Modern Feminism-Good for Society?

anewme

anewme wrote: »

Its summed up 100 percent correctly.

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 any way. Every day is a school day.

I've discussed the merits and pitfalls of feminism in a social setting before, when it's been appropriate.

You and the lad are not every person. But by all means, if it's a waste of time you posting here... stop it.

Have a good weekend.

Sarcozies

Tell me how wrote: »

.

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.

Can you provide me 5 prominent Irish politicians complaining about feminists going on about the patriarchy?

Sarcozies

Leg End Reject wrote: »

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.

Would you say the same thing about the plight of black people under the system.in America? That it's none of the concern of anyone but the black people to do something about it?

What about members of the LGBT community who make of a small segment it the population? Is it just up to them solely to fix it up or should people from the wider community, government and power positions also speak up and pitch a hand?

Leg End Reject

Sarcozies wrote: »

Would you say the same thing about the plight of black people under the system.in America? That it's none of the concern of anyone but the black people to do something about it?

What about members of the LGBT community who make of a small segment it the population? Is it just up to them solely to fix it up or should people from the wider community, government and power positions also speak up and pitch a hand?

I'd say it needs to start with the demographic that experiences discrimination. You need to vocalise and highlight an issue to get others on board.

There's only so many hours in the day and we can't spend them all agonising over the plight of groups that feel marginalised. Being human, it's probable I wouldn't feel motivated to stand up for all of them.

Diemos

Tell me how wrote: »

And for anyone who comes in with cries of the MSM and how they would react to men trying to help themselves and each other, have a look at how one young female activist is treated, her mural didn't last 24 hours before it had a bucket of paint thrown over it and everyone from high profile media people to the President of the United States had a go at her for trying to raise awareness, and yet, she, and others like her persist and don't stop just because someone tells them they should.

You think the mural was destroyed because of her gender?

**Editing to say I'm not defending the destruction, I'm simply asking if you thought her gender was the thing that offended the perpetrator.

Sarcozies

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I'd say it needs to start with the demographic that experiences discrimination. You need to vocalise and highlight an issue to get others on board.

There's only so many hours in the day and we can't spend them all agonising over the plight of groups that feel marginalised. Being human, it's probable I wouldn't feel motivated to stand up for all of them.

Why do you feel the need to segment people who wish to vocalise injustice by certain characteristics like the colour of their skin or what's between their legs?

If you see an injustice or discrimination do you sit silently by and wait for someone who matches the description of the victim of said injustice or discrimination to do something?

Rothko

I honestly can't imagine how anyone (male or female) would be offended by the word boobs. Crazy world we live in.

elstingeo

Feminism in its ideals was a good idea to begin with. Promoting womens rights during a time when women were overlooked or not seen as equal to men.

Unfortunately this new wave of feminism has become a political vehicle for women to now belittle and emasculate men. It is a toxic, hate filled agenda.

If someone is a true feminist then they should respect both genders and their qualities. It should not be normal in today’s society for a woman to mistreat a man and use feminism as an excuse.

Not all men want women to fail or not succeed in life. Many men have brains that allow them to understand women’s value in the world as apposed to the opinions of yesteryear.

Yes it was terrible how women were treated previously but that doesn’t give “feminists” an open licence to belittle and ridicule men.

Due to the social evolution of the world now: men are not allowed to question feminists toxic behaviours or mannerisms for the sake of being called politically incorrect.

Before anyone asks; I have no chip on my shoulder or problem with women being treated as equal or progressing in this world. I do have a problem with toxic, sexist behaviour being labelled as feminism. Anyone should be able to recall such behaviour either in the media or in their own life
It’s a topic that no one dares approach.

Mad_maxx

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.

If a group of men tried that , they would be instantly branded misogynistic " straight white male's "by the media and the likes of the NWC or even many politicians who are enthusiastically on the progressive wagon

The gay marriage drive is not a valid comparison, gays are viewed as victims by the WOKE, men viewed as the personification of " privilege "

Silentcorner

anewme wrote: »

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.

I got a laugh out of that one, white middle class women believing themselves to oppressed by a mythical patriarchy is a persecution complex.

The issue feminism has now, is that it is everywhere, work, media, politics, so everyone is entitled to an opinion on the ideology, and it doesn't take too long to expose the logical inconsistencies, for instance, believing that society doesn't value women whilst living in a society that caters for the massive economic power of those women is a bit rich....and silly to be honest.

Mad_maxx

Sarcozies wrote: »

Can you provide me 5 prominent Irish politicians complaining about feminists going on about the patriarchy?

No politician would say anything so suicidal

Tell me how

Rodin wrote: »

Feminists are not looking for genuine equality.

Link please.

Eric Cartman

Feminism was originally about lobbying for womens rights to be brought up to be equal to mens. This has been achieved now

Women can enter any career, the wage gap no longer exists, women have bodily autonomy in the western world etc...

Now however those who often call themselves feminists are just dog whistling for being angry at men for their own shortcomings or blaming the boogeyman ‘patriarchy’ for their own failings or in many cases trying to install socialism under the guise of ‘womens rights’

Tell me how

Silentcorner wrote: »

I got a laugh out of that one, white middle class women believing themselves to oppressed by a mythical patriarchy is a persecution complex.

The issue feminism has now, is that it is everywhere, work, media, politics, so everyone is entitled to an opinion on the ideology, and it doesn't take too long to expose the logical inconsistencies, for instance, believing that society doesn't value women whilst living in a society that caters for the massive economic power of those women is a bit rich....and silly to be honest.

Can you explain this bit in bold. What is it you meant exactly?

I presume you are implying that as marketing of many goods is aimed towards women and so that implies that they are valued?
If so, that is completely a false equivalence.

To quote the notorious Clay Davis, from the Wire;
'"I'll take any motherf***er's money if he givin it away"'

Do you think he valued and respected someone just because he had the opportunity to make money from them?

Tell me how

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Feminism was originally about lobbying for womens rights to be brought up to be equal to mens. This has been achieved now

Women can enter any career, the wage gap no longer exists, women have bodily autonomy in the western world etc...

Now however those who often call themselves feminists are just dog whistling for being angry at men for their own shortcomings or blaming the boogeyman ‘patriarchy’ for their own failings or in many cases trying to install socialism under the guise of ‘womens rights’

The moniker of 'feminist' seems to be more often doled out by people offended at the thought of a woman speaking up for something.

The inclusion of your reference to socialism is like you're just trying to shoehorn in buzzwords here almost like some form of dogwhistling.

Eric Cartman

Tell me how wrote: »

The moniker of 'feminist' seems to be more often doled out by people offended at the thought of a woman speaking up for something.

The inclusion of your reference to socialism is like you're just trying to shoehorn in buzzwords here almost like some form of dogwhistling.

Feminism and marxism in a 3rd wave context are heavily linked, its not me shoehorning , its widely accepted.

Women speaking up isnt half as caustic as you seem to think it is.

TomTomTim

Tell me how wrote: »

The moniker of 'feminist' seems to be more often doled out by people offended at the thought of a woman speaking up for something.

The inclusion of your reference to socialism is like you're just trying to shoehorn in buzzwords here almost like some form of dogwhistling.

This is such a childish view of the matter, but I'd be a fool to expect anything else from yourself. As usual, it's a view that ignores what comes from the mouths of many feminists, and focuses purely on the fact that they are women.

Feminist says something ridiculous, man responds questioning the soundness of their reason, people like you scream oppression. Yet If I started citing examples of women who disagree with you, you yourself would be very quick to dismiss their opinions. Does that mean that you're a sexist too? If you're looking to be logically consistent, which I doubt, then the only conclusion is that you're a sexist too.

cee_jay

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Feminism was originally about lobbying for womens rights to be brought up to be equal to mens. This has been achieved now

Women can enter any career, the wage gap no longer exists, women have bodily autonomy in the western world etc...

Now however those who often call themselves feminists are just dog whistling for being angry at men for their own shortcomings or blaming the boogeyman ‘patriarchy’ for their own failings or in many cases trying to install socialism under the guise of ‘womens rights’

It has not be achieved. If it had been achieved, leadership of companies would be a 50/50 split for example. It is far off that.
There are still a significant number of Irish companies that have only one woman on their board, and in fact, one ISEQ 20 company in Ireland still has an all male board.
http://www.betterbalance.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Balance-for-Better-Business-Report-Nov-2020.pdf

TomTomTim

cee_jay wrote: »

It has not be achieved. If it had been achieved, leadership of companies would be a 50/50 split for example. It is far off that.
There are still a significant number of Irish companies that have only one woman on their board, and in fact, one ISEQ 20 company in Ireland still has an all male board.
http://www.betterbalance.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Balance-for-Better-Business-Report-Nov-2020.pdf

He was speaking of equality not equity. Your demand for equity is just another example that highlights how feminists want far more than bare equality.

CtevenSrowder

cee_jay wrote: »

It has not be achieved. If it had been achieved, leadership of companies would be a 50/50 split for example. It is far off that.
There are still a significant number of Irish companies that have only one woman on their board, and in fact, one ISEQ 20 company in Ireland still has an all male board.
http://www.betterbalance.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Balance-for-Better-Business-Report-Nov-2020.pdf

No they wouldn't. This is a ridiculous thing to suggest. Are men denied opportunities and widely discriminated against in Nursing, teaching or childcare roles because there isn't a 50/50 split in these professions?

Eric Cartman

cee_jay wrote: »

It has not be achieved. If it had been achieved, leadership of companies would be a 50/50 split for example. It is far off that.
There are still a significant number of Irish companies that have only one woman on their board, and in fact, one ISEQ 20 company in Ireland still has an all male board.
http://www.betterbalance.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Balance-for-Better-Business-Report-Nov-2020.pdf

Equality of outcome is the dumbest target to pursue, women have full equality of opportunity which is true equality, quotas or measuring success by counting the amount of women on a board is just faulty logic.

Tell me how

Mad_maxx wrote: »

If a group of men tried that , they would be instantly branded misogynistic " straight white male's "by the media and the likes of the NWC or even many politicians who are enthusiastically on the progressive wagon

The gay marriage drive is not a valid comparison, gays are viewed as victims by the WOKE, men viewed as the personification of " privilege "

You should look at the efforts of many activists which led to the laws eventually being introduced or changes in societal perceptions and the way these people were branded to see whether they just allowed their voices to be silenced.

If things around these topics were going to be changed easily, then there wouldn't have been the need for activism in the first place. Divorce was defeated first time out, The 8th referendum had to be repealed after it was obviously introduced. Even when it was repealed, prominent political parties only campaigned actively in favour of doing so when they saw the way the wind was blowing.

But you do make a valid point in what men who advocate for something are often met with. There have been a number of public commentators who advocated for, amongst other things, improved mental health and suggesting that men should be more open about doing so. They have faced pretty crude dismissal of these messages or more particularly, their role in activating for it from many on social media. Even one prominent person in this respect, has been ridiculed and dismissed as a novelty act on these very Boards by some of the people on this thread. So maybe it isn't the feminists, or the woke media or whatever you think is scaring people off from advocating for their own health and happiness but people ostensibly who should be on the same side as them.

There seems to be an almost phobic aversion to being associated with anything that might be seen as 'woke' or 'progressive' and people are willing to continue to suffer rather than have such terrible titles awarded to them.

John Wall, a terminally ill cancer sufferer has campaigned for terminally ill patients to be automatically granted a medical card and it was announced that this would happen just a few weeks ago. While he saw success, he still seemed to be campaigning in isolation. Fair play to him, at least he persevered and didn't allow the challenges he faced to stop him.

Tell me how

TomTomTim wrote: »

This is such a childish view of the matter, but I'd be a fool to expect anything else from yourself. As usual, it's a view that ignores what comes from the mouths of many feminists, and focuses purely on the fact that they are women.

Feminist says something ridiculous, man responds questioning the soundness of their reason, people like you scream oppression. Yet If I started citing examples of women who disagree with you, you yourself would be very quick to dismiss their opinions. Does that mean that you're a sexist too? If you're looking to be logically consistent, which I doubt, then the only conclusion is that you're a sexist too.

Lol, even in your response, you use the word 'feminist' like its an insult. Find it hard to believe you look at any topic objectively when you are starting from such a prejudiced standpoint.

And I've already said that I'm aware of extreme cases which of course can be used to say that such women are themselves prejudiced so before you try to use examples of women who disagree with me, please try to understand what it is I am saying.

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

You should look at the efforts of many activists which led to the laws eventually being introduced or changes in societal perceptions and the way these people were branded to see whether they just allowed their voices to be silenced.

If things around these topics were going to be changed easily, then there wouldn't have been the need for activism in the first place. Divorce was defeated first time out, The 8th referendum had to be repealed after it was obviously introduced. Even when it was repealed, prominent political parties only campaigned actively in favour of doing so when they saw the way the wind was blowing.

But you do make a valid point in what men who advocate for something are often met with. There have been a number of public commentators who advocated for, amongst other things, improved mental health and suggesting that men should be more open about doing so. They have faced pretty crude dismissal of these messages or more particularly, their role in activating for it from many on social media. Even one prominent person in this respect, has been ridiculed and dismissed as a novelty act on these very Boards by some of the people on this thread. So maybe it isn't the feminists, or the woke media or whatever you think is scaring people off from advocating for their own health and happiness but people ostensibly who should be on the same side as them.

There seems to be an almost phobic aversion to being associated with anything that might be seen as 'woke' or 'progressive' and people are willing to continue to suffer rather than have such terrible titles awarded to them.

John Wall, a terminally ill cancer sufferer has campaigned for terminally ill patients to be automatically granted a medical card and it was announced that this would happen just a few weeks ago. While he saw success, he still seemed to be campaigning in isolation. Fair play to him, at least he persevered and didn't allow the challenges he faced to stop him.

The point, surely, is that modern western feminists proclaim to be fighting for equality between the sexes, yet the focus is almost exclusively on issues that affect women, and become more and more frivolous by the day. If equality was there aim as such, surely there would be more of a focus on issues that predominately effect males.

If you want to go out and advocate solely on the behalf of women then so be it, but don't lie to people that your end aim is 'equality'. Equality has been reached (in the West).

Tell me how

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Equality of outcome is the dumbest target to pursue, women have full equality of opportunity which is true equality, quotas or measuring success by counting the amount of women on a board is just faulty logic.

Why is it? Is that not the most obvious target by which to measure progress or success. For anyone, male or female. In all walks of life, in all industries, people look at what others have achieved and seek to emulate that.

Now, before you react, I'm not suggesting there should be absolute or mandatory enforcement of quality of outcome through regulation. But, I can see where some regulation around the areas of certain quotas can at least be part of the conversation rather than just assuming that equality will ultimately happen organically, it might, but there is no guarantee and will take much longer than should be accepted by all people.
It is probable that people have ingrained bias as to expectations of who should be in a particular role because they have grown up always seeing such a person in it.

We saw it in the NFL where it was recognized that Black men were not getting the opportunities to coach and so the Rooney rule was brought in even though, in theory it should not have been required given the number of non-white people who have played the sport.

castletownman

Maybe I am off-tangent here....

Lidl are currently running an ad 'promoting' ladies football. The narrator speaks in a confrontational tone about 'levelling the playing field' and proclaiming it's not over 'until WE say it's over'.

Christ on a bike. What more do they want?

The irony is the current Dublin ladies footballers wouldn't have won all the titles they have if they hadn't ridden on the coat-tails of the success of the men's team.

And its not like women playing sport are being marginalised (or even not being allowed play)- there is more participation and coverage now than ever before.

Tell me how

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

The point, surely, is that modern western feminists proclaim to be fighting for equality between the sexes, yet the focus is almost exclusively on issues that affect women, and become more and more frivolous by the day. If equality was there aim as such, surely there would be more of a focus on issues that predominately effect males.

If you want to go out and advocate solely on the behalf of women then so be it, but don't lie to people that your end aim is 'equality'. Equality has been reached (in the West).

It's hard to read that and think that would some would take it as meaning that women, after being prejudiced against for so long, should not pretty much immediately, start to take up the battles for women and devote less of their time to issues which they still see needing to be addressed within their own sphere.

One thing I would feel pretty certain about is, if men start advocating for something which is for the genuine benefit of men, not just an attempt to take something from women, many of the people who would come on board with this would be women in the same way as many supporters for women's rights are men.

Tell me how

castletownman wrote: »

Maybe I am off-tangent here....

Lidl are currently running an ad 'promoting' ladies football. The narrator speaks in a confrontational tone about 'levelling the playing field' and proclaiming it's not over 'until WE say it's over'.

Christ on a bike. What more do they want?

The irony is the current Dublin ladies footballers wouldn't have won all the titles they have if they hadn't ridden on the coat-tails of the success of the men's team.

And its not like women playing sport are being marginalised (or even not being allowed play)- there is more participation and coverage now than ever before.

Did you really just type these two sentences one after the other?

That aside, just 2 months ago, one of the womens All Ireland semi-finals had to be moved because a mens team wanted the venue for a training session.

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

Why is it? Is that not the most obvious target by which to measure progress or success. For anyone, male or female. In all walks of life, in all industries, people look at what others have achieved and seek to emulate that.

Now, before you react, I'm not suggesting there should be absolute or mandatory enforcement of quality of outcome through regulation. But, I can see where some regulation around the areas of certain quotas can at least be part of the conversation rather than just assuming that equality will ultimately happen organically, it might, but there is no guarantee and will take much longer than should be accepted by all people.
It is probable that people have ingrained bias as to expectations of who should be in a particular role because they have grown up always seeing such a person in it.

We saw it in the NFL where it was recognized that Black men were not getting the opportunities to coach and so the Rooney rule was brought in even though, in theory it should not have been required given the number of non-white people who have played the sport.

Because when equality of outcome eventually isn't met (because it won't be, you are very unlikely to have 50/50 splits across everything), the reasons will undoubtedly be that it is due to some form of discrimination. I contest that any other reasons will be swept/explained away. And ultimately, this always leads to policies of so-called 'positive discrimination', which is just discrimination quite literally with a positive spin.

The Rooney rule (I'd not heard of it before) on the surface doesn't seem like something I'd be completely opposed to for the NHL, but again, how far can you extend this to more 'normal' jobs, and what jobs do you choose and why? Does it apply to skin colour, sex, sexual orientation, all of these things?

I think such a rule, were it to be initiated in Ireland, would only be done so for professions such as being a CEO, jobs that are out of reach of the majority, regardless of your gender, skin colour, or sexuality, and the calls for more and more 'minority' groups who have to be interviewed would only grow and grow.

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

It's hard to read that and think that would some would take it as meaning that women, after being prejudiced against for so long, should not pretty much immediately, start to take up the battles for women and devote less of their time to issues which they still see needing to be addressed within their own sphere.

One thing I would feel pretty certain about is, if men start advocating for something which is for the genuine benefit of men, not just an attempt to take something from women, many of the people who would come on board with this would be women in the same way as many supporters for women's rights are men.

Sorry, I can't quite understand what your first paragraph is saying. Can you rephrase/rewrite it please.

Eric Cartman

Tell me how wrote: »

Why is it? Is that not the most obvious target by which to measure progress or success. For anyone, male or female. In all walks of life, in all industries, people look at what others have achieved and seek to emulate that.

Now, before you react, I'm not suggesting there should be absolute or mandatory enforcement of quality of outcome through regulation. But, I can see where some regulation around the areas of certain quotas can at least be part of the conversation rather than just assuming that equality will ultimately happen organically, it might, but there is no guarantee and will take much longer than should be accepted by all people.
It is probable that people have ingrained bias as to expectations of who should be in a particular role because they have grown up always seeing such a person in it.

We saw it in the NFL where it was recognized that Black men were not getting the opportunities to coach and so the Rooney rule was brought in even though, in theory it should not have been required given the number of non-white people who have played the sport.

I think theres a big difference between the rooney rule and female board members. Equality of outcome is a bad metric for boardrooms because unlike the NFL where there were many black men who wanted to coach, there will always be less women who want to put in the effort required to be on a board. Being a high level exec often requires decades of persistent over work, hours put in etc.. that many women do not want to participate in particularly after having children.

Any quota system in place in this regard just rides roughshod over those women who choose their career over having children.

The real boardroom gap we have is a lack of primary child carers, a gap that youll never close because it is a choice

Rodin

Rodin wrote: »

Feminists are not looking for genuine equality.

It's the problem with any ideology with a diverse member base.. the ideas become varied, and while the umbrella term of feminism is used, there are often massive differences between their desires.

Many feminists believe that feminism relates to actual equality.. because that's been the media spin for decades. Feminists wouldn't gain as much support as they have had they said honestly, that this was solely about Women's rights, and so, they plugged the line about equality. Except, in every instance where actual equality has been reached, they've sought further changes to protect or entitle women to greater rights.

Because feminism isn't about equality. It's about women's rights, irrespective of whether that establishes equality, or changes the dynamic where women have more rights than men.

For many feminists, the movement is about fear. Fear of the patriarchy. Fear of men as a gender. Rightly or wrongly, due to the experiences of some women, they've extended the negative behavior of some men, on to the whole gender (while excusing women from the same application), because men are the enemy, and need to be punished, or marginalised to the extent where women are completely and utterly safe from the attentions of "men".

All you have to do is look at any of the equality organisations that exist today, whether it's the UN or the EU. The focus is almost entirely on furthering the protection and rights of women. Men, in spite of the glaring inequalities, are given a token reference of needing help, but usually that's somehow connected to how men mistreat women, so the help should be changing the place of males in society.

Meh. Feminism is the poster child of success in western culture, because it has succeeded in being different things to different people while, taking zero responsibility for the consequences of the changes implemented.

Mister Vain

castletownman wrote: »

Maybe I am off-tangent here....

Lidl are currently running an ad 'promoting' ladies football. The narrator speaks in a confrontational tone about 'levelling the playing field' and proclaiming it's not over 'until WE say it's over'.

Christ on a bike. What more do they want?

The irony is the current Dublin ladies footballers wouldn't have won all the titles they have if they hadn't ridden on the coat-tails of the success of the men's team.

And its not like women playing sport are being marginalised (or even not being allowed play)- there is more participation and coverage now than ever before.

To be paid the same as Megan Rapinoe.

cee_jay

castletownman wrote: »

Maybe I am off-tangent here....

Lidl are currently running an ad 'promoting' ladies football. The narrator speaks in a confrontational tone about 'levelling the playing field' and proclaiming it's not over 'until WE say it's over'.

Christ on a bike. What more do they want?

The irony is the current Dublin ladies footballers wouldn't have won all the titles they have if they hadn't ridden on the coat-tails of the success of the men's team.

And its not like women playing sport are being marginalised (or even not being allowed play)- there is more participation and coverage now than ever before.

Wow. The GAA - sure that's a great organisation for the lads. Marginalises women and men get all the privilege.
And god forbid, women might actually work and do well at something without a man being given the glory for it.

TomTomTim

cee_jay wrote: »

Wow. The GAA - sure that's a great organisation for the lads. Marginalises women and men get all the privilege.
And god forbid, women might actually work and do well at something without a man being given the glory for it.

You're the exact stereotype that people have been talking about on this thread. I admire your frankness though, because many are down playing the existence of feminists like yourself.

cee_jay

TomTomTim wrote: »

You're the exact stereotype that people have been talking about on this thread. I admire your frankness though, because many are down playing the existence of feminists like yourself.

What's this stereotype you have decided to bless me with based on two posts in this thread?

Eric Cartman

cee_jay wrote: »

What's this stereotype you have decided to bless me with based on two posts in this thread?

Well blaming men and claiming the gaa are ‘marginalising women’ its the basic ‘aghh men’ playbook of modern feminism

cee_jay

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Well blaming men and claiming the gaa are ‘marginalising women’ its the basic ‘aghh men’ playbook of modern feminism

I haven't blamed men for anything, I have blamed an organisation. The proof is there in practice as to how female sports are marginalized in the GAA through funding, venues, etc. It is a fact.

Eric Cartman

cee_jay wrote: »

I haven't blamed men for anything, I have blamed an organisation. The proof is there in practice as to how female sports are marginalized in the GAA through funding, venues, etc. It is a fact.

Ok so its moved from women being marginalised to female sports...

So the GAA is bad... how should the gaa treat womens sports , keeping in mind the lower interest in viewerships and thus the lower amount of sponsorship money available

CtevenSrowder

cee_jay wrote: »

I haven't blamed men for anything, I have blamed an organisation. The proof is there in practice as to how female sports are marginalized in the GAA through funding, venues, etc. It is a fact.

The GAA doesn't govern the Ladies' games, the LGFA and it's camogie counterpart govern them. Both organisations are a mess, granted.

castletownman

The LGFA is a separate entity to the GAA.

So any issue is at their door, as is that monumental ****-up with the semi-final last year.

Eric Cartman

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

The GAA doesn't govern the Ladies' games, the LGFA and it's camogie counterpart govern them. Both organisations are a mess, granted.

And interesting the poster called the gaa a ‘lads club’ that marginalises women but heres the lgfa staff : https://ladiesgaelic.ie/the-lgfa/about-us/staff/ not a lot of men there

Mad_maxx

Tell me how wrote: »

Why is it? Is that not the most obvious target by which to measure progress or success. For anyone, male or female. In all walks of life, in all industries, people look at what others have achieved and seek to emulate that.

Now, before you react, I'm not suggesting there should be absolute or mandatory enforcement of quality of outcome through regulation. But, I can see where some regulation around the areas of certain quotas can at least be part of the conversation rather than just assuming that equality will ultimately happen organically, it might, but there is no guarantee and will take much longer than should be accepted by all people.
It is probable that people have ingrained bias as to expectations of who should be in a particular role because they have grown up always seeing such a person in it.

We saw it in the NFL where it was recognized that Black men were not getting the opportunities to coach and so the Rooney rule was brought in even though, in theory it should not have been required given the number of non-white people who have played the sport.

That requires serious state coercion and social engineering

Mad_maxx

Tell me how wrote: »

It's hard to read that and think that would some would take it as meaning that women, after being prejudiced against for so long, should not pretty much immediately, start to take up the battles for women and devote less of their time to issues which they still see needing to be addressed within their own sphere.

One thing I would feel pretty certain about is, if men start advocating for something which is for the genuine benefit of men, not just an attempt to take something from women, many of the people who would come on board with this would be women in the same way as many supporters for women's rights are men.

regular people would support it but the vocal minority of feminists who are so prevelant in the media would oppose , most of those are driven by revenge and a desire to punish men for perceived sins of the past

im thinking of career man haters like " Doctor " Mary McAuliffe

Eric Cartman

Mad_maxx wrote: »

regular people would support it but the vocal minority of feminists who are so prevelant in the media would oppose , most of those are driven by revenge and a desire to punish men for perceived sins of the past

im thinking of career man haters like " Doctor " Mary McAuliffe

Even Una Mullally, has a weekly platform in the paper of record to channel her personal anger with one man in her life into an all out hate festival blaming all men for every ill in society

joe40

Mad_maxx wrote: »

regular people would support it but the vocal minority of feminists who are so prevelant in the media would oppose , most of those are driven by revenge and a desire to punish men for perceived sins of the past

im thinking of career man haters like " Doctor " Mary McAuliffe

I never heard of her, but why is the word "doctor" in quotation marks.

Eric Cartman

joe40 wrote: »

I never heard of her, but why is the word "doctor" in quotation marks.

Presumably like “doctor” ebun joseph where their doctorate is in complete waffle

hatrickpatrick

TomTomTim wrote: »

Feminist says something ridiculous, man responds questioning the soundness of their reason, people like you scream oppression.

This tweet ticks the first two of those boxes anyway

joe40

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Presumably like “doctor” ebun joseph where their doctorate is in complete waffle

So how is her doctorate complete waffle. If it was achieved in an Irish institution or any reputable institution then minimum academic standards would apply.

I have no problem disagreeing with someone but see no reason to denigrate their qualifications without causes. ( Bought from the states for example)

Eric Cartman

joe40 wrote: »

So how is her doctorate complete waffle. If it was achieved in an Irish institution or any reputable institution then minimum academic standards would apply.

I have no problem disagreeing with someone but see no reason to denigrate their qualifications without causes. ( Bought from the states for example)

A phd in equality studies is complete waffle, it doesnt deserve the term ‘doctor’

May aswell get a doctorate in whinging