Modern Feminism-Good for Society?

Skippyme

No I didn't. It was cast upon me by others on the OTHER thread

Silentcorner wrote: »

oh ya, sorry, you said, your a feminist.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058042337

anewme wrote: »

Some posters accused you of having an Agenda (I say with capital A) when you made your post, like it was a thesis or something. Can you update on that in interest of transparency?

Yes I openly addressed that. It's simple they accused me of trying to start something saying I had just joined.

I agreed that I had just joined due to the fact that visitors cannot start Threads.
In reality most people on here do not know each other personally so why would there be an issue for someone who usually just reads to actually join & start a topic!

anewme

anewme wrote: »

Well, contrary to popular belief and however many pages later...I still dont know what modern feminism is. :pac:

Have a gander at Radical feminism. It'll quickly give you some insight as to what's been going on.

Skippyme

Skippyme wrote: »

In reality most people on here do not know each other personally so why would there be an issue for someone who usually just reads to actually join & start a topic!

Name recognition, and post counts have value. When someone new (with a low post count) happens along posting this kind of stuff... which tends to be quite confrontational by nature, yeah.. there is an issue in trusting what they might be suggesting.

anewme

Deleted User wrote: »

You told me that the comments were terrible..

the posts that the other poster referred to came from a particular poster with 94 total posts. That doesn't inspire me to pay much attention to him. Besides he started talking about "Alpha" males, and that's a remarkably quick way for me to think he's a muppet.

Post 11.

Not exactly offensive to anyone except Trump..

Nope. I've actually went through the first three pages, and didn't see anything that I'd consider to be horrible behavior. Some remarks were insensitive, and overly aggressive, but again, that tends to happen with these kinds of topics. I fully expect to see the same happen here on this thread.

So.. is this claim about awful behavior just about one poster on the thread? I was expecting to see a wide range of nastiness..

It reads as a lot less balanced than here. Lack of dissenting voices maybe?. It was page 1, 7 and 11 did the poster not say, Ive no specs. on so am reading through fog.

bellylint

Modern day Feminism, can go fck itself.
I will advocate for equal rights. People are different regardless of who/how they identify themselves, but all deserve have equal rights. If we dont have that it's an injustice.

Edit: I do not view MDF as a movement for equal rights.

anewme

anewme wrote: »

It reads as a lot less balanced than here. Lack of dissenting voices maybe?. It was page 1, 7 and 11 did the poster not say, Ive no specs.

There are 7 pages in total. I looked at the post numbers for each that were listed.

anewme wrote: »

Jaysus !

anewme wrote: »

Have you read the viciousness.... makes this thread look like a fairy tale?

Posts 1, 7, 11 are all from the same poster. And I don't see any viciousness. Ignorance, yes, viciousness no. TBH, I'm seeing a natural reaction to that posters (Skippyme) style of writing and the content of his/her posts. Even One Eyed Jack was struggling to deal with the style of writing, and OEJ is probably one of the most persistent posters on boards.

I'm getting the feeling that you haven't really looked at the thread yourself.

anewme

Deleted User wrote: »

There are 7 pages in total. I looked at the post numbers for each that were listed.





Posts 1, 7, 11 are all from the same poster. And I don't see any viciousness. Ignorance, yes, viciousness no. TBH, I'm seeing a natural reaction to that posters (Skippyme) style of writing and the content of his/her posts. Even One Eyed Jack was struggling to deal with the style of writing, and OEJ is probably one of the most persistent posters on boards.

I'm getting the feeling that you haven't really looked at the thread yourself.

No I read through it earlier...

There are 14 pages on the thread for me, not 7.

Skippyme

That's nice & dismissive of you which is usually the 1st line of defence, followed by openly defending it - & you've already started on the insults.

Before intelligent fair people make decisions they should firstly open their mind & ears along with the prospect that varying unexpected points could be raised.

It's just easier to dismiss or shoot down pesky contributors isn't it ?

You do know that if men actually strive for change there can be life changing improvements FOR MEN, that the sort of feminists always rolled out as many men's argument for sticking with the good old way would hate.

Men could gain parental rights, financial benefits during separation & better access for services, freedoms as well as mental & emotional support from bros

Deleted User wrote: »

Have a gander at Radical feminism. It'll quickly give you some insight as to what's been going on.

Skippyme

Skippyme wrote: »

That's nice & dismissive of you which is usually the 1st line of defence, followed by openly defending it - & you've already started on the insults.

Where did I insult or dismiss you? Oh, you mean I consider anyone harping on about Alpha males to be a bit of a muppet? Ok. Sure.. I do. As for the rest.. I didn't engage with your post content, since I wasn't involved in that thread. So.. no dismissal happening..

Before intelligent fair people make decisions they should firstly open their mind & ears along with the prospect that varying unexpected points could be raised.

I'm not terribly concerned with varying unexpected points.. but rather relevant points that have some value, and lead to a better appreciation of the topic. Still... nice attempt at a jab.

It's just easier to dismiss or shoot down pesky contributors isn't it ?

What exactly have you contributed? I'm at a loss to remember. Whereas I can remember now, the content of a variety of posters, even going back a few pages. Go figure.

You do know that if men actually strive for change there can be life changing improvements FOR MEN, that the sort of feminists always rolled out as many men's argument for sticking with the good old way would hate.

Huh? Who is advocating sticking to the good old way? (The huh is because I've read it a few times, and the quoted piece makes my eyes bleed)

Men could gain parental rights, financial benefits during separation & better access for services, freedoms as well as mental & emotional support from bros

bros? The only people I ever hear use that phrase is women. And american women at that. So weird.

Yes, men could acquire all of those rights, and freedoms. What's your point?

Skippyme

Your rebuke is weak, so weak so it leaves nothing much to defend.




As for your query over bro's ... many women refer to the sisterhood; not only Americans.

Women take it more seriously. Men can help to buoy each other too.

anewme

Skippyme wrote: »

Your rebuke is weak, so weak so it leaves nothing much to defend.




As for your query over bro's ... many women refer to the sisterhood; not only Americans.

Women take it more seriously. Men can help to buoy each other too.

Where are you coming from personally on this? No need to answer if its too intrusive.

Skippyme

anewme wrote: »

Where are you coming from personally on this? No need to answer if its too intrusive.

The gist of it is in the 1st Paragraph on the other thread & what I've touched on here.

Tell me how

3 stories made me think of this thread in the last day or two and specifically the prominent narrative from some that the concept of feminism is weak and something practiced by those who 'pray in the church of the eternal victimhood'. There's no doubting there are extreme cases but it seems many posting here agree with this way of describing all those who advocate for women.

https://twitter.com/Gizmodo/status/1369290763935248386

This seems pretty insignificant on the face of it but the undertone is that now that technology has declared something, the women who have been saying it literally since day dot, can be believed. Is it likely to be true that women are treated the same as men in terms of understanding their experiences when something as 'factual' as period cramps can be considered in this way?

Second story is the story of Meghan Markle and while there is an active thread on it on Boards, one of the most significant things about it over the last few days was while berating her for making stuff up and insulting her as he has done literally for years, Piers Morgan could not handle it when he got 1% of that back for less than a minute. Now given how 'non-woke' Piers prides himself in being and how he showed himself to be so incapable of taking what he doles out so often, is it possible those who pride themselves on being non-woke like Piers or non-PC or whatever it is would admit that they don't actually understand what it is to be treated in a particular way and were they to experience that, they might find that they suddenly felt somebody should do something to help them.

And that brings me to the last story, the horrific news of the woman who apparently was attacked and murdered when walking home in London. This story was trending on Twitter all Wednesday with many women having to defend her name from men who were saying she shouldn't have walked home alone with the implication being that she had some responsibility for this. Lots of women have given examples in response to such tweets of how they were attacked during the day and many more have spoken of their experience of having to consider every element of their situation, the clothes they are wearing, the route they are taking, the security measures they are taking when attempting to take any such trio. One lady asked on a tweet that women who had experience of being attacked/harassed/bothered by men when trying to make their way home to like the tweet, and those who never had any such experience to reply to the tweet. There were 18K likes and just 77 replies when I saw it with at least some of the replies being from men interjecting themselves in to the topic.

So, I, as a man don't have to worry about period cramps, I don't have to be uber cautious when planning to walk/run/cycle at night in what should be safe areas and I haven't had a man frequently go out of his way to undermine my life and actions because I stopped talking to him as happened with Meghan and Piers but I do have empathy for people who experience things in a kind of never ending, omni-present type of way which can be anything from a mild annoyance such as seeing the Apple announcement to physical harm possibly resulting in death and think that they are well entitled to try to collectively move things towards a safer more enjoyable world for themselves. The claims on here aside from those above suggesting victimhood etc but more recent ones claiming that anyone who is in way a feminist or advocating for something actually hates men or their actions are damaging for men need to consider how would they react if the tables were turned and they had to experience something which they are telling women not to worry about. I've already said on here I think men should collectively be more proactive in advocating for things which affect them as a gender, but just because men don't advocate in this way, doesn't men those that do, women, should be dismissed for doing so. Fair play to them.

pwurple

Silentcorner wrote: »

.nobody is being forced to do anything, it's all in your head...stop women reading romance novels if you think that will work!!!

Stop women reading romance novels? Lol. Do you think coming across as a misogynist improves your point that feminism isn’t necessary?

What you are describing requires mass social engineering along with mass censorship of any alternate views....it's been done before.

it’s exactly what you , and some other men on this thread are doing now. Shouting down women. Censorship of views.

This generation of women have been reared by women who have enjoyed all the freedoms to make whatever choices they want...and long should it continue, "having children of the wrong gender",...will you go away out of it!!!

I have literally just told a story in my previous post of freedoms I do NOT enjoy. How it affects me, my husband and children directly. Financially. Removed our freedoms to choose how we lived our lives and work. Mind firmly closed I see.

I wonder had my husband come in and told the same story would there be a different reaction.

Wibbs

Skippyme wrote: »

Your rebuke is weak, so weak so it leaves nothing much to defend.

It was responses like this that had you dismissed on that other thread you speak of. You come from one entrenched position, raise points based on that, when those points are questioned you pretty much ignore them, or attempt to twist them to your purpose and plough on from your original entrenched position. It's perfectly evident to anyone reading whether they agree with your worldview or not that you're not open to any other position and that you're not for turning.

Add in the avoidance of points raised and it becomes frustrating and ultimately pointless to engage and then as night follows day that's construed as "aggressive" by the entrenched worldview holder and they usually leave thinking they've scored some victory. Entrenched worldview intact.

It's extremely common a tactic and can be seen across a range of subjects, but it does seem to be on the increase.

stefanovich

Wibbs wrote: »

...and that you're not for turning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ-M0KEFm9I

I miss her...

anewme

Tell me how wrote: »

3 stories made me think of this thread in the last day or two and specifically the prominent narrative from some that the concept of feminism is weak and something practiced by those who 'pray in the church of the eternal victimhood'. There's no doubting there are extreme cases but it seems many posting here agree with this way of describing all those who advocate for women.

https://twitter.com/Gizmodo/status/1369290763935248386

This seems pretty insignificant on the face of it but the undertone is that now that technology has declared something, the women who have been saying it literally since day dot, can be believed. Is it likely to be true that women are treated the same as men in terms of understanding their experiences when something as 'factual' as period cramps can be considered in this way?

Second story is the story of Meghan Markle and while there is an active thread on it on Boards, one of the most significant things about it over the last few days was while berating her for making stuff up and insulting her as he has done literally for years, Piers Morgan could not handle it when he got 1% of that back for less than a minute. Now given how 'non-woke' Piers prides himself in being and how he showed himself to be so incapable of taking what he doles out so often, is it possible those who pride themselves on being non-woke like Piers or non-PC or whatever it is would admit that they don't actually understand what it is to be treated in a particular way and were they to experience that, they might find that they suddenly felt somebody should do something to help them.

And that brings me to the last story, the horrific news of the woman who apparently was attacked and murdered when walking home in London. This story was trending on Twitter all Wednesday with many women having to defend her name from men who were saying she shouldn't have walked home alone with the implication being that she had some responsibility for this. Lots of women have given examples in response to such tweets of how they were attacked during the day and many more have spoken of their experience of having to consider every element of their situation, the clothes they are wearing, the route they are taking, the security measures they are taking when attempting to take any such trio. One lady asked on a tweet that women who had experience of being attacked/harassed/bothered by men when trying to make their way home to like the tweet, and those who never had any such experience to reply to the tweet. There were 18K likes and just 77 replies when I saw it with at least some of the replies being from men interjecting themselves in to the topic.

So, I, as a man don't have to worry about period cramps, I don't have to be uber cautious when planning to walk/run/cycle at night in what should be safe areas and I haven't had a man frequently go out of his way to undermine my life and actions because I stopped talking to him as happened with Meghan and Piers but I do have empathy for people who experience things in a kind of never ending, omni-present type of way which can be anything from a mild annoyance such as seeing the Apple announcement to physical harm possibly resulting in death and think that they are well entitled to try to collectively move things towards a safer more enjoyable world for themselves. The claims on here aside from those above suggesting victimhood etc but more recent ones claiming that anyone who is in way a feminist or advocating for something actually hates men or their actions are damaging for men need to consider how would they react if the tables were turned and they had to experience something which they are telling women not to worry about. I've already said on here I think men should collectively be more proactive in advocating for things which affect them as a gender, but just because men don't advocate in this way, doesn't men those that do, women, should be dismissed for doing so. Fair play to them.

Great post and very valid points.

A couple of observations.

In respect of Meghan Markle, in this very thread, a poster has said women dont take responsibility for their actions or held accountable. They used 4 examples and 3 were incorrect and the 4th could have been anyone. The example I'm referring to is the insinuation Meghan Markle is taking Prince Harry from his family.

Everyone here knows full and right well that Meghan Markle is not responsible for taking Harry, a grown adult away from his family. It reads like someone kidnapping a child. Yet, no one challenged it, some thanked it , but more challenged me for challenging it.

On the other thread about Meghan and Harry, one poster, who it is safe to say does not like MM but supports Piers Morgan, , refers to William, Kate, Harry and Markle. When asked why, another poster interjected was it was out of reverence to her. It was anything but.

In respect of #notallmen. I've read the Twitter responses and they are concerning, that not all men is trending higher than Sarah Everard. The criticism is that men are too busy saying it's not us, than actually being concerned for the missing, now murdered women, RIP. Victim blaming also rife, with women going out alone being likened to leaving your keys in your ignition.

One of the biggest issues as I see it, is that some men dont challenge misogyny and very obvious misogyny instead turning it back on the person who does, labelling them feminist, men hater, etc.

Leg End Reject

Tell me how, I'm not going to quote your whole post.

1. Studies have also been conducted to prove that "man flu" is real. As seen with Covid, coronaviruses seem to cause greater symptoms in more men than women. I've never heard of anyone deny period pain, but have heard accusations of it being exaggerated for time off work. These came from both men and women, as it's possible that a woman who experiences mild cramps might think others are exaggerating.

2. Comparing Meghan and Piers isn't looking at real life situations. I'm convinced Piers has a pantomime villain persona and he deliberately acts to get attention. No doubt he has his next step lined up and went for a dramatic exit from that show. If it was a genuine reaction he has serious issues.

3. Those reactions to the murder of Sarah Everard are disgraceful. The notion of blaming women for being attacked based on how they dress, look or act is outdated and dangerous. Another poster on this thread blamed a woman for being gang raped because she went over to a group of non-white men. He was called out and no one agreed with him. In these cases the genders wars of "Women should dress conservatively/not walk home alone" and "Any man is a potential rapist" only serve to show the biases of the contributors. We can acknowledge violence against women, acknowledge women should be able to walk home alone, and acknowledge that only a small minority of men rape and murder women without that nonsense being dragged in. However, these cases highlight both misogyny and misandry. To suggest it's only misogyny is untrue.

Wibbs

stefanovich wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ-M0KEFm9I

I miss her...

I don't. And I wouldn't if she had been in my crosshairs. Horrible individual in my humble, but we digress.

CtevenSrowder

Haha boobs.

anewme

Leg End Reject wrote: »

2. Comparing Meghan and Piers isn't looking at real life situations. I'm convinced Piers has a pantomime villain persona and he deliberately acts to get attention. No doubt he has his next step lined up and went for a dramatic exit from that show. If it was a genuine reaction he has serious issues.

On this point, Piers Morgan has been campaigning against Meghan Markle for a very long time now. He has orchestrated a long drawn out media campaign against her. The fact that Alex served it up to him straight the other morning was the real reason why he fled. He could not handle that people realised it was personal, over some perceived slight on his part. So, excusing him as a pantomine villan is playing it down, nothing pantomine about deliberately targeting someone. I'd say it's more like he has serious issues.

anewme

Leg End Reject wrote: »

3Those reactions to the murder of Sarah Everard are disgraceful. The notion of blaming women for being attacked based on how they dress, look or act is outdated and dangerous. .

But why does it only matter if they are attacked physically?

Is it ok to attack women verbally for how they dress look and act and belittle them once they are not attacked physically . Verbal attacks dont matter?

Referring to women as fat pigs in Yoga Pants that should cover up so as not to offend mens eyes is every bit as outdated and dangerous with respect of womens worth and value and should be condemned not condoned and just shrugged off as an opinion.

is_that_so

anewme wrote: »

But why does it only matter if they are attacked physically?

Is it ok to attack women verbally for how they dress look and act and belittle them once they are not attacked physically . Verbal attacks dont matter?

Referring to women as fat pigs in Yoga Pants that should cover up so as not to offend mens eyes is every bit as outdated and dangerous with respect of womens worth and value and should be condemned not condoned and just shrugged off as an opinion.

TBF fat people in general get abuse, it's not just a sexist trope.

silverharp

anewme wrote: »

But why does it only matter if they are attacked physically?

Is it ok to attack women verbally for how they dress look and act and belittle them once they are not attacked physically . Verbal attacks dont matter?

Referring to women as fat pigs in Yoga Pants that should cover up so as not to offend mens eyes is every bit as outdated and dangerous with respect of womens worth and value and should be condemned not condoned and just shrugged off as an opinion.

its hardly a gendered issue?

anewme

silverharp wrote: »

its hardly a gendered issue?

Well in this case it was as it related directly to how pleasing or lack thereof it was to mens eyes and they should wear sacks as they are not shaggable.

Men had an issue standing behind them in a queue and they did not like the view of their ass.

They liked slim women in front of them, they liked their "ass crack' and 'camel toe' on display.

That's pretty genderised to me.

maestroamado

anewme wrote: »

On this point, Piers Morgan has been campaigning against Meghan Markle for a very long time now. He has orchestrated a long drawn out media campaign against her. The fact that Alex served it up to him straight the other morning was the real reason why he fled. He could not handle that people realised it was personal, over some perceived slight on his part. So, excusing him as a pantomine villan is playing it down, nothing pantomine about deliberately targeting someone. I'd say it's more like he has serious issues.

I am not a fan of either of the two parties involved in this spat.
What i have noticed recently is having Mental health issues has become very fashionable.
I think loads of people have all kindof issues, people airing same on medis for sympathy is not-on for me. I think everybody's health very personal, if people want to have sympathy they should consult the suitable medical person and let this person confirm.
It may be she has already got a Doctors cert for work purposes?

Leg End Reject

Leg End Reject wrote: »

The notion of blaming women for being attacked based on how they dress, look or act is outdated and dangerous.

For once, I'm going to make a "take it or leave it" post, because I know how this discussion goes, having been involved in such previously. I've little interest in being insulted and demeaned by posters here for posting an alternative opinion.. and I'm fully aware that is where this topic invariably leads to.

While I agree that many of the reactions to Sarah Everard were disgraceful.. there are many situations where women should be more careful with their personal safety, and their appearance. The fashion that many women choose to wear does send signals. Women's fashion, in many cases, from high heels to makeup, are designed to elicit a physical reaction in men. That's a simple fact. To ignore that, is to ignore your own responsibility for the positions you put yourself in. There is an expectation that women should be able to behave the same as men, getting drunk, and partying like crazy, without a care in the world. Or going back to a hotel room with a group of male strangers. This expectation, IMHO, is naive and dangerous. It lacks any degree of awareness that the world is not an entirely safe place.

It's not about victim blaming. It's about personal safety. Most women are far more vulnerable than men, and as such, need to take precautions for their own safety. Sure, they shouldn't have to.. but the reality is that they need to, since those aspects of reality aren't changing any time soon.

There is a trend to embrace absolutes on certain topics. If someone suggests that the woman should have been more aware of her surroundings, then that's supposedly victim blaming, when I consider it to being common sense. Women should be taking care, being aware of who is around them.

Saying that women should take care of themselves, and engage in behavior that is more careful than men, is not misogyny. It's accepting the realities that exist in the world today. I live, for the most part abroad, where I avoid behaviors which would be acceptable in the West, but cause friction, and ultimately increase the risks of violence, in the East. That's a reasonable thing to do, and yet, to suggest that women don't wear revealing clothing in questionable circumstances, is not reasonable... because women should be able to do whatever they want, wherever they want, and nobody should criticise those choices, regardless of the consequences. I could provide a wide range of examples explaining my point of view, but I know they'll be taken apart and dismissed... or reinterpreted to suit a more absolute view.

This is not to say that women need to cover themselves up, never go out, or whatever. Whenever that's pushed it's the embracing of an absolute as a way to attack anyone who suggests that women should be more careful. However, women should be encouraged to be aware of how their appearance and behavior affects people around them, and to understand that there can be unwanted reactions. Wishing for it not to happen isn't much help.

I recognise that my opinion on this topic is a minority on boards. No problem. However, I do worry about the society we are encouraging when we don't have an entirely safe environment where women can dress and behave however they like, and yet, that's the message that is being sent. Wear skimpy clothing, dance and flirt with strangers, go back to their rooms, and don't expect certain (obvious) things to happen.

In any case, I'm done. And no... I won't be responding to any replies to this post.

Leg End Reject

anewme wrote: »

But why does it only matter if they are attacked physically?

Is it ok to attack women verbally for how they dress look and act and belittle them once they are not attacked physically . Verbal attacks dont matter?

Referring to women as fat pigs in Yoga Pants that should cover up so as not to offend mens eyes is every bit as outdated and dangerous with respect of womens worth and value and should be condemned not condoned and just shrugged off as an opinion.

You are honing in on throw away comments and using them as evidence of widespread misogyny.

A comment on the internet about some anonymous women is not an attack on all women. If that poster walked up to a woman on the street and called her a fat pig in yoga pants that would be a nasty insult to one woman. He would also be an asshole.

Men are mocked for being fat, short, scrawny, bald and not being good at flirting. It's not as if women are the only gender judged on physical appearance, or that women don't do it.

Be honest now, have you never heard you female friends mock, ridicule or insult others?

stefanovich

Wibbs wrote: »

I don't. And I wouldn't if she had been in my crosshairs. Horrible individual in my humble, but we digress.

Please don't tell me it's because she:
* Stole milk from children (Labour's idea, they already removed it from secondary schools with a plan to remove from primary which she never recinded)
* Closed mines (Again Labour closed more mines than her)

The country was crippled by the unions with rampant inflation and they had to be faced down.

It tires me so that the subsequent propaganda has stuck so well.

Leg End Reject

anewme wrote: »

Well in this case it was as it related directly to how pleasing or lack thereof it was to mens eyes and they should wear sacks as they are not shaggable.

Men had an issue standing behind them in a queue and they did not like the view of their ass.

They liked slim women in front of them, they liked their "ass crack' and 'camel toe' on display.

That's pretty genderised to me.

Women look at men they find attractive and make sexual comments too.

Do you have an issue with female sexuality too?