wrote: »Maybe I am off-tangent here....
Lidl are currently running an ad 'promoting' ladies football. The narrator speaks in a confrontational tone about 'levelling the playing field' and proclaiming it's not over 'until WE say it's over'.
Christ on a bike. What more do they want?
The irony is the current Dublin ladies footballers wouldn't have won all the titles they have if they hadn't ridden on the coat-tails of the success of the men's team.
And its not like women playing sport are being marginalised (or even not being allowed play)- there is more participation and coverage now than ever before.
Wow. The GAA - sure that's a great organisation for the lads. Marginalises women and men get all the privilege.
And god forbid, women might actually work and do well at something without a man being given the glory for it.0 -
Wow. The GAA - sure that's a great organisation for the lads. Marginalises women and men get all the privilege.
And god forbid, women might actually work and do well at something without a man being given the glory for it.
You're the exact stereotype that people have been talking about on this thread. I admire your frankness though, because many are down playing the existence of feminists like yourself.“The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it.”-― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov0 -
-
-
Eric Cartman wrote: »Well blaming men and claiming the gaa are ‘marginalising women’ its the basic ‘aghh men’ playbook of modern feminism
I haven't blamed men for anything, I have blamed an organisation. The proof is there in practice as to how female sports are marginalized in the GAA through funding, venues, etc. It is a fact.0 -
I haven't blamed men for anything, I have blamed an organisation. The proof is there in practice as to how female sports are marginalized in the GAA through funding, venues, etc. It is a fact.
Ok so its moved from women being marginalised to female sports...
So the GAA is bad... how should the gaa treat womens sports , keeping in mind the lower interest in viewerships and thus the lower amount of sponsorship money available0 -
Advertisement
-
I haven't blamed men for anything, I have blamed an organisation. The proof is there in practice as to how female sports are marginalized in the GAA through funding, venues, etc. It is a fact.
The GAA doesn't govern the Ladies' games, the LGFA and it's camogie counterpart govern them. Both organisations are a mess, granted.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement