International women's day (3 Viewers)

[classic seanc]

Perhaps a stupid question, but bear with me:

Feminism today, in Ireland. Is it generally geared towards creating gender equality, or is there a "men are the cause of all the problems in the world" vibe to it?
Or is there both? and if so, which would be more predominant?

I get the impression that the ladies here are gender equality types.

 

[Franco]

"men = women"

Men ≥ Women?

 

[Super Dexta]

Perhaps a stupid question, but bear with me:

Feminism today, in Ireland. Is it generally geared towards creating gender equality, or is there a "men are the cause of all the problems in the world" vibe to it?
Or is there both? and if so, which would be more predominant?

I get the impression that the ladies here are gender equality types.

I'm not sure if there is such a thing as 'feminism in ireland' as distinct from feminism anywhere else. but the anti-male branch of feminism in general has, to the best of my knowledge, always been a vociferous minority. do you know anyone who thinks men are the cause of all the problems in the world? i don't. most of the theorists who have are either discredited or dead at this stage, as far as i know.

 

[Super Dexta]

I'm not sure if there is such a thing as 'feminism in ireland' as distinct from feminism anywhere else. but the anti-male branch of feminism in general has, to the best of my knowledge, always been a vociferous minority. do you know anyone who thinks men are the cause of all the problems in the world? i don't. most of the theorists who have are either discredited or dead at this stage, as far as i know.

also, while there has been a major move from people* considering themselves 'feminists' or 'pro-woman' to considering themselves 'pro-gender awareness and equality', that doesn't mean that pro-woman ever necessarily meant anti-man.


*a great big chunk of feminists/gender equality activists are men, so can people stop referring to 'ladies' and 'girls', thanks.

 

[classic seanc]

Cool, thanks.

you know anyone who thinks men are the cause of all the problems in the world?

Yes, I've met a fair few people like that. I was hoping it wasn't the case in general, thats why I asked.

 

[snakybus]

"can people stop referring to 'ladies' and 'girls', thanks"


but "beeotches" and "hoochies" is still okay, yes?

 

[broken arm]

also, while there has been a major move from people* considering themselves 'feminists' or 'pro-woman' to considering themselves 'pro-gender awareness and equality', that doesn't mean that pro-woman ever necessarily meant anti-man.

we don't hate blacks we're just pro-white.

::clef:: ::clef:: ::clef:: ::clef:: ::clef::

j/k

 

[classic seanc]

*a great big chunk of feminists/gender equality activists are men, so can people stop referring to 'ladies' and 'girls', thanks.

for my part, I was talking about the ladies on Thumped, not saying all feministic people are women.

 

[taubstumm]

feminists are deadly at riding

 

[taubstumm]

feminists are deadly at riding

got docked for that

sheesh

 

[тхеодоре кацзынски]

didnt you learn from my mistakes?

 

[1000smurfs]

do you know anyone who thinks men are the cause of all the problems in the world? i don't. most of the theorists who have are either discredited or dead at this stage, as far as i know.

i'd have a bit sympathy for that point of view to be honest.( Although I haven't read any direct literature on it)
Testosterone and the urge to reproduce has such a big influence on men's
behaviour. Men are unconciously obssesed with being right, not showing weakness,showing off, getting power etc, these things were good for reproducing back in the stone age but are detrimental in society today. Not the root of all evil, but responsible for many fuck ups I'm willing to bet.

I wonder if some critcism of this view from the feminist perspective
is motivated out of a fear of the reciprocal argument that women are
subject to some negative biological influences ?

Obviously these view points can be abused, like that harvard dean dude who stepped down over the controversy surrounding his view that women are less suited to science.

As others have said , having an awareness of societal strengths and weaknesses of both genders can only be a good thing in creating a better society. I just feel in my bones that modern society would be much better as a slight matriarchy.


in summary:

 

[classic seanc]

Are there many people with your point of view? That, more or less, women should be in charge? (as in, that modern society would be much better as a slight matriarchy.) Just asking now.

Are you a boy or a girl?

 

[Super Dexta]

i'd have a bit sympathy for that point of view to be honest.( Although I haven't read any direct literature on it)
Testosterone and the urge to reproduce has such a big influence on men's
behaviour. Men are unconciously obssesed with being right, not showing weakness,showing off, getting power etc, these things were good for reproducing back in the stone age but are detrimental in society today. Not the root of all evil, but responsible for many fuck ups I'm willing to bet.

I wonder if some critcism of this view from the feminist perspective
is motivated out of a fear of the reciprocal argument that women are
subject to some negative biological influences ?

Obviously these view points can be abused, like that harvard dean dude who stepped down over the controversy surrounding his view that women are less suited to science.

As others have said , having an awareness of societal strengths and weaknesses of both genders can only be a good thing in creating a better society. I just feel in my bones that modern society would be much better as a slight matriarchy.


in summary:

hm! interesting. you've articulated something there that a woman probably couldn't say without getting accusations of being a raging man-hating biatch. i dunno if i'd agree with you on the matriarchy being better thing but that's probably down to my political beliefs - i.e. that i'm not much into any form of 'archy'

seems that all the scientists who've tried to step up and go 'look, women and men are different whether you like it or not..not better or worse, just different' have gotten shot down at one stage or another by left-wing types who kinda misunderstand them and over-react. and i'd imagine that it probably is based in a left-wing fear of innate differences. and now that i think about it, all the science stuff i've read on gender has emphasised not innate differences but innate tendencies to differ. and some say 'look, yeah, there are differences but they're massively overshadowed by the similarities'

em.. i think that's the end of my rather rambling thoughts..

 

[1000smurfs]

Are there many people with your point of view? That, more or less, women should be in charge? (as in, that modern society would be much better as a slight matriarchy.) Just asking now.

Haven't a clue! I'm sure there are. i don't really want to say that only women
should be in charge, more that we'd benefit from less male-evolutionary-motivated-behavioral influence,
Would hilary clinton be less likely to push the button than her predecessors?

Are you a boy or a girl?

I'm a smurf , 100 to 1, i'm a 'bloke' the ultimate example of patriarchal society GONE MAD!

 

[1000smurfs]

and now that i think about it, all the science stuff i've read on gender has emphasised not innate differences but innate tendencies to differ.

yeah that's much better/nicer/more accurate way to think about it
we don't have to be the way our genes are trying to make us be

 

[classic seanc]

Haven't a clue! I'm sure there are. i don't really want to say that only women
should be in charge, more that we'd benefit from less male-evolutionary-motivated-behavioral influence,
Would hilary clinton be less likely to push the button than her predecessors?



I'm a smurf , 100 to 1, i'm a 'bloke' the ultimate example of patriarchal society GONE MAD!

Women in charge is a different thing to a matriarchy, yes. I missed that. apologies.

I'm not academically equipped enough to answer your clinton question. My gut say's "no" to iarcy's in general. That's where I'll stop.....................for now

 

[Franco]

There was a women only political party in Sweden, sometime last year, but it quickly descending into a squabbling mess and split up.

here's the tale:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,,1636617,00.html

 

[nofunchee]

Testosterone and the urge to reproduce has such a big influence on men's behaviour. Men are unconciously obssesed with being right, not showing weakness,showing off, getting power etc, these things were good for reproducing back in the stone age but are detrimental in society today. Not the root of all evil, but responsible for many fuck ups I'm willing to bet.

I wonder if some critcism of this view from the feminist perspective
is motivated out of a fear of the reciprocal argument that women are
subject to some negative biological influences ?

Obviously these view points can be abused, like that harvard dean dude who stepped down over the controversy surrounding his view that women are less suited to science.

seems that all the scientists who've tried to step up and go 'look, women and men are different whether you like it or not..not better or worse, just different' have gotten shot down at one stage or another by left-wing types who kinda misunderstand them and over-react. and i'd imagine that it probably is based in a left-wing fear of innate differences. and now that i think about it, all the science stuff i've read on gender has emphasised not innate differences but innate tendencies to differ. and some say 'look, yeah, there are differences but they're massively overshadowed by the similarities'

the problem with science a lot of the time is that it becomes an ideology. so say if some scientific study is reported as having proved/suggested the existence of a certain behavioural trait difference between men and women. the researchers themselves/political interest/media/whoever then makes a link between the research findings and certain social activities that are generally seen as gendered activities. this 'join-the-dots' psudo-scientific leap of faith strengthens that general opinion of the activity as gendered or explains undesirable behaviour as somehow determined by nature. science these days is hailed as absolute truth and as such is very powerful evidence. this is very dangerous as it can create/reinforce a belief system that actually divides the sexes by either making new divisions or magnifying old ones. this can in turn reject or play down social, cultural, political, religious, etc. influence, not to mention individual capacity to choose to do/be something different (or 'agency' as the academos call it).

the only example that i can remember reading about is these socio-biologist dudes who explained rape as a male act of survival. a man's function of passing on his genes that is now taboo but still functions as an innate biological function of nature. so does this explain away rape as something that is gonna go on happening and we have little influence over it? - "he couldn't help himself", etc. i have read loads of court judgements of sexual assault cases which show that this attitude is alive and well. this is the danger of what is apparently known as biological determinism, that everything we do can be boiled down to (or determined by) hormones, genitics, and instinct. not to mention that research can often be induly influenced by all sorts of factors...not gonna go on about that at this hour, jaysus. ramble ramble bollocks bollocks !zed !zed

not that i think scientific research isn't very useful, just that it can be a really bloody dangerous explain-awayer.

some mad theores floating around all the same though.

 

[La La]

em... both you and I know that's not the case. Men and women often share both of these features.

true.

some boys develop bitch tits.