Modern Feminism-Good for Society?

anewme

Silentcorner wrote: »

Do you support the discrimination of men in politics or the workplace?

It didn't say that, did it?

Silentcorner

stefanovich wrote: »

And they don’t even have a candidate yet!

The sex of the candidate only matters....they did the same in the last Presidential Election...it was a disaster for them!

Silentcorner

anewme wrote: »

It didn't say that, did it?

Who is "it?"

I'm asking you, do you support the discrimination of men in politics or the workplace?

anewme

Silentcorner wrote: »

Who is "it?"

I'm asking you, do you support the discrimination of men in politics or the workplace?

It being that supposed creedo being 8 words.

I think I need to see confirmation that's it before I am expected to answer what are clearly loaded questions. If you do know what it is, then you post it.

gary550

Tell me how wrote: »

Okay then.

What are you when only start talking about the importance if there being no discrimination when people suggest gender quotas in one facet of society?

Because the idea of gender quotas in themselves are inherently discriminatory

CtevenSrowder

anewme wrote: »

Surely something that warrants so much discussion is not 8 words?

Seriously now.

With all the references to creedo etc, why did someone not post it earlier, if that's all it is.

I expected a document similar to the a Company Constitution with clauses etc.

That's a bit of an insult to peoples intelligence, if that is really it.

Well, for someone who pleads ignorance, you don't seem to be quite as ignorant as you are making out. You no nothing of modern feminism but you seemingly know what it isn't. Tis all a bit strange.

Silentcorner

anewme wrote: »

It being that supposed creedo being 8 words.

I think I need to see confirmation that's it before I am expected to answer what are clearly loaded questions. If you do know what it is, then you post it.

It's a very simple question, for some reason you can't answer...

Let me help you, personally I think it is shameful to discriminate against either men or women in politics or the workplace.

anewme

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Well, for someone who pleads ignorance, you don't seem to be quite as ignorant as you are making out. You no nothing of modern feminism but you seemingly know what it isn't. Tis all a bit strange.

I told you earlier. I'm someone who has read zero on this topic, feminism or modern feminism, but would consider myself pretty sharp and street smart. Lets say, my bull**** radar would be pretty strong.

I'd say that's not the credo that everyone is referencing.

You dont always have to know what something is, to know what it isnt. So Im calling bull. Maybe I'm wrong and if I am and that's it, its a crock of sh!t.

People going on about getting women to sign up to this creedo. Who the hell would sign up to that.

Do you know what it is? If so, can you please confirm.

I'm always deeply deeply suspicious about male modern feminists

CtevenSrowder

anewme wrote: »

I told you earlier. I'm someone who has read zero on this topic, feminism or modern feminism, but would consider myself pretty sharp and street smart. Lets say, my bull**** radar would be pretty strong.

I'd say that's not the credo that everyone is referencing.

You dont always have to know what something is, to know what it isnt. So Im calling bull. Maybe I'm wrong and if I am and that's it, its a crock of sh!t.

People going on about getting women to sign up to this creedo. Who the hell would sign up to that.

Do you know what it is? If so, can you please confirm.

I can confirm everything said is 100% correct, and you, who has 'read zero on [the] topic', and seemingly is unwilling to, and has admitted to not knowing anything on the topic, have no grounds to say that I am wrong due to your self-proclaimed total ignorance on the subject.

anewme

Silentcorner wrote: »

It's a very simple question, for some reason you can't answer...

Let me help you, personally I think it is shameful to discriminate against either men or women in politics or the workplace.

I'd not be needing any help from you, thanks all the same.

anewme

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I can confirm everything said is 100% correct, and you, who has 'read zero on [the] topic', and seemingly is unwilling to, and has admitted to not knowing anything on the topic, have no grounds to say that I am wrong due to your self-proclaimed total ignorance on the subject.

I said I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised it that was it.

So, if you are 100% correct, show me the official proof that the 8 words are it.

Silentcorner

anewme wrote: »

I'd not be needing any help from you, thanks all the same.

And yet you still can't answer a simple question.

CtevenSrowder

anewme wrote: »

I said I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised it that was it.

So, if you are 100% correct, show me the official proof that the 8 words are it.

No, it would be more helpful for the discussion if you were to do your own research.

Eric Cartman

JJayoo wrote: »

Modern feminism seems to be = I only care about what impacts me directly. When you see the sh1t that happens around the world and not a peep out of feminist groups it shows how 'localised' their feminism is

If modern feminism wasnt such a back patting selfish exercise they should be labelled almost militantly far right for how hard they should be going after islam and certain african countries for womens rights abuses, FGM etc...

But no, take the low hanging fruit and just rally against western men saying things they dont like

osarusan

JJayoo wrote: »

Modern feminism seems to be = I only care about what impacts me directly. When you see the sh1t that happens around the world and not a peep out of feminist groups it shows how 'localised' their feminism is

You could extend that argument to anything though, anything at all.

-Why are Irish people focusing on fathers' rights here in Ireland when they are much worse in Japan?
-Why are people looking for a tax increase/decrease here in Ireland when there's millions elsewhere earning less than a dollar a day?
-Why are people complaining about erosion of free speech on the internet when there are people who don't even have electricity to connect to the internet?


The 'if X really cared about Y, they'd be doing Z' argument has always struck me as absolutely empty criticism, and usually put forward by people who do nothing about Z themselves.

osarusan

osarusan wrote: »

You could extend that argument to anything though, anything at all.

-Why are Irish people focusing on fathers' rights here in Ireland when they are much worse in Japan?
-Why are people looking for a tax increase/decrease here in Ireland when there's millions elsewhere earning less than a dollar a day?
-Why are people complaining about erosion of free speech on the internet when there are people who don't even have electricity to connect to the internet?


The 'if X really cared about Y, they'd be doing Z' argument has always struck me as absolutely empty criticism, and usually put forward by people who do nothing about Z themselves.

So feminism is only about how women are treated in Ireland? Seems like it's job done so

JJayoo

osarusan wrote: »

You could extend that argument to anything though, anything at all.

-Why are Irish people focusing on fathers' rights here in Ireland when they are much worse in Japan?
-Why are people looking for a tax increase/decrease here in Ireland when there's millions elsewhere earning less than a dollar a day?
-Why are people complaining about erosion of free speech on the internet when there are people who don't even have electricity to connect to the internet?


The 'if X really cared about Y, they'd be doing Z' argument has always struck me as absolutely empty criticism, and usually put forward by people who do nothing about Z themselves.

I don't think you can compare your examples to the point I was making. Feminism by it's definition is to bring equality between the sexes, a universal concept.

JJayoo

anewme wrote: »

Ahh, I was wondering when someone would post the ever elusive "creedo".

Where did you manage to track it down?

Now, would that be the long version or the short version?

:pac:

What is creedo?

the_pen_turner

anewme wrote: »

I told you earlier. I'm someone who has read zero on this topic, feminism or modern feminism, but would consider myself pretty sharp and street smart. Lets say, my bull**** radar would be pretty strong.

I'd say that's not the credo that everyone is referencing.

You dont always have to know what something is, to know what it isnt. So Im calling bull. Maybe I'm wrong and if I am and that's it, its a crock of sh!t.

People going on about getting women to sign up to this creedo. Who the hell would sign up to that.

Do you know what it is? If so, can you please confirm.

If your bull**** radar is so good , list out 10 or so examples that the feminist side put out regularly. It should not be hard

the_pen_turner

osarusan wrote: »

You could extend that argument to anything though, anything at all.

-Why are Irish people focusing on fathers' rights here in Ireland when they are much worse in Japan?
-Why are people looking for a tax increase/decrease here in Ireland when there's millions elsewhere earning less than a dollar a day?
-Why are people complaining about erosion of free speech on the internet when there are people who don't even have electricity to connect to the internet?


The 'if X really cared about Y, they'd be doing Z' argument has always struck me as absolutely empty criticism, and usually put forward by people who do nothing about Z themselves.

There is a huge diference though. Women have achieved equality and surpassed it on the big issues. There a few smaller issues yes .
Men have huge inequalities in this country and should be fighting here first

Tell me how

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

He lives in America and has gotten caught up in the whole identity politics mess that exists there.

He was complaining earlier about the Daily Mail using an extreme example to portray feminists in a negative way, but of course using Tucker Carlson to portray those that have issues with modern feminism in a negative way is perfectly OK. Yes it's a double standard, and it'll be explained away or ignored (a bit like how your question of relevance was ignored in favor of 'oh its so obvious'). I neither see the relevance of auld Tucker to this thread.

Love the suggestion that I have gotten caught up in identify politics since coming to the US. I've been posting on these matters on this site long before I moved. But, it is true to say that travel expands the mind. Some others should try it some time instead of professing to know everything from a distance.

Comparing the Tucker Carlson story with the Daily Mail one is another false equivalence. No one had heard of the lady in the DM article before it was published this week, Tucker is one of the biggest names on probably the biggest cable news network in the US. These 2 things are not the same, no matter how you try to spin it.

Finally, if you don't see the relevance of the reaction and conversation around Tuckers dismissal of an entire gender in one of the biggest military outfits in the world on a thread about modern day feminism, then I'm not sure what to tell you. It does however go some way towards explaining your position and confusion around women's right to advocate where they feel the need to.

Tell me how

JJayoo wrote: »

Modern feminism seems to be = I only care about what impacts me directly. When you see the sh1t that happens around the world and not a peep out of feminist groups it shows how 'localised' their feminism is

Eric Cartman wrote: »

If modern feminism wasnt such a back patting selfish exercise they should be labelled almost militantly far right for how hard they should be going after islam and certain african countries for womens rights abuses, FGM etc...

But no, take the low hanging fruit and just rally against western men saying things they dont like

When people protest in Dublin advocating for black lives in America, people here complain that that has nothing to do with Ireland.
When people protest in Dublin about something local, the same people complain that they are selfish and don't care about what is happening elsewhere.
When people protest in Dublin calling for action in Ireland to help the environment, the same people say they should be talking about what is happening in China and the US, not Ireland.

Haters gonna hate. And do nothing but complain about others calling for action.

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

Love the suggestion that I have gotten caught up in identify politics since coming to the US. I've been posting on these matters on this site long before I moved. But, it is true to say that travel expands the mind. Some others should try it some time instead of professing to know everything from a distance.

I live abroad aswell. Lucky for me where I moved to the politics is far more reasoned and grown up then America.

Tell me how wrote: »

Comparing the Tucker Carlson story with the Daily Mail one is another false equivalence. No one had heard of the lady in the DM article before it was published this week, Tucker is one of the biggest names on probably the biggest cable news network in the US. These 2 things are not the same, no matter how you try to spin it.

As I said, explained away.

Tell me how wrote: »

Finally, if you don't see the relevance of the reaction and conversation around Tuckers dismissal of an entire gender in one of the biggest military outfits in the world on a thread about modern day feminism, then I'm not sure what to tell you. It does however go some way towards explaining your position and confusion around women's right to advocate where they feel the need to.

What position is that exactly?

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm always deeply deeply suspicious about male modern feminists

Umm.....we know! That much is very obvious. And not at all surprising.
When people can't understand why women themselves advocate for themselves, they sure as hell aren't going to understand men who support their right to do so.

It is worth pointing out though that it is you who is applying the 'male feminist' moniker. I expect that the vast majority of men supporting women don't identify as such. I certainly don't.

Tell me how

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

As I said, explained away.

Exactly. Explained. And not refuted by you.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

What position is that exactly?

Not understanding the motivation of women to advocate for improvements in the society they live in so as to better support women.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Umm.....we know! That much is very obvious. And not at all surprising.
When people can't understand why women themselves advocate for themselves, they sure as hell aren't going to understand men who support their right to do so.

It is worth pointing out though that it is you who is applying the 'male feminist' moniker. I expect that the vast majority of men supporting women don't identify as such. I certainly don't.

I'm sure you don't use the term "male feminist". Sure how could you?

Male feminists usually can't explain what a man or a male is. Gender is fluid and all that.

Silentcorner

Tell me how wrote: »

Comparing the Tucker Carlson story with the Daily Mail one is another false equivalence. No one had heard of the lady in the DM article before it was published this week, Tucker is one of the biggest names on probably the biggest cable news network in the US. These 2 things are not the same, no matter how you try to spin it. .

The two things are not the same, you are right about that...one is a host of a tv program...the other is a member of the British House of Lords.

It now seems that a newspaper (and it's nothing more than a gossip rag as far as I'm concerned) reports on a proposed curfew on men after 6pm in the House of Lords is a...what did you call it...a dog whistle...just because it exposed the hysterical, illogical and emotional response to a tragic event!

Tell me how

Silentcorner wrote: »

The two things are not the same, you are right about that...one is a host of a tv program...the other is a member of the British House of Lords.

It now seems that a newspaper (and it's nothing more than a gossip rag as far as I'm concerned) reports on a proposed curfew on men after 6pm in the House of Lords is a...what did you call it...a dog whistle...just because it exposed the hysterical, illogical and emotional response to a tragic event!

It exposed a single person's response, not 'The' response which implies it was some form of action or outcome.

Silentcorner

Tell me how wrote: »

It exposed a single person's response, not 'The' response which implies it was some form of action or outcome.

Would you say that to call for a 6pm curfew, in the House of Lords, for men is misandrist?