Modern Feminism-Good for Society?

anewme

...Ghost... wrote: »

Feminism is like the corona virus. The first wave spread around the world and got our attention. It showed us we all needed to work together to make things better.

Then we got the second, third and now the fourth wave. With these waves came new variants with some being very hostile and fast to spread. It took Christmas, Paddies Day and even our jobs. Now most of us have had it with corona and hate what it's doing to society, making people sick, limiting our freedom and taking lives.

Modern Feminism. In need of a vaccine.

But what the fck is it?

Where is it?

Howvdoes it impact our day to day life?

Someone referred to a sandwich and now you are referencing Corona virus.

But it’s all analogies.

Real life examples would be great.

anewme

Rodin wrote: »

The problem with modern feminism is that nobody really knows what it is.

If asked if I am a feminist Id be looking for a definition first.

It has been asked!

the_pen_turner

Stephanie33 wrote: »

You're a woman Leg End Reject arent you? Look at the statistics for domestic abuse... rarely do they end up with proper law enforcement and if they do..it's minimal. People getting away with multiple assault against a partner that they would be harshly treated with if it were one incident on the street. I recall reading a thread where you...personally....were particularly harsh on the travelling community for getting away with crimes but now you're all jokey about it because you know 'modern feminism' doesn't your ideals.

whats the gender breakdown on prosecutions for domestic violence.
at best its 50 :50 gender split on victims potentially up to 67:33 with men being victims.

anewme

the_pen_turner wrote: »

whats the gender breakdown on prosecutions for domestic violence.
at best its 50 :50 gender split on victims potentially up to 67:33 with men being victims.

Domestic violence is horrible no matter what side of it you come from.

Id push for full prosecutions on both sides.

Leg End Reject

Stephanie33 wrote: »

You're a woman Leg End Reject arent you? Look at the statistics for domestic abuse... rarely do they end up with proper law enforcement and if they do..it's minimal. People getting away with multiple assault against a partner that they would be harshly treated with if it were one incident on the street. I recall reading a thread where you...personally....were particularly harsh on the travelling community for getting away with crimes but now you're all jokey about it because you know 'modern feminism' doesn't your ideals.

I haven't mentioned domestic violence once, nor have I mocked it. No reasonable person would downplay physical, emotional or sexual abuse so try again.

the_pen_turner

anewme wrote: »

It has been asked!

its hard to create an acurate definition.
the dictioneries claim that femanists want equality but everything you see on the ground in person doesnt show that. it shows a totally biased towards women. fair enough its in the name but its far from eqaulity driven.

personnaly i would take being called a femanist as an insult.
im an equalist

the_pen_turner

Stephanie33 wrote: »

Is it? Where are you getting that?

The study suggested that in the region of 88,000 men and 213,000 women in Ireland have been severely abused by a partner at some point in their lives.
http://www.cosc.ie/en/COSC/Pages/WP09000005

now multiply those figures by the estimates numbers reporting , on in 6 women victims and 1 in 20 male victims reporting.

work all that out and its 57% of victims are men.

anewme

the_pen_turner wrote: »

its hard to create an acurate definition.
the dictioneries claim that femanists want equality but everything you see on the ground in person doesnt show that. it shows a totally biased towards women. fair enough its in the name but its far from eqaulity driven.

personnaly i would take being called a femanist as an insult.
im an equalist

I would have taken it an insult as well but levied by men. But reading here yesterday, someone said not many women actually identify as feminist. But that’s more because people don’t know what it is.

If you asked me to sum it up, I’d say equality, but everyone has their own opinion so it’s hard to get a consensus.

the_pen_turner

anewme wrote: »

I would have taken it an insult as well but levied by men. But reading here yesterday, someone said not many women actually identify as feminist. But that’s more because people don’t know what it is.

If you asked me to sum it up, I’d say equality, but everyone has their own opinion so it’s hard to get a consensus.

i think the reason lots of women dont identify as a femanist is that they do see it as what it is and dont want to be labeled as that sort of person. they would rather say they want equlity and lump themselves in with the crazy modern version of femanism.


if an old person called me a femanist i would probably takeing as a compliment because they would mean it as something good

Leg End Reject

Stephanie33 wrote: »

Whats modern feminism all about then Leg End Reject?

Do you think you could apply it to Domestic Abuse? Because PERSONALLY I've read about it and seen how MANY women are subject to being treated unfairly to the point of systemic abuse by it.

Sorry sweetheart, I won't bite reregs, no matter how loudly they shout.

Leg End Reject

Stephanie33 wrote: »

In other words, you've no answer cause you were mouthing off earlier.

It's personal.

the_pen_turner

Stephanie33 wrote: »

And also look at how the courts deal favourably towards male abusers...

Whatever is said...women are still silenced...


https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/commentisfree/2020/mar/05/family-courts-biased-men-dangerous-fallacy-abuse

not sure of the relivence of your link to what i posted.
firstly its a guardian artical so its going to be biased.
no mention of male victims only male abusers.

here is evidence that the system is too quick to assume domestic abuse affects only mothers, not children; and that women and children are safe once a relationship is over. Women can find themselves in a catch-22, told by social services they must leave their abuser or risk their children being taken into care, but then disbelieved by a judge when that abuser applies for contact.

anewme

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i think the reason lots of women dont identify as a femanist is that they do see it as what it is and dont want to be labeled as that sort of person. they would rather say they want equlity and lump themselves in with the crazy modern version of femanism.


if an old person called me a femanist i would probably takeing as a compliment because they would mean it as something good

I think that’s more because feminist has been levied as an insult to people, whereas older people might say she’s one of them feminists, as if to say, she takes no sh1t.

What is obvious is t hat people are naturally clouded and framed by their own experiences. You can read between the lines and see who has experienced domestic violence, who has had doors shut in their face and so on. So everyone has their own “trigger”

But I suppose we all need to see the bigger picture and be more tolerant of others and their personal experiences.

anewme

Stephanie33 wrote: »

Yes I'm personally affected by domestic abuse. Are you mocking me?

I hope you are ok and getting the support you need.

Sarcozies

Stephanie33 wrote: »

And also look at how the courts deal favourably towards male abusers...

Whatever is said...women are still silenced...


https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/commentisfree/2020/mar/05/family-courts-biased-men-dangerous-fallacy-abuse

The gender sentencing gap is larger than the racial sentencing gap with men on average serving about 60% of a larger sentence than a woman*. It's better to be a black woman facing charges than a white man.

*One study but there's numerous others I can cite (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002)

Sarcozies

Stephanie33 wrote: »

My response to the thread was emotional and there is alot of stuff that I can't contribute as how I've been discriminated against by my gender. Nothing to do with my race and I understand that all men and women can commit criminal offences.

My own experience has been though 'keep your mouth shut and hope for the best' despite being advised by law enforcement to go further but then them taken it back and I have also had numerous gender related remarks towards me like 'you dont want to be seen as the bitter woman' yet me just trying to state the facts. I'll be deleting this response too in a few minutes.

It's terrible what you've been through and I genuinely hope you find justice or solace or hopefully both.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I have heard of medical literature being changed to appease political correctness too. The example I heard was the word "women" being changed to "people who breastfeed" or "people who menstruate". Your example is more serious, and it shouldn't be tolerated. It's still within the realms of political correctness, but it is one area where feminism/women will force a change.

What moves it away from a political correctness issue and into the domain of feminism is the one-sidedness. It would be more political correctness if it was across both male- and female-specific public health literature. But I’m yet to see any male equivalent for ‘people with a cervix’ or ‘people who menstruate’. That makes it pretty clear that sexism plays a role too. Women are expected to give way. In the cervical cancer literature, would you believe that the word ‘transmen’ was used a few times but ‘women’ not once? Whose feelings were being spared there? I can’t help but think it’s for the benefit of the feelings of the women who identify into womanhood, females be damned. It’s a pretty clear cut example of the need for feminism still, in my view.

And I think this shows why feminism will probably always be needed in some way. A decade ago, this stuff wasn’t an issue. Now it is. Eternal vigilance is needed and I’m sad that that appears to be the case. Wish it wasn’t.

hatrickpatrick

anewme wrote: »

I hate labels so if you asked me I would be anti bully.

Fair enough, but you've been posting frequently here and on the other thread that people need to have their posts removed and actioned for stating their opinions. Bullying, I would have said.

That women fashion thread though, was too much. A person calling others pigs is just contempt.

It is indeed contempt, and I don't agree with it. Doesn't mean I believe it should be censored, though.

I believe that should have been nuked into oblivion, step too far for me.

Why? It's people stating their opinions. Vile opinions, but opinions nonetheless. Why, specifically, should there be limits or parameters on how one can state their opinion? Be precise.

I didn't report the clangers here by the way, but I agree with them being reported (the baboon one and the immigrant one) but not removed so does that make me pro censorship.

Wait, so you don't believe things should be removed? Because you stated repeatedly that the "boobs" remark "shouldn't have stayed up for as long as it did". It's upon that basis (and your various remarks in the TLL thread calling for this and that post to be removed) which I've stated that you are pro-censorship.

Do you accept that censorship has nothing to do with gender equality, and therefore cannot be considered anything to do with feminism, going by the definition of feminism feminists themselves repeatedly trot out in defense of their movement, when claiming their critics simply don't understand it?

Other poster is right though, when a couple of posters hog the stage, then everyone else gets fed up, so I'm guilty here.

And in my view, that's on you. Internet forums are supposed to be free spaces for radical thought, and that's what makes them beautiful. If you can't hack it, then don't bother reading.

anewme

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Fair enough, but you've been posting frequently here and on the other thread that people need to have their posts removed and actioned for stating their opinions. Bullying, I would have said.



It is indeed contempt, and I don't agree with it. Doesn't mean I believe it should be censored, though.



Why? It's people stating their opinions. Vile opinions, but opinions nonetheless. Why, specifically, should there be limits or parameters on how one can state their opinion? Be precise.



Wait, so you don't believe things should be removed? Because you stated repeatedly that the "boobs" remark "shouldn't have stayed up for as long as it did". It's upon that basis (and your various remarks in the TLL thread calling for this and that post to be removed) which I've stated that you are pro-censorship.

Do you accept that censorship has nothing to do with gender equality, and therefore cannot be considered anything to do with feminism, going by the definition of feminism feminists themselves repeatedly trot out in defense of their movement, when claiming their critics simply don't understand it?



And in my view, that's on you. Internet forums are supposed to be free spaces for radical thought, and that's what makes them beautiful. If you can't hack it, then don't bother reading.

Last thing I am is a bully and given that you have called me a bully above, I dont think we have anything further to duscuss , so will leave it there.

Sometimes you can only engage where there is some kind of common ground and respect, and as I dont see any, I'm out.

You believe internet should ne totally free, I believe everything has its limits, you cant just go around making wild accusations about everyone and anyone.On that basis, I dont have anything else to say to you.

hatrickpatrick

joe40 wrote: »

Boards is simply a bunch of people shooting the breeze, a bit like a large pub with different tables where various conversations are taking place.

You don't often find people in a large pub sitting at one table commenting on how the conversations people are having at other tables should get them kicked out of the pub. That's where the analogy fails.

Ultimately these things tend to self regulate anyway. Groups of like minded people to a degree tend to congregate. If views are either too polarized or too one sided conversations get boring.

Then why the calls to ban this or that opinion?

The internet didn't belong to anyone it is an extension of society.
Social norms ebb and flow, that has always been the way of things and always will be imo.

I agree entirely. Doesn't mean that one social norm should be banned today because it's not currently in vogue.

Doesn't mean you're wrong to rail against censorship, but that is just an opinion, other opinions are equally valid.

I agree entirely. Posters like Anewme suggest that this or that "should have been banned" without stating why they believe this to be the case, thereby stating their censorship-heavy opinion as if it was an objective fact. That's where I take issue with it.

Btw I don't like censorship but I believe it is naive to think "anything goes" is possible. Society will always have restrictions of some sort.

That's where I disagree. What made the internet beautiful in the past was that it was free from such restrictions. What makes Boards beautiful now is that it's largely free from such restrictions, so that those on the right wing side of identity politics are allowed to argue with those of us on the centrist or left wing side.

Many posters on the TLL thread about sexism, for instance, suggest that "gender critical" views (the idea that gender is not a fluid, social concept and that you can't simply identify as one or the other in a manner which is disconnected from physical biology) should be outright banned from Boards, how do you feel about this?

I have post-op mtf trans friends, before anyone assumes I'm anti-censorship because it doesn't directly affect me. Many many viewpoints come into conflict with my lived reality on a daily basis. Doesn't mean I believe people shouldn't be free to air them. Some people do not believe that gender is a psychological thing at all - and it's perfectly ok for them to believe this. They should not be driven out of the public sphere for believing it.

Another example - I'm literally one of the most far left people you'll ever meet - see my posts on the Politics forum about rentier capitalism, landlords, etc if you want evidence. My ex-girlfriend, on the other hand, is one of the furthest-right humans I know. She's pro-life, anti-immigration, nativist, traditionalist when it comes to marriage, traditionalist when it comes to gender, opposed to contraception, opposed to mothers of young children (which she is, incidentally, she has a primary school aged child) working outside the home, etc etc etc. Your classic definition of a social conservative. As far as she's concerned, gender identity ideology is toxic, the Gardaí were right to shoot George Nkencho, lockdown is an unreasonable harsh measure to combat COVID, and Mary Lou McDonald, who I am very much hoping will be Taoiseach one day soon, is literally Ireland's most despicable politician in generations.

Should she be banned from participating on Boards or be forced to censor her views of the world? She's every bit as much an extremist as I am, she just happens to be the opposite extreme. Her views have made her a social pariah - she's lost friends, she's estranged from her family, and she feels that she cannot post in a space like Reddit or elsewhere for fear of being banned. Boards is one of the few spaces in which she feels like her views are, while deeply unpopular, at least welcome - one can rail against the current zeitgeists without fear of being shut down as long as you don't act like an asshole about it.

What Anewme and others are demanding is yet another space which only tolerated my end of the political extreme, but would exclude hers. Why is that necessarily fair? Who says our end is acceptable and hers is not, other than political consensus - consensus which can, after all, change in the blink of an eye? Thirty years ago, the view that the eighth amendment should be repealed and that abortion should be allowed for any reason up until 12 weeks - a cause I campaigned for and was ecstatic at the result of, but which broke this woman's heart, as politics tends to do - would have been in the position that restoring the eighth and keeping abortion illegal is in now. Socially unacceptable. People like me would have been the ones under discussion to be banned from boards.ie altogether if we didn't self-censor our genuinely held beliefs.

Why is it ok for people on our end of politics to treat people on the other end the way people on our end used to be treated? Is it ok for the Israelis to treat the Palestinians as Israelis were once treated? Is turnabout fair play? It absolutely is not. It's not only morally wrong, but it will turn this website into an utterly sh!tty and boring place to post. Indeed, it did do this around ten or eleven years ago when a similar debate on alleged misogyny on boards led to the mods shuttering literally every second or third thread on AH, and an exodus of active users like the site had literally never seen.

I'm glad that I can engage with people who disagree with me on this site now. As someone on the far left of politics, it keeps me sharp and keeps politics interesting, to interact with people (such as, for example, Eric Cartman who has frequently commented in this very thread) who probably don't agree with one single political viewpoint that I hold. We would probably have the most unimaginable banter arguing about literally everything I've mentioned in this post over a couple of pints - but you, Joe, with your crowded pub analogy, would seem to suggest that people at a neighbouring table would have the right to ask for myself and Eric to get kicked out of the pub if they overheard our chat and didn't like what they heard.

F*ck that. I don't want to live in a world like that. I don't want to post on a website like that. I don't want to bother using an internet like that, frankly. It's one of the reasons I've largely abandoned the likes of Facebook, Reddit etc in recent years. And I 100% dread the thought of Boards reverting to its old ways, and becoming yet another echo chamber in which real, juicy, exciting, blood-boiling debate is impossible because anyone who vehemently disagrees with the zeitgeist finds themselves getting carded or actioned repeatedly until they give up posting altogether.

In short, yes, I believe in gender equality. And that equality should mean that both genders are equally free to say "All [other gender people] are scum", not that neither should be. Censorship sucks. It turns discussion spaces into boring, sanitised, unrealistic representations of what humans are like. And I for one would have absolutely no interest in participating in one for any reason other than arguing that it should be switched back to its freer, less curated days of old.

hatrickpatrick

anewme wrote: »

Last thing I am is a bully and given that you have called me a bully above, I dont think we have anything further to duscuss , so will leave it there.

Weren't you calling me one, for believing that censorship is wrong?

Sometimes you can only engage where there is some kind of common ground and respect, and as I dont see any, I'm out.

Fair enough. But that's your choice. Nobody forced you to stop participating.

You believe internet should ne totally free

I certainly do.

I believe everything has its limits, you cant just go around making wild accusations about everyone and anyone.On that basis, I dont have anything else to say to you.

I made no wild accusations. You are demanding that certain individuals have their posts removed for posting things that you, personally, find distasteful. How is that not bullying? You are trying to force others to obey your own definition of right and wrong, and asking for enforcement of same. Maybe bullying is the wrong word, but I'd argue that megalomania or narcissism might be. Your views are no more or less valid than mine - we're both individuals. Why should I be silenced just because you, another poster of equal standing and equal importance, happen to disagree with them? That's literally all I'm asking.

Someone posted the word "boobs". You demanded that their post be removed from the website. One of those two actors is a bully, the other is not.

Once again, just my opinion. You are as free to post your own opinion as I am - that's what's so beautiful about the current incarnation of this website.

anewme

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Weren't you calling me one, for believing that censorship is wrong?



Fair enough. But that's your choice. Nobody forced you to stop participating.



I certainly do.



I made no wild accusations. You are demanding that certain individuals have their posts removed for posting things that you, personally, find distasteful. How is that not bullying? You are trying to force others to obey your own definition of right and wrong, and asking for enforcement of same. Maybe bullying is the wrong word, but I'd argue that megalomania or narcissism might be. Your views are no more or less valid than mine - we're both individuals. Why should I be silenced just because you, another poster of equal standing and equal importance, happen to disagree with them? That's literally all I'm asking.

Someone posted the word "boobs". You demanded that their post be removed from the website. One of those two actors is a bully, the other is not.

Once again, just my opinion. You are as free to post your own opinion as I am - that's what's so beautiful about the current incarnation of this website.

No, I most certainly did not call you personally a bully.

You however, did call me a bully.

By you cant say anything, I mean you in general....not you personally, ie people. That's where the real difference is.
I believe the discussion was interesting tonight and a lot of seeing the other side.

But where there is a core distrust and/or lack of respect, there will never be any understanding. So best off just disconnect and ignore.

anewme

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In short, yes, I believe in gender equality. And that equality should mean that both genders are equally free to say "All [other gender people] are scum", not that neither should be. Censorship sucks. It turns discussion spaces into boring, sanitised, unrealistic representations of what humans are like. And I for one would have absolutely no interest in participating in one for any reason other than arguing that it should be switched back to its freer, less curated days of old.

There 's no value in calling people scum because of their gender, theres no value I using the N word, or hate against anyone.

You are advocating a different type of censorship, where hate is allowed flourish.

Boards has censorship by way of its charter and there have already been posts deleted here that did not meet the qualitative standards. So does that not cause you an issue if you are vehemently against censorship?

TomTomTim

anewme wrote: »

There 's no value in calling people scum because of their gender, theres no value I using the N word, or hate against anyone.

You are advocating a different type of censorship, where hate is allowed flourish.

Boards has censorship by way of its charter and there have already been posts deleted here that did not meet the qualitative standards. So does that not cause you an issue if you are vehemently against censorship?

There's also no value in calling people misogynistic, racist, transphobic, yet you're first out the gate at every opportunity. It's ironically a great nod to the supremacy that you said didn't exist in this thread earlier. You think your insults should be allowed, while others shouldn't. You think your censorship is good, while it's evil when the other side does it.

karlitob

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.

Sure there’s no need to set up a group. Feminism is all about equality for both genders. Surely feminists are advocating for reduced privilege for women in these instances all in the name of equality.

Mad_maxx

anewme wrote: »

Last thing I am is a bully and given that you have called me a bully above, I dont think we have anything further to duscuss , so will leave it there.

Sometimes you can only engage where there is some kind of common ground and respect, and as I dont see any, I'm out.

You believe internet should ne totally free, I believe everything has its limits, you cant just go around making wild accusations about everyone and anyone.On that basis, I dont have anything else to say to you.

You come across as deeply authoritarian, scarily so

Mad_maxx

HarryWinks wrote: »

I would agree that it is bullying behaviour to demand that posts are removed, and also self entitled. It comes from a need to control other people, which itself comes from deep insecurity. Insecurity is the root of most bullying behaviour in my opinion and also the root of the need to control other people.

Not convinced about insecurity being the root cause

Some people are just incredibly power hungry

Mad_maxx

TomTomTim wrote: »

There's also no value in calling people misogynistic, racist, transphobic, yet you're first out the gate at every opportunity. It's ironically a great nod to the supremacy that you said didn't exist in this thread earlier. You think your insults should be allowed, while others shouldn't. You think your censorship is good, while it's evil when the other side does it.

Lack of awareness is a common trait of WOKE progressives

anewme

TomTomTim wrote: »

There's also no value in calling people misogynistic, racist, transphobic, yet you're first out the gate at every opportunity. It's ironically a great nod to the supremacy that you said didn't exist in this thread earlier. You think your insults should be allowed, while others shouldn't. You think your censorship is good, while it's evil when the other side does it.

Again, you try to tell me me what I think.

Misogny, racism, trasnsphopia are against the charter.

They are not insults, either a post is racist tor it's not.

There is censorship in every walk of life, you may not like it, but tough.

There is a core of posters, very small number, who have interest in real debate, just want to bash others and are more worried that their number is up on dishing out hate, than actually promoting equality or areas where mens rights need action.

anewme

Mad_maxx wrote: »

You come across as deeply authoritarian, scarily so

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Not convinced about insecurity being the root cause

Some people are just incredibly power hungry

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Lack of awareness is a common trait of WOKE progressives

And there you have it. Three posts in a row just trying to stir.

Even quoting a banned troll.

Earlier there was a discussion as to why mens rights are not as organised as women's.

There are people who want to make it better for men and then there are others more concerned that they are not allowed spew racism and hate and go round abusing people.Instead of helping their side they cause drama and chaos then the thread gets distracted and the real points lost.

Like you posting here traveller bashing. Thsts not helping mens rights. It's just promoting bigotry, Yet, I must be power hungry or woke for highlighting this.woke, one of those buzzwords dished out by people threatened by equality for others..

If you can't post within the charter or without abusing others, then maybe you need to look at your own posting style and stick within the charter.