Whinging feminists in the media

Tell me how

99nsr125 wrote: »

So there has only been 7 women of any importance

I couldn't have proved the victim complex better if I tried

Lol. Examples were asked for, and given and you are inferring from that that every woman of importance was included.

Go ahead and stay in the echo chambers you feel safe in.

Pawwed Rig

Morgans wrote: »

However, it is YOU who is looking through this as a gendered lens and whinging about the success of feminist/feminine concerns.

Where did I do that?
My only points were in relation to your misunderstanding of world history and your dismissal of the point that men could have any issues at all. When this was comprehensively refuted you shifted to a position that these issues affect men AND women. When it was pointed out that men are FAR more likely to experience these issues you then dismissed them as non issues.

Since then you have moved on to dismissing peoples points as a 'word salad' (which is obvious short hand for an uncomfortable point that you are not able to deal with or refute) and then throwing about accusations like the above.

Anything but answer the points that have been put to you in response to your points.
So if you would like to go back and address the issues we can continue the discussion. I can wait

tjhook

jackboy wrote: »

To be honest talking about inventing is beside the point. Almost no one (male or female) will ever even try to invent something. It is an incredibly rare thing to do.

Yes, that's the key point - There are *lots* of things that are "incredibly rare" things to do. And men tend to be at the extremes of the spectra where those things are done.

Men are far more likely than women to be mass murderers or fail the Leaving Cert. At the other extreme, men are more likely than women to compete for a Nobel prize in Physics or be at the head of a major conglomerate.

I'm not sure it makes sense to claim that one extreme is a result of sexism but the other is just natural.

99nsr125

Tell me how wrote: »

Lol. Examples were asked for, and given and you are inferring from that that every woman of importance was included.

Go ahead and stay in the echo chambers you feel safe in.

If it was so prevalent there would be countless examples and you would have included them but you didn't.

You do a disservice to women, even insulting their intellect and importance.

Healthcare, early education, social supports and community are all sectors driven by women that benefit us all making society stronger. You don't have to be outstanding to be significant, everyone gets hung up on that loosing focus of a groups net contribution to society.

Leg End Reject

Morgans wrote: »

But it is still the societal expectation that the female will need to decide (often between the ages of 25-45), whether they want to have a family or focus on their career. Women will have to make a compromise of sorts and their decision will determine their life prospects. The bigger compromise the bigger the family that they would like. It is not a decision that men have to face. Depending on the decision they make, it can have a big impact on earning potential. Whether we get to a culture where there is no penalty for making that choice, I dont know. Its one of the reason why some feminists would take an anti-family position. At least the feminists won the contraception battle so they have some control over this.

A very simple solution to this is to combine all statutory maternity, paternity and parental leave entitlements and legally enforce an equal split between both parents.

As both women and men would miss equal time from the workforce neither can be discriminated against. It will also give fathers meaningful time to bond with their children.

Morgans

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Where did I do that?
My only points were in relation to your misunderstanding of world history and your dismissal of the point that men could have any issues at all. When this was comprehensively refuted you shifted to a position that these issues affect men AND women. When it was pointed out that men are FAR more likely to experience these issues you then dismissed them as non issues.

Since then you have moved on to dismissing peoples points as a 'word salad' (which is obvious short hand for an uncomfortable point that you are not able to deal with or refute) and then throwing about accusations like the above.

Anything but answer the points that have been put to you in response to your points.
So if you would like to go back and address the issues we can continue the discussion. I can wait

I said that if the list of mens issues - the usual list you have repeated here and by several whataboutery dispensers attacking feminist successes - were issues, they would have been addressed, given that it was men who held power for millenia. (There was nothing preventing any measures from being implemented to prevent these issues.)

I was told that was a gendered view of history and identity politics is a recent phenomenon and that it was the most incorrect reading of history in all time ever flat earth word salad.

I said it wasn't a gendered view of history that prevented these 'mens' issues from being addressed. I agree that they weren't issues that mattered to whoever was in power. That in fact, the list of issues were only brought into popular consciousness by keyboard warriors whataboutery merchants butthurt by the attention feminists were getting. Like you.

So, if you want to drill down further and not use shorthand. Yes, all these issues, ones that affect men disproportionately, as well as ones that affect females disproportionately are of importance. However, that one group has mobilised and given decades of concerted efforts to improve the lives of their group seems to have pissed off the other group, who unfortunately do not have the same level of support in real life. Especially, when compared to the amount of effort given to owning the libs. Maybe it was complacency and unfortunately they weren't issues that were relevant politically....ever.

Its like complaining that the autism society (asiam) is not doing enough for diabetics and bitching about their successes. They have mobilised and have gained successes. My position is all should be addressed. It is you, and the OP, that focuses on the "male" issues, from a gendered perspective. Learn from the feminists and do something better if its something that gets you motivated. I doubt you will though. Its all internet whining.

Eric Cartman

Leg End Reject wrote: »

A very simple solution to this is to combine all statutory maternity, paternity and parental leave entitlements and legally enforce an equal split between both parents.

As both women and men would miss equal time from the workforce neither can be discriminated against. It will also give fathers meaningful time to bond with their children.

Or the solution is to re frame that argument. These are choices, children are a choice. This bizarre idea that any woman should be able to take off for a few years to have a family and not be at any disadvantage compared to a childless woman or a man is insane.

If I took a year out to go painting pictures and then came back id of course expect my career to be less progressive than those who didn't do that.

if your career is no.1 don't have kids , if you have kids your career won't be as high achieving as those who did not make that decision, its not that hard a concept.

This is by far the worst argument of new wave feminism "I want to have my cake and eat it too"

Morgans

Leg End Reject wrote: »

A very simple solution to this is to combine all statutory maternity, paternity and parental leave entitlements and legally enforce an equal split between both parents.

As both women and men would miss equal time from the workforce neither can be discriminated against. It will also give fathers meaningful time to bond with their children.

Thats a fair proposal. You don't hear that benefits/joy of the time with a newborn enough. That its a price that many feel its worth paying. Feckin' capitalism though.

PCeeeee

vriesmays wrote: »

Disagree all you want, I'm correct and you're wrong.

Anyway, Ireland's dumbed-down formal education system will never produce a great philosopher or chess champion - male or female.

I'm not sure myself that formal education systems are designed to produce either of the two individuals you suggest

Wibbs

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

So higher rates of suicide, homelessness, work place deaths, lower life expectancy etc are not issues that require attention?

Me. Earlier. wrote: »

The basic tenet of modern feminism is; women are always agentless victims and men/the patriarchy are always to blame/it's another identity politic mired in the oppressed/oppressor narrative

By the very nature of identity politics and feminism is most certainly one, the holders of such views are essentially blind to issues that may affect the "other", the oppressor, those to blame. If it is conceded that the "other", the oppressor, those to blame may face problems of their own, as sure as night follows day blame for that will be laid at their feet and/or the society they apparently created and support. It is never the "fault" of the oppressed group. They are agentless victims. They bear zero responsibility.

In the case of feminism regarding men's issues, if they regard them at all(and I'd hardly expect them to, the clue is in the name of the politic), they point to the "patriarchy", "toxic masculinity" and the like to be responsible for those issues. Again the oppressed are painted as somehow separate, floating outside, even missing from society. Take influence on men and all the problems Men(tm) are err to and cause Women(tm), the same women; mothers, sisters, women partners, friends, women figures of authority like teachers appear to have no influence at all on men. 50% of the population completely absent from any influence on the other 50%. Of course going the other way, well, men are apparently terribly influential. They're also asked to be influential and responsible for their own 50%. "Men don't let other men rape" and all that stuff.

Once you filter feminism and other identity politics through the oppressed/oppressor filter then it all starts to make sense. Said politics love the concept of "privilege", but only ever applied to the oppressor, never the oppressed, but there is also "privilege" present in the oppressed.

Leg End Reject

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Or the solution is to re frame that argument. These are choices, children are a choice. This bizarre idea that any woman should be able to take off for a few years to have a family and not be at any disadvantage compared to a childless woman or a man is insane.

If I took a year out to go painting pictures and then came back id of course expect my career to be less progressive than those who didn't do that.

if your career is no.1 don't have kids , if you have kids your career won't be as high achieving as those who did not make that decision, its not that hard a concept.

This is by far the worst argument of new wave feminism "I want to have my cake and eat it too"

We need children to fund our pensions when we're older though!

I've never had any interest in having any myself, but can see the merit in having them if you're that way inclined.

Eric Cartman

Leg End Reject wrote: »

We need children to fund our pensions when we're older though!

I've never had any interest in having any myself, but can see the merit in having them if you're that way inclined.

Well this is it, I don't think I'm going to dull the number of kids anyone is having with this, but the weird idea that having kids shouldn't impact your career like any other choice of diverting your time and attention would is insane.

Wibbs

Morgans wrote: »

Thats a fair proposal. You don't hear that benefits/joy of the time with a newborn enough. That its a price that many feel its worth paying. Feckin' capitalism though.

Indeed and capitalism is why it will be strongly resisted. Unless it helps the bottom line. Always follow the money. There's also money to be made for the grifters and commentators of [insert identity politic here]. Those writing articles in lifestyle sections of the media don't do it for free. Those in the various quangos and NGOs and sections of academia aren't doing it for free either. Plus the more consumerist we become the more identity is saleable and profitable for someone. Look at Facebook and it's what is it 50 odd "genders". Very progressive and all that. Or not and far more likely said boxes to tick are about ever more targetted data for advertisers and political pundits to sift through and use. EG Facebook finds those who tick the box "two spirit, zur" are more likely to buy artisanal baked beans and vote Green, which is good for artisanal baked beans advertisers and the Green party. Always follow the money. And power.

Morgans

Wibbs wrote: »

In the case of feminism regarding men's issues, if they regard them at all(and I'd hardly expect them to, the clue is in the name of the politic), they point to the "patriarchy", "toxic masculinity" and the like to be responsible for those issues.

I would have thought that it was responsible for all issues. Reducing the influence that the patriarchy (whether religious/secular or both) has on the lives of women is what the fight should be against for feminists. It allows for the freedom to live their life the way any person should.

If that has mutated into a fight for women against men, i guess it is due to a sense that it is men who make up the patriarchy, who made the laws and men who benefited from its inequities. It is obviously wrong, but understandable. If men then get their back up at the idea of being painted as the oppressor when all they were doing was innocently bystanding, the backlash is understandable.

If the idea that women have nothing to be complaining about, that their is no patriarchy, that the oppressed needs to check their privilege is the one that dominates in men's circles, I can't see why the feel they need to go it alone in fighting their corner.

Has any female contributed to this thread?

Morgans

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed and capitalism is why it will be strongly resisted. Unless it helps the bottom line. Always follow the money. There's also money to be made for the grifters and commentators of [insert identity politic here]. Those writing articles in lifestyle sections of the media don't do it for free. Those in the various quangos and NGOs and sections of academia aren't doing it for free either. Plus the more consumerist we become the more identity is saleable and profitable for someone. Look at Facebook and it's what is it 50 odd "genders". Very progressive and all that. Or not and far more likely said boxes to tick are about ever more targetted data for advertisers and political pundits to sift through and use. EG Facebook finds those who tick the box "two spirit, zur" are more likely to buy artisanal baked beans and vote Green, which is good for artisanal baked beans advertisers and the Green party. Always follow the money. And power.

And its why there are professional arseholes out there demonising anyone who tries to help oppressed/exploited groups. There are as many grifters carrying the water for the oligarchs. If those at the bottom, living miserable lives due to whatever form of oppression, ever figure out that all their problems are due to an engineered power imbalance, you'd never know what would happen. Best to label BLM, Feminists, Trans-activists as the divisive ones. Never cooperate. Do not give an inch. Hammer it home, all day, every day.

py2006

Oppressed women and the patriarchy...

I've a female friend who has a better job than me, earns far more than me, lives in a lovely house and is married to a great guy who treats her amazingly, they have a wonderful child and two cars in the driveway and go on regular holidays.

Yet she makes claims of a patriarchal society and of being oppressed.

For some reason this fantastical, privileged patriarchy with all its male centred benefits that make life easier for men has forgotten to send me out the membership form.

Where can I sign up??

meeeeh

py2006 wrote: »

Oppressed women and the patriarchy...

I've a female friend who has a better job than me, earns far more than me, lives in a lovely house and is married to a great guy who treats her amazingly, they have a wonderful child and two cars in the driveway and go on regular holidays.

Yet she makes claims of a patriarchal society and of being oppressed.

For some reason this fantastical, privileged patriarchy with all its male centred benefits that make life easier for men has forgotten to send me out the membership form.

Where can I sign up??

She must be better at what she does than you. Maybe things are still easier for men you are just less capable.

Tell me how

Wibbs wrote: »

By the very nature of identity politics and feminism is most certainly one, the holders of such views are essentially blind to issues that may affect the "other", the oppressor, those to blame. If it is conceded that the "other", the oppressor, those to blame may face problems of their own, as sure as night follows day blame for that will be laid at their feet and/or the society they apparently created and support. It is never the "fault" of the oppressed group. They are agentless victims. They bear zero responsibility.

In the case of feminism regarding men's issues, if they regard them at all(and I'd hardly expect them to, the clue is in the name of the politic), they point to the "patriarchy", "toxic masculinity" and the like to be responsible for those issues. Again the oppressed are painted as somehow separate, floating outside, even missing from society. Take influence on men and all the problems Men(tm) are err to and cause Women(tm), the same women; mothers, sisters, women partners, friends, women figures of authority like teachers appear to have no influence at all on men. 50% of the population completely absent from any influence on the other 50%. Of course going the other way, well, men are apparently terribly influential. They're also asked to be influential and responsible for their own 50%. "Men don't let other men rape" and all that stuff.

Once you filter feminism and other identity politics through the oppressed/oppressor filter then it all starts to make sense. Said politics love the concept of "privilege", but only ever applied to the oppressor, never the oppressed, but there is also "privilege" present in the oppressed.

It seems to be that some people filter everything through the view that any woman advocating for something on behalf of her gender is doing so because she was instructed to do so in, what has been referred to before as 'the feminist credo'. This credo seems be some form of mythical instruction manual kept in secret but passed from young adult to female teenager as she enters adulthood in the same way the sex manual in American pie was passed from horny teenager to horny teenager. I'm not sure there is anything physical to refer to in reality.

Now, I'm not suggesting there aren't radical or extreme feminists, of course there are. In the same way as there are radical misogynists' but I think that all women advocates are likely to be portrayed in this way irrespective of what their real views are. To what degree do you think the radical feminist exists in Ireland? Just how many of them blame all men for all things? In my view, someone pointing out how a historical pattern of doing things having created an expectation (even a subconscious one) that things must be a particular way is entitled to be challenged and pointing this out does not mean that someone is against all men in all ways.

So, if feminism is such a big problem (going by the amount of commentary we get on here about it) and the suggestions as to how influential it is now in every day life, just how many of these radical feminists are out there?

If it's 0.1% of the population, it's 5,000. Does that seem realistic? If they do exist, is 0.1% of the population likely enough to influence the other 99.9%. Even if its not across the population as a whole, but in positions of influence, how many people with such radical views exist in positions of authority? Even 5 TD's (were that to be the case) this would represent just over 3%, again with 97% who don't hold such views and with these 3% not typically holding positions of power. Or the media, do Una Mullally and Jennifer O'Connell outweigh some of the 'conservative' voices which still exist in todays publications?

To my mind, these numbers don't add up, but when you start categorising every woman who thinks that things could and should be better for her gender in a particular way then maybe you get to a place where you can claim the place is being overrun with this radical viewpoint.

In terms of feminists regarding men's issues, I bet that if you had a widely publicized talk on mens mental health for example, and how to help it, a significant proportion of the attendees would be women looking for guidance in how to help someone they care about (as it was with men supporting womens marches etc), but why should feminists move to deal with mens issues when they only time a particular group of men give these issues consideration in public is when they are using them as a stick to beat feminists women with.

BorneTobyWilde

There seems to be a double standard.


A bit like this song, that girls love. Now can you imagine a guy writing such a song, and about a girl who wants nothing to do with him, but he constantly is seen out side her house, and constantly is driving up her street.

But when a girl writes it, aww its romantic,and sweet. But a guy, STALKER! LOL
I find that song so creepy and the lyrics are WTF. Restraining order!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmDBbnmKpqQ

Tell me how

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

There seems to be a double standard.


A bit like this song, that girls love. Now can you imagine a guy writing such a song, and about a girl who wants nothing to do with him, but he constantly is seen out side her house, and constantly is driving up her street.

But when a girl writes it, aww its romantic,and sweet. But a guy, STALKER! LOL
I find that song so creepy and the lyrics are WTF. Restraining order!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmDBbnmKpqQ

Iconic song to be fair.

BorneTobyWilde

Yea, the Police song too is WTF so creepy, that was years ago though. A song like that today is weird, and people love it, wtf

Tell me how

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Yea, the Police song too is WTF so creepy, that was years ago though. A song like that today is weird, and people love it, wtf

You should hear the lyrics in some rap and R&B tracks....
Ben Shapiro never heard the likes of it, nor did his wife apparently.

People, stop using the internet to judge feminism.

Talk to the people in your life.


As much as I love the internet, it gives a voice to the (minority) voiceless.

GingerLily

Thread title should be changed to 'Whinging about feminists on Boards'!!

The irony of it all

One eyed Jack

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Well this is it, I don't think I'm going to dull the number of kids anyone is having with this, but the weird idea that having kids shouldn't impact your career like any other choice of diverting your time and attention would is insane.

It’s hardly a weird idea when there are plenty of mothers in the workforce and having children hasn’t impacted upon their career in the slightest. It’s not the decision to have children that affects anyone’s career, it’s being able to facilitate both family and career and manage them, and it would be insane to imagine the State doesn’t have an interest in how that is done. That’s why for example the idea of discriminating against candidates or employees on the basis of their family status is straight up unlawful discrimination.

Morgans wrote: »

Has any female contributed to this thread?

They have.

Not many feminists have contributed to the thread though. I’m not a feminist either, but I do understand that feminist politics are concerned with equality for women in areas where they are not equal to men. I think that’s where modern feminism has lost it’s way tbh, and why many women have become disillusioned with the idea of feminism - it stands to reason that women are going to be more concerned about the welfare of the men and boys in their lives than they are with women who have nothing to do with them who they feel do not represent their interests.

I don’t see feminism as owing anything to men, and I’d rather modern feminists kept their ideas of “gender equality” to themselves, because it’s based upon the idea of taking men and boys down a peg or two, rather than elevating women in areas where they are not treated equally to men. The OP has something of a legitimate point in that there are feminists with access to mainstream media who are only interested in printing what sells, and there is no question that the gender wars stuff sells.

Has modern feminism actually done anything for women? It depends upon whom you ask of course, but IMO feminism as a political philosophy hasn’t actually achieved a whole lot for women as a whole, but rather it makes grandiose claims about “giving women a voice”. The Citizens Convention this weekend recommended that the single token acknowledgment by the State of the half a million women working in the home, be removed from the Irish Constitution. The phrase “their own worst enemy” springs to mind. They also recommended some form of “universal childcare”, a living wage and promoting men in caring roles - all good recommendations in their own right, but again, they’re unlikely to be implemented as policies because it would mean confronting the uncomfortable reality that the majority of people working in childcare which is notoriously low-paid work, are women. I can’t wait to see how they manage to square that peg in a round hole (and that’s before any questions arise as to how Government are expected to fund these flights of fancy, and who is actually likely to benefit from their introduction).

You certainly do have a point that it is not the role of feminism to advocate for men’s welfare, but it would be peachy if some feminists didn’t continue to demonise men as “the oppressors of women, the oppressors of men too”, and making a good living for themselves from receiving funding from Government to do so. That kind of divisive rhetoric does no favours for the people they claim to represent through the prism of their own political philosophy.

Pawwed Rig

Morgans wrote: »

I said that if the list of mens issues - the usual list you have repeated here and by several whataboutery dispensers attacking feminist successes - were issues, they would have been addressed, given that it was men who held power for millenia. (There was nothing preventing any measures from being implemented to prevent these issues.)

Again a complete misunderstanding by you. Why do you think just because leaders in Ireland were men that they would engage in identity politics to protect men as a group? Not all politicians an leaders engage in identity driven politics so they presumably had other concerns. Most men (and women) do not act for the benefit of their gender above all else as their family are a more important grouping that takes priority.
Historically in Ireland (and I am repeating myself here) power was held for the benefit of the individual and his or her immediate circle. No queen or king of Ireland ever went out of their way to ensure men had more power than women nor did they really care who did what as long as they kept in line. They found men more useful in some respects as they could send them out to be slaughtered in a war over some mild slight between interbred cousins and were also better suited for hard manual labour which was the primary industry in Ireland for much of the last 1,000 years. Women were useful for breeding more farmers and soldiers and more lately workers for factories.

Morgans wrote: »

I was told that was a gendered view of history and identity politics is a recent phenomenon and that it was the most incorrect reading of history in all time ever flat earth word salad.

Unclear what your point is here.

I said it wasn't a gendered view of history that prevented these 'mens' issues from being addressed. I agree that they weren't issues that mattered to whoever was in power. That in fact, the list of issues were only brought into popular consciousness by keyboard warriors whataboutery merchants butthurt by the attention feminists were getting. Like you.

Another attack. I am not butthurt at all. The only reason I got involved with the thread was due to your comments that seemed to completely misunderstand history.

Again you point is difficult to understand but are you saying that these are only issues (male suicide etc) because of the internet??

So, if you want to drill down further and not use shorthand. Yes, all these issues, ones that affect men disproportionately, as well as ones that affect females disproportionately are of importance. However, that one group has mobilised and given decades of concerted efforts to improve the lives of their group seems to have pissed off the other group, who unfortunately do not have the same level of support in real life. Especially, when compared to the amount of effort given to owning the libs. Maybe it was complacency and unfortunately they weren't issues that were relevant politically....ever.

Again other men are not my group. My group are my wife and kids. My wider group are my wider family and friends. I don't identify with a larger group outside of that other than by way of being Irish people. Their gender is largely irrelevant to me however I can see where issues are with respect to different groups in society and understand that there is a problem.

Its like complaining that the autism society (asiam) is not doing enough for diabetics and bitching about their successes. They have mobilised and have gained successes. My position is all should be addressed. It is you, and the OP, that focuses on the "male" issues, from a gendered perspective. Learn from the feminists and do something better if its something that gets you motivated. I doubt you will though. Its all internet whining.

Again your basic assumption is that men are one group and women another. Most people do not buy into that at all. I do not focus on the male issues but seeing as that is what your first misguided post was about that is what I have responded on. The issues that affect my group are more of a concern to me. That does not mean that I do not care about other groups.
Given that I have a son and a daughter then disadvantages that both of them will encounter in their lives are things I would like to see challenged and addressed.

Morgans

A lot of it is down to semantics - how to define feminism/feminists etc. I don't claim to be one, but believe they have historically just cause for needing to fight their corner.

I think its not unfair for feminists/feminism to claim some part in the abortion referendum legislation, as well as contraception back in the 90s. I think without their contribution/activism, these would be on the politically unimportant list, like those mens grievances listed earlier.

Morgans

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Again a complete misunderstanding by you. Why do you think just because leaders in Ireland were men that they would engage in identity politics to protect men as a group?

This is the third time I've explained that that is NOT what I think. And yes, male suicide is not an issue, important to those in power - which you agree with.

As for the rest, best of luck. Go fight your fight as best you can.

Leg End Reject

Morgans wrote: »

I would have thought that it was responsible for all issues. Reducing the influence that the patriarchy (whether religious/secular or both) has on the lives of women is what the fight should be against for feminists. It allows for the freedom to live their life the way any person should.

If that has mutated into a fight for women against men, i guess it is due to a sense that it is men who make up the patriarchy, who made the laws and men who benefited from its inequities. It is obviously wrong, but understandable. If men then get their back up at the idea of being painted as the oppressor when all they were doing was innocently bystanding, the backlash is understandable.

If the idea that women have nothing to be complaining about, that their is no patriarchy, that the oppressed needs to check their privilege is the one that dominates in men's circles, I can't see why the feel they need to go it alone in fighting their corner.

Has any female contributed to this thread?

"Any female"?

I'm a woman, I'm not oppressed by the patriarchy, I have the freedom to live my life as I choose and, by any metric, I have a very privileged life.

I respect that the feminism of previous years has made this possible, but I suspect those feminists would be appalled at what feminism has evolved into today. They didn't want special treatment, gender quotas, nor women to identify as victims. They wanted equal rights and we have them, more than equal in the case of family law and reproductive decisions.

Morgans

Leg End Reject wrote: »

"Any female"?

I'm a woman, I'm not oppressed by the patriarchy, I have the freedom to live my life as I choose and, by any metric, I have a very privileged life.

I respect that the feminism of previous years has made this possible, but I suspect those feminists would be appalled at what feminism has evolved into today. They didn't want special treatment, gender quotas, nor women to identify as victims. They wanted equal rights and we have them, more than equal in the case of family law and reproductive decisions.

Just wondered. There was no indication if it was only a discussion between men, with females uninterested one way or another. It felt like there weren't many giving personal reflections.