Society/Culture Feminism - 2017 Thread - Pt I

[Maggie5]

Great way to disempower women. FFS.

I voted opposite to my dad just to be contrary.

 

[Taylor]

Great way to disempower women. FFS.

Perhaps you should read the entirety, from the first post in that chain. You're taking two second grabs and commenting on it.

The entire thing was to highlight how stupid the comment above about having more peace if women didn't vote was.

I know it doesn't help you have an argument about a figment of your imagination but I'm sure you will try.

 

[Run n Spread]

Feminism has been a major success. Women have the right to vote, employment, reproductive control and equal rights under the law without fear or favour. And without discrimination. As they bloody well should.

Yet second wave feminism is bullshit. Ask a woman circa 2017 to clearly articulate their rights and responsibilities and what they think they should be and it is a disaster. Complete horse s**t that has eroded society as we know it. (Men even more so. Men's rights and what they (want are completely and equally as) ****ed. Nobody truly is prepared to accept what they want and accept the consequences.

I blame a lack of honesty. If everyone simply articulated what they wanted and needed we would all freak. So we have this hotch potch of second guessing.

 

[Jello_B]

Saw a great conversation as I was flicking through channels yesterday on Studio 10 about how air-conditioning is sexist because it's the men who control the temperature in offices. Of course Jessica Rowe was in agreement.

Really reminded me of this:



There are real feminism issues, and then there are first-world-problems like this that modern day feminists choose to focus on instead.

'You just described air conditioning' hahaha

 

[Jello_B]

In Australia, such as?...

I was wrong about this. Spoke with a feminist the other night. I'm convinced there is more that can be done, and there is no reason not to do more, but in the right way.

 

[Jello_B]

I think the point is, how is anyone supposed to know who a "real" rape victim is then, apart from the victim themselves? If a woman says she was raped and the courts prove her case, is she a rape victim? All evidence would suggest yes, and she would be labelled as a rape victim in a legal sense, but in reality it does not definitively prove that a rape actually occurred.

So when I said "legitimate" rape victims, it was a descriptor being used to distinguish between actual victims of crime who have actually been sexually assaulted and those who make false claims, because as outsiders we cannot know the difference between the two most of the time.

This is so easy to understand I don't get how people can't take this as obvious.

 

[CM86]

No, but they can be labelled as a rape victim. The rest of society can view them as rape victims. They can be classified as rape victims in a legal sense.

Which is why I originally made the distinction. Of course anyone who is actually raped is a rape victim, and if you have never been raped then you aren't a rape victim. However, it is impossible for anyone other than that person and any possible offenders to know the truth (in most cases). So when I say "legitimate" rape victim I am referring to those people who were actually raped and who deserve justice, as opposed to anyone who just claims they were raped when they weren't yet gets labelled by society as a "rape victim" anyway.

All I was doing in the original post was distinguishing between actual rape victims and those who are only claiming to be. I'm not sure how 1 single word spawned two pages of discussion but anyway.

This is so easy to understand I don't get how people can't take this as obvious.

I think Kynge is talking about deliberate language used by some (not jobe) to diminish rape victims, and try to blur the lines between victims and false claimants.

How many false claims are made in comparison to rape victims? If the ratio is large, why do we need to be reminded that there are false claims made, whenever we talk about rape victims?

Language is a funny old thing.

 

[Jello_B]

Yep no probs.

 

[evo]

 

[BORK]

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/pa...n/news-story/799410cd2cc826bc9c68064c32e1d767

The announcement today had me in floods of tears. As Kate’s friend, I am proud of her achievements and full of admiration for what has been a terribly difficult decision. As the fellow mother of a toddler — Kate’s son and mine were born less than two months apart — I am seething with anger.

The painful truth is that motherhood and politics don’t mix.

The parliament is still structured the way it was back in 1901 when the Australian states federated. That is, the parliament was designed for men and by men. Men who assumed parenting was the job of someone else. Modern public life remains utterly inconsistent with the realities of new motherhood and our country is the poorer for it.

We need to start doing votes, question time, debates, estimates hearings etc via Skype now to be more women friendly it seems.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/pa...n/news-story/799410cd2cc826bc9c68064c32e1d767

We need to start doing votes, question time, debates, estimates hearings etc via Skype now to be more women friendly it seems.

I read that earlier and a lot of it I empathised with but some of it seemed a bit too self-pitying. There's nothing to stop women with political aspirations seeking men that are happy to be stay at home dads. Why is it harder for a mother to be away from home than a father? From stories I've read, a lot of fathers really suffer having to be on the road so much when required for business. Maybe if people just looked at this differently and saw that both genders need to make sacrifices then it wouldn't be an issue.

 

[BORK]

I read that earlier and a lot of it I empathised with but some of it seemed a bit too self-pitying. There's nothing to stop women with political aspirations seeking men that are happy to be stay at home dads. Why is it harder for a mother to be away from home than a father? From stories I've read, a lot of father's really suffer having to be on the road so much when required for business. Maybe if people just looked at this differently and saw that both genders need to make sacrifices then it wouldn't be an issue.

How many women would date a guy that earns significantly less than them? It seems that is a much greater rarity than the opposite happening.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

How many women would date a guy that earns significantly less than them? It seems that is a much greater rarity than the opposite happening.

From my experiences, I've never heard a girl say that they want to be with a guy that would be happy to stay home and be a house husband. It's always been that 'he has to earn more than I do'.

People have to make sacrifices if they want to move into politics. That includes being away from your family for long periods. If that's too unappealing, don't go down that path or find alternative measures like choosing a partner that you know will be dependable if you're looking to start a family.

 

[BORK]

From my experiences, I've never heard a girl say that they want to be with a guy that would be happy to stay home and be a house husband. It's always been that 'he has to earn more than I do'.

People have to make sacrifices if they want to move into politics. That includes being away from your family for long periods. If that's too unappealing, don't go down that path or find alternative measures like choosing a partner that you know will be dependable if you're looking to start a family.

There would be men out there willing to do that role. The problem seems to be that they are not very attractive prospects to these aspirational women. I would also think some aspirational women who wait until later to have children become less attractive prospects to successful men who may have greater dating choices and prefer to start a family with a healthy 26 year old woman than a healthy 36 year old woman assuming fertility in both.

 

[Chief]

From my experiences, I've never heard a girl say that they want to be with a guy that would be happy to stay home and be a house husband. It's always been that 'he has to earn more than I do'.

Of course personal anecdotes are powerful, but I can't see that is the case in the majority of actual relationships.

You will find that families do what they need to do. I know at least three men that are or have been house husbands. Probably more if I think about it.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

Of course personal anecdotes are powerful, but I can't see that is the case in the majority of actual relationships.

You will find that families do what they need to do. I know at least three men that are or have been house husbands. Probably more if I think about it.

Does the idea that mothers need to spend more time around their children (in the case of Ellis) have biological roots or is it merely social conditioning?

I ask that because if the former is true, then there are definitely restrictions on mothers becoming politicians, but if the latter is true then there shouldn't really be an issue here for female politicians.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

Of course personal anecdotes are powerful, but I can't see that is the case in the majority of actual relationships.

You will find that families do what they need to do. I know at least three men that are or have been house husbands. Probably more if I think about it.

Additionally, what you say makes sense. It could be different based on the trappings of youthful ideology, yet people become more pragmatic as they grow older.

 

[fleabitten]

Great article: https://areomagazine.com/2017/02/15/the-problem-with-intersectional-feminism/

"Large proportions of people from marginalized groups simply decline to be intersectional and this is a problem for an ideology which claims to listen to them and represent them. Unlike universal liberalism, in which liberal principles supersede identity and enable liberals to consistently criticise prejudice and discrimination wherever they find it, intersectionality with its focus on identity, becomes confused when marginalized groups discriminate against each other. True to Crenshaw’s original focus on race, this is particularly the case when people of color or ethnic minorities exhibit homophobic or patriarchal attitudes. This has resulted in bizarre situations in which Peter Tatchell has felt compelled to explain why it’s not racist to object to Black musicians singing about killing LGBTs [18]and Muslim and ex-Muslim feminists why it’s not Islamophobic to object to gender specific modesty codes and that it would, in fact, be nice to have support with that from intersectional feminists. [19]

It is clearly misguided to assume that by listening to intersectionals, we are listening to women, people of color, LGBTs and the disabled. We are, in fact, listening to a minority ideological view dominated by people from an economically privileged class who have had a university education in the social sciences and/or the necessary leisure time and education to study intersectionality, critical race theory, queer theory and critical analyses of ableism."

 

[Chief]

Does the idea that mothers need to spend more time around their children (in the case of Ellis) have biological roots or is it merely social conditioning?

I ask that because if the former is true, then there are definitely restrictions on mothers becoming politicians, but if the latter is true then there shouldn't really be an issue here for female politicians.

Wouldn't it depend on the individual? Some women hate their kids.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

Wouldn't it depend on the individual? Some women hate their kids.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

And that must mean the answer is that it's social conditioning, therefore, we do not need to make extra provisions for female politicians.

 

[Chief]

And that must mean the answer is that it's social conditioning, therefore, we do not need to make extra provisions for female politicians.

No I said that I don't know.




On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Present Not Past]

And that must mean the answer is that it's social conditioning, therefore, we do not need to make extra provisions for female politicians.

Society has accepted that we should make extra provisions for people who are disabled - mobility ramps, toilet cubicles etc.
Does society need to make extra provisions for female politicians?

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

No I said that I don't know.




On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Many women, like men, make terrible parents.

Society has accepted that we should make extra provisions for people who are disabled - mobility ramps, toilet cubicles etc.
Does society need to make extra provisions for female politicians?

No, I don't believe so. Men, like women, must make sacrifices by spending large periods of time away from their families. Why would it be worse for women to do the same? People know what they're getting themselves into when they enter politics. If the commitments don't suit you, it's time to find a new career. Is any politician truly irreplaceable? I doubt it.

 

[Present Not Past]

Many women, like men, make terrible parents.

No, I don't believe so. Men, like women, must make sacrifices by spending large periods of time away from their families. Why would it be worse for women to do the same? People know what they're getting themselves into when they enter politics. If the commitments don't suit you, it's time to find a new career. Is any politician truly irreplaceable? I doubt it.

Every politician sees themselves as irreplaceable.

 

[evo]

There would be men out there willing to do that role. The problem seems to be that they are not very attractive prospects to these aspirational women. I would also think some aspirational women who wait until later to have children become less attractive prospects to successful men who may have greater dating choices and prefer to start a family with a healthy 26 year old woman than a healthy 36 year old woman assuming fertility in both.

Jordon Peterson nails it as usual: