Modern Feminism-Good for Society?

hatrickpatrick

anewme wrote: »

Ahhh stop, another one doing gymnastics.

Feminists would moan about a black CEO or a trans CEO.

Give me a break.

There's a "top position" for everyone.

If not, sure they can always become a binman, sorry bin person as you have an issue with diversity there.

I believe the currently accepted term is "Refuse Collection Technical Administrator". :pac:

johnmck

anewme wrote: »

I dont think women are a hive mind.

People are very individual.

There are many young men or women who watch reality tv, there are many who watch sports.

Women definitely have hive minds. They go out in packs hunting for men. Look at the animal kingdom in mammels. Prides of lions, all female. Groups of baboons, all female. The alpha males stay on the periphery. Dare a woman decent from group think.

I witnessed it first hand at a wedding. The bride and bridesmaids all got smashed drunk. Took up the mic to perform ad-hoc speeches. As opposed to the prepared speeches by the groomsmen.
Bride and bridesmaids shouted on about the so called patriarchy. Belittled the good men around them, such as the groom, boyfriends and fathers. Thought they were being smart and mic dropping when in fact they were just embarrassing themselves. The whole thing was embarrassing. Haven't gringed as hard since that day. It was an strange form of amusing entertainment while I sipped on a few whiskeys over the course of roughly 3 hours

anewme

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You're calling for censorship. If this isn't because you find that you've been reading offensive, is it because you're worried other people might?
1: Why would anyone be afraid to comment? Has doxxing generally been an issue on Boards, that I'm not aware of? O_o

I dont know what that is.ive looked it up, no its not that, it's just mentally they feel the negativity is too much to take.

People see a cohort of people who have driven others out, by posting toxic and nasty stuff and whether you agree with it or not, they have been upset. Many have been upset getting private messages from these toxic terrors.

karlitob

mohawk wrote: »

All violence is wrong but when the violence is directed at someone who is much physically weaker then the perpetrator I think it’s worse.

This is the problem in a nutshell. Saying all ‘whatever it is’ is wrong and then qualifying on the basis of personal experience; and because of that expecting their opinion to hold more weight than others.

By that illogical reasoning, a big lad being being beaten by his small wife is less bad than a big lad beating his small wife. The beaten boy is discriminated on the basis of his gender and size and not on his emotions and lived experience - sounds familiar but all to often only applies to one gender.

Yes, it’s sad what happened to you; no, you or anyone else doesn’t deserve it; and no, your experience is not more relevant to others.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

What I am saying is that those who continue to advocate for improving their lot are largely entitled to do so and shouldn't be dismissed because of one individual who is hoping for the day when women can have babies without men.

This is fair, but then perhaps we could ask feminists to be more clear about the fact that they are advocating for what feminists want. Which is quite a different thing, often, from what the majority of women want.

Only a minority of women identify as feminist and it is irksome when their opinions and views are taken as the overall "women's view".

hatrickpatrick

anewme wrote: »

I dont know what that is.ive looked it up, no its not that, it's just mentally they feel the negativity is too much to take.

If negativity is too much for someone to take, internet forums just aren't their natural habitat I'm afraid. Been this way since the 1990s.

People see a cohort of people who have driven others out, by posting toxic and nasty stuff and whether you agree with it or not, they have been upset. Many have been upset getting private messages from these toxic terrors.

See above. If words written by random strangers on the internet are enough to upset you, maybe you're just not cut out for it?

anewme

johnmck wrote: »

Women definitely have hive minds. They go out in packs hunting for men. Look at the animal kingdom in mammels. Prides of lions, all female. Groups of baboons, all female. The alpha males stay on the periphery. Dare a woman decent from group think.

I witnessed it first hand at a wedding. The bride and bridesmaids all got smashed drunk. Took up the mic to perform ad-hoc speeches. As opposed to the prepared speeches by the groomsmen.

You are definitely on a wind up.

Goes back to the point earlier of what is a joke vs what is serious.

This one- joke or no joke?

tjhook

anewme wrote: »

Feminism at its core is about equality, and people striving to achieve that across all all platforms.

I disagree. For me, feminism has as its core the furthering the interests of girls/women. That's the one thing all feminists have in common. A feminist may believe in equality, but doesn't have to - i.e. can be considered a feminist without needing to be concerned with areas where the rights of males need beefing up. To illustrate, imagine three fictitious people:

• Mary identifies as a feminist. She believes in equality. She attends protests for women's rights, but also protests for men's rights.
• Jane identifies as a feminist. She doesn't care about equality. She attends the protest for women's rights. She'd like women to have more rights than men.
• Jack believes in equality. However his priority is right now is that he doesn't get to see his children. He attends protests to push that agenda.

I would say that both Mary and Jane can validly call themselves feminists. Both are lobbying for the furthering of women's interests.

If indeed feminism "at its core is about equality", then Mary and Jack (who both believe in equality) are feminists, but Jane isn't. But I doubt that's how most people would see things.

anewme

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If negativity is too much for someone to take, internet forums just aren't their natural habitat I'm afraid. Been this way since the 1990s.



See above. If words written by random strangers on the internet are enough to upset you, maybe you're just not cut out for it?

You keep saying me.

I could not give a monkey uncle.

It's funny though, when you read the blanket denials of misogyny, no, no, no nothing to see here , and then those with zero sense drop clanger after clanger.

Without even realising.:pac:

hatrickpatrick

anewme wrote: »

You are definitely on a wind up.

Goes back to the point earlier of what is a joke vs what is serious.

This one- joke or no joke?

Why does it matter? It's Boards.ie. The thread was created on AH. Therefore, view every post with extreme suspicion.

Necro

Mr Pyke wrote: »

From the article I read she was 36 and she ran into these North Africans in a park and enquired about their circumstances. They proceeded to gang rape her.

Would she have gone over to a group of scummy looking white men? I doubt it.

Numerous rapes are committed every year in Europe by migrants and yet seems and yet it seems many women blindly support immigration.

I blame left wing politics and feminism.

Mod:


Bad faith arguments and victim blaming - SERIOUSLY?


Do not post in this thread again

anewme

tjhook wrote: »

If indeed feminism "at its core is about equality", then Mary and Jack (who both believe in equality) are feminists, but Jane isn't. But I doubt that's how most people would see things.

That seems to be the wider discussion though. Everyone has a different interpretation of what it is.

I've said more than once that I've not read much on it at all, but that was what it is to me if you asked me to sum it up simply.

karlitob

tjhook wrote: »

I disagree. For me, feminism has as its core the furthering the interests of girls/women. That's the one thing all feminists have in common. A feminist may believe in equality, but doesn't have to - i.e. can be considered a feminist without needing to be concerned with areas where the rights of males need beefing up. To illustrate, imagine three fictitious people:

• Mary identifies as a feminist. She believes in equality. She attends protests for women's rights, but also protests for men's rights.
• Jane identifies as a feminist. She doesn't care about equality. She attends the protest for women's rights. She'd like women to have more rights than men.
• Jack believes in equality. However his priority is right now is that he doesn't get to see his children. He attends protests to push that agenda.

I would say that both Mary and Jane can validly call themselves feminists. Both are lobbying for the furthering of women's interests.

If indeed feminism "at its core is about equality", then Mary and Jack (who both believe in equality) are feminists, but Jane isn't. But I doubt that's how most people would see things.

I’ve yet to see a National Women’s Council advocate for equal rights for men and women in family court; I’ve yet to see them advocate for a special men’s health section in the department of health as they have for women. Considering that men are the only gender to be discriminated in Irish law; and men tend to kill themselves a fair bit or don’t live as long - I’m sure they should have years of advocating for equality.

hatrickpatrick

anewme wrote: »

You keep saying me.

I could not give a monkey uncle.

It's funny though, when you read the blanket denials of misogyny, no, no, no nothing to see here , and then those with zero sense drop clanger after clanger.

Without even realising.:pac:

You're the one who's been repeatedly advocating for censorship! So clearly you could, indeed, give a monkey uncle - which, by the say, is the best saying ever and I'm totally stealing it. Thank you.

For the record, I've never denied that there is misogyny on Boards.ie. I'm denying that it's a problem. The internet is full of all sorts of waffle, and what makes it beautiful is that by and large all of those different kinds of people live and let live. Or at least, used to - up until, and maybe this is just my bias, but up until the auth-feminist movement really sprung up out of nowhere in 2014 and started demanding that everything from sexualised pop songs to political activists be banned from the internet.

The rest of us were perfectly happy in our 'anything goes' thunderdome before they came along and tried to ruin it. I'm only including you in that specifically because, on the subject of the post which said "boobs", you have repeatedly asked "why as it allowed to stay up"?

This indicates that you would prefer if it had been taken down. Which would have been censorship. You also seem, based on your posts in this thread and the TLL thread, to be advocating for this censorship specifically from a feminist point of view - hence my assuming that you fall under the auth-feminist umbrella.

If any of this is incorrect, please correct me. I'm only making these assumptions based on the parts of the thread I've had time to read, which admittedly isn't the entire length of it.

Necro

kildare lad wrote: »

Do you ever ask yourself why more women do not go out and support women's. There's no men standing at the gates stopping women from attending games. The sad fact is a lot of women are more interested by the Kardashians and love island than watching women play football or rugby. Whens the last time you seen a gang of woman head off down the pub to watch united play or head into the Aviva to watch Ireland ? I'm not saying women don't go to sports but it's not followed nowhere as the amount of men that follow sports

Mod:

Threadbanned for nonsense sexist generalisations

Necro

johnmck wrote: »

Women definitely have hive minds. They go out in packs hunting for men. Look at the animal kingdom in mammels. Prides of lions, all female. Groups of baboons, all female. The alpha males stay on the periphery. Dare a woman decent from group think.

I witnessed it first hand at a wedding. The bride and bridesmaids all got smashed drunk. Took up the mic to perform ad-hoc speeches. As opposed to the prepared speeches by the groomsmen.
Bride and bridesmaids shouted on about the so called patriarchy. Belittled the good men around them, such as the groom, boyfriends and fathers. Thought they were being smart and mic dropping when in fact they were just embarrassing themselves. The whole thing was embarrassing. Haven't gringed as hard since that day. It was an strange form of amusing entertainment while I sipped on a few whiskeys over the course of roughly 3 hours

Mod:


Threadbanned for yet more sexist drivel

joe40

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is fair, but then perhaps we could ask feminists to be more clear about the fact that they are advocating for what feminists want. Which is quite a different thing, often, from what the majority of women want.

Only a minority of women identify as feminist and it is irksome when their opinions and views are taken as the overall "women's view".

Do you have stats for the statement "only a minority of women identify as feminists"

Obviously there are extreme views that are silly, but I would imagine the majority of women in Ireland would be largely supportive of the women's council.
That to my mind would make them feminists.

joe40

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You're the one who's been repeatedly advocating for censorship! So clearly you could, indeed, give a monkey uncle - which, by the say, is the best saying ever and I'm totally stealing it. Thank you.

For the record, I've never denied that there is misogyny on Boards.ie. I'm denying that it's a problem. The internet is full of all sorts of waffle, and what makes it beautiful is that by and large all of those different kinds of people live and let live. Or at least, used to - up until, and maybe this is just my bias, but up until the auth-feminist movement really sprung up out of nowhere in 2014 and started demanding that everything from sexualised pop songs to political activists be banned from the internet.

The rest of us were perfectly happy in our 'anything goes' thunderdome before they came along and tried to ruin it. I'm only including you in that specifically because, on the subject of the post which said "boobs", you have repeatedly asked "why as it allowed to stay up"?

This indicates that you would prefer if it had been taken down. Which would have been censorship. You also seem, based on your posts in this thread and the TLL thread, to be advocating for this censorship specifically from a feminist point of view - hence my assuming that you fall under the auth-feminist umbrella.

If any of this is incorrect, please correct me. I'm only making these assumptions based on the parts of the thread I've had time to read, which admittedly isn't the entire length of it.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

anewme

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This indicates that you would prefer if it had been taken down. Which would have been censorship. You also seem, based on your posts in this thread and the TLL thread, to be advocating for this censorship specifically from a feminist point of view - hence my assuming that you fall under the auth-feminist umbrella.

If any of this is incorrect, please correct me. I'm only making these assumptions based on the parts of the thread I've had time to read, which admittedly isn't the entire length of it.

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

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

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

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.

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

anewme

TOMs WIFE wrote: »

Logged in just to ask how on earth what kildare lad said was "nonsense sexisst generalisations".

Was spot on imo. Certainly in terms of women caring about women in sport.

And the one about feminists not wanting a black CEO?

joe40

joe40 wrote: »

Do you have stats for the statement "only a minority of women identify as feminists"

I don't, for Ireland. Figures for the UK and US usually come out to less than one-third of women identifying as "feminist", often less than one-fifth. It's possible that Ireland's much more material, obvious and recent women's rights issues (divorce, laundries, abortion and so on) change the picture here, but I'm not aware that those surveys have been undertaken.

joe40 wrote: »

Obviously there are extreme views that are silly, but I would imagine the majority of women in Ireland would be largely supportive of the women's council.
That to my mind would make them feminists.

Actually, I think you highlight my point very well. If, say, 90%* of women support gender equality, 60%* support the women's council, but only 25%* identify as feminist, then that suggests that "feminism" speaks for far fewer women than are interested in women's rights/issues - not that all women interested in women's rights/issues are de facto feminists.

* In case not obvious - these figures have obviously been pulled out of my bum for the sake of making the broader point. I've no idea if they're anywhere near indicative of the real picture and they shouldn't be taken as such.

Sarcozies

I know the majority of women don't even describe themselves as feminists so there might not be any around here but if there are would any be willing to state maybe 5-10 of the biggest rights/areas to improve for Irish women in 2021?

anewme

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't, for Ireland. Figures for the UK and US usually come out to less than one-third of women identifying as "feminist", often less than one-fifth. It's possible that Ireland's much more material, obvious and recent women's rights issues (divorce, laundries, abortion and so on) change the picture here, but I'm not aware that those surveys have been undertaken.



Actually, I think you highlight my point very well. If, say, 90%* of women support gender equality, 60%* support the women's council, but only 25%* identify as feminist, then that suggests that "feminism" speaks for far fewer women than are interested in women's rights/issues - not that all women interested in women's rights/issues are de facto feminists.

* In case not obvious - these figures have obviously been pulled out of my bum for the sake of making the broader point. I've no idea if they're anywhere near indicative of the real picture and they shouldn't be taken as such.

believe that the majority of women would not identify themselves as feminist but do support womens rights and The Womens Council, therefore making them feminist.but day to day, they are not into politics.

Silentcorner

anewme wrote: »

believe that the majority of women would not identify themselves as feminist but do support womens rights and The Womens Council, therefore making them feminist.but day to day, they are not into politics.

Maybe those women just hate labels? Or avoid group think....

anewme

anewme wrote: »

believe that the majority of women would not identify themselves as feminist but do support womens rights and The Womens Council, therefore making them feminist.

No, it doesn't "make them feminist". It makes them supportive of gender equality. Obviously, there is a perceived difference between "gender equality" and "feminism" that those women recognise when they make that choice, and nobody should seek to just blithely slap a label they've rejected onto them as though they can't think for themselves. It's infantilising.

anewme

Deleted User wrote: »

No, it doesn't "make them feminist". It makes them supportive of gender equality. Obviously, there is a perceived difference between "gender equality" and "feminism" that those women recognise when they make that choice, and nobody should seek to just blithely slap a label they've rejected onto them as though they can't think for themselves. It's infantilising.

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

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

Tell me how

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Replace discrimination with disadvantaged then.

Your sisters should have spoken up, listed their qualifications and experience and then asked if others were uncomfortable with the fact that they're women. It's not really an issue that needs to be addressed publicly.

Women's GAA is not as popular with spectators and money talks, so that explains the discrepancy there. A lot of people have no interest in GAA, or sport in general.

Neither of these examples outline a need for advocating for women's rights, nor do they explain the issues we apparently encounter today.

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

Silentcorner

Sarcozies wrote: »

I know the majority of women don't even describe themselves as feminists so there might not be any around here but if there are would any be willing to state maybe 5-10 of the biggest rights/areas to improve for Irish women in 2021?

You'll be waiting a while for one of them to answer...they ignore such questions...numerous questions like yours have been ignored.

You'd imagine they would be queuing up to answer, but they don't they ignore it...mad.

What this wave of feminism requires is to alter our society in a fundamental manner, to engineer, under the direction of the State, all outcomes for both sexes in all areas of a persons life from education to employment and beyond, it ignores all areas of society that it has a distaste for physical labour or out door work or areas where females are dominant, it requires an adoption of leftist ideology that should belong in the dust bin of human ideas but instead we find it's pervasive presence in media, global corporates, academia, politics and most importantly NGOs all over the developed world....it ignores all other societies that have much deeper and obvious issue with women's rights.

It attracts a cohort of people who have abandoned reason or logic, which you would need to do to adopt the misandry so prevalent in this wave in particular, if you don't believe me just spend a little time reading, listening, and watching prominent feminists in action.

They cannot bring themselves to accept that women can be and are often abusive in relationships, or that women are capable of harmful behavior in society, which is preposterous...or sometimes aren't even responsible for poor life choices.

They believe they are tackling men who have created a society that reflects some deep seeded hatred of women, but they have succumb to part of themselves that is ready to have disdain for men and/or male culture...they really hate white men in particular and think they have come to this of their own volition.

Some of what is published in media in this day and age on this topic is repugnant, deliberately emotive and divisive, and I am not sure what this will do to the health of people in the long term, but I can't see what good it is going to do them.

joe40

Silentcorner wrote: »

Maybe those women just hate labels? Or avoid group think....

There are many types of "group think"

kildare lad

anewme wrote: »

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

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

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

anewme

kildare lad wrote: »

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

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

Leg End Reject

Tell me how wrote: »

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

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

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

*Asshole is intended as a gender-neutral term*

anewme

anewme wrote: »

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

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

anewme wrote: »

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

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

Tell me how

Wibbs wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

kildare lad

anewme wrote: »

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

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

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

anewme

Deleted User wrote: »

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


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

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

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

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

Tell me how

kildare lad wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Silentcorner

Tell me how wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Why did ye abandon the poor?

osarusan

kildare lad wrote: »

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

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

Tell me how

Silentcorner wrote: »

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

Why did ye abandon the poor?

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

Silentcorner

anewme wrote: »

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

What's wrong with being working class anyway?

Absolutely nothing.

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

Silentcorner

osarusan wrote: »

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

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

Leg End Reject

Tell me how wrote: »

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

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

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

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

anewme

Silentcorner wrote: »

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

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

It's bang on the money, in fairness.

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

Leg End Reject

Silentcorner wrote: »

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

Why did ye abandon the poor?

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

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

anewme

anewme wrote: »

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

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

My point, unrefuted by you, stands.

Leg End Reject

Leg End Reject wrote: »

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

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

osarusan

osarusan wrote: »

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

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

Rodin

Feminists are not looking for genuine equality.

anewme

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Its summed up 100 percent accurately.

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

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

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