Society/Culture Feminism part 1 - continued in part 2

[JoseMourinho]

In my opinion, Gillard did more good for Australia, than Thatcher did for the UK. But there isn't much point getting into that here. Because you think Gillard did more harm than good.

Agree to disagree there. I think Thatcher did more than Gillard.

As I said, I think you're against what you think modern feminism is.
It's been sullied by anti-feminists, and feminist extremists.
But modern feminism is still just for equality.

I thought you referring third-wave as modern Ugggggghhhhhhhhhhhh :|. Yes, they need a new name because the whackjobs are ruining that name when they use it.

But do we both now agree, that feminists not supporting Thatcher (as a politician), didn't start the death of feminism?

Eh, I'll change my stance. It made the movement look confused and more wing (referring to left v right) oriented then its original motives as being apolitical.

 

[Gough]

Either ignorant about feminism, McCarthyism, or both, and no use of long words can hide that.

 

[coerced]

The hypocrisy lefties have with Thatcher isn't so much that she was a woman, it was that they opposed her actions in the Falklands and sided with the junta. The war brought down an ultra right wing dictatorship in Argentina responsible for murdering trade unionists, communists, homosexuals (among others).

This collective derangement is evidenced in progressives' reactions to the immigrant rapes in Europe. They are more worried that their political opponents might be ascendent as opposed to any notion of solidarity with victims of (actual, physical) oppression. This is the problem with the modern left: it's about comfortable middle class people hating on those they perceive as a strata above them in society. Notions of fixing things for those truly oppressed are left by the way side, it is the top 20 percent hating on the top 1 percent.

 

[Tas]

Although not many women may identify with it as such, the way feminism has integrated itself into the media has influenced the thinking of people who may ordinarily be rational. Its very much a part of the modern collective psyche, and like other flawed political or philosophical viewpoints that worked their way into our psychological and social structures into the past, the influence this radical wave of feminism is having on society is worrying.

The political movement I'd compare modern feminism to is McCarthyism.

The principles of feminism, as defined in the dictionary, are rational. It is the lunatics who speak on behalf of the movement that make it irrational and drive people away from it. The only people at fault for feminism having a bad reputation are feminists. It is not the fault of people who highlight their hypocrisy, their corruption, their cronyism, their man-hating, democracy hating, freedom of speech-hating, free market-hating who are at fault.

They should stop trying to co-opt the movement to represent whatever petty gripe they currently have.

 

[CM86]

The principles of feminism, as defined in the dictionary, are rational. It is the lunatics who speak on behalf of the movement that make it irrational and drive people away from it. The only people at fault for feminism having a bad reputation are feminists. It is not the fault of people who highlight their hypocrisy, their corruption, their cronyism, their man-hating, democracy hating, freedom of speech-hating, free market-hating who are at fault.

They should stop trying to co-opt the movement to represent whatever petty gripe they currently have.

I think you mean the extremist who think they are speaking on behalf of feminism...

And aside from destroying free speech... what would you like feminists, like me, to do about the nutjobs?

The only people who promote the works and words of the nutjobs on this site, are the anti-feminists.

How am I a hypocrite for being a feminist, just because some other idiot hates men and says it's for feminism?
What would you have me do?

Are all Muslims terrorists? And it's their own fault?
Are all Catholics or Christians pedophiles? And it's their own fault?
Are all Nigerians email scam artists? And it's their own fault?

How is it my fault, as a feminist, that there exists idiots who spout nonsense?

 

[Pack Specialist]

Third wave feminism is the biggest load of bollocks in the modern world.

Never has a group done so much to damage the good work that real feminists have done in the past.

Misogynistic men couldn't have done a better job themselves.

I really enjoy discussing third wave feminism with people, supporters of it don't have a leg to stand on and I enjoy the look on their faces when the truth sets in.

Times are so rough that men are actually being oppressed in the modern western society.

 

[CM86]

Third wave feminism is the biggest load of bollocks in the modern world.

Never has a group done so much to damage the good work that real feminists have done in the past.

Misogynistic men couldn't have done a better job themselves.

I really enjoy discussing third wave feminism with people, supporters of it don't have a leg to stand on and I enjoy the look on their faces when the truth sets in.

Times are so rough that men are actually being oppressed in the modern western society.

How am I being oppressed???

 

[Pack Specialist]

How am I being oppressed???

Well for starters the government has announced 48m of funding for the study of STEM fields, of which 13m is specifically for women...the other 35m is for men and women...

This is blatant discrimination against men, just to get women into certain fields, of which their low participation rates would suggest they aren't interested in anyway.

Men aren't likely to get custody of their children during separation despite the fact that women are the majority in terms of parents who neglect or abuse children.

Men are not allowed in domestic violence shelters, despite the fact that men are just as often victims of domestic abuse as women.

Men are not allowed to sit next to unaccompanied children on flights etc despite the fact that women are more likely to abuse children.

There are no quotas being enforced to ensure enough men sit on boards etc.

I could go on...and on...and on

 

[CM86]

How much of that is oppression and how much of that is a lack of understanding, and something that needs to be worked on?
I don't think any of that is oppression. Maybe you can elaborate?

Male victims of domestic violence are being taken more seriously. But you can't expect things to turn up over night...
Some people still think it's a joke. But there is better and better education everyday.

Well for starters the government has announced 48m of funding for the study of STEM fields, of which 13m is specifically for women...the other 35m is for men and women...

This is blatant discrimination against men, just to get women into certain fields, of which their low participation rates would suggest they aren't interested in anyway.

Disagree.
For a long time, STEM fields have been considered a man's job.
We need to start showing women that it is a viable occupation for men and women.
So we have gone from stopping women learning maths in school, to giving incentives to further their study in STEM subjects at nearly the highest level.

The incentive isn't needed for men, because they haven't been oppressed.

Men aren't likely to get custody of their children during separation despite the fact that women are the majority in terms of parents who neglect or abuse children.

That's not true... Women are not the majority of abusive parents...

The courts still strongly believe that the maternal instinct is vital for growing boys/girls.
The system needs to be reconfigured, but again, how is this oppression?

Men are not allowed in domestic violence shelters, despite the fact that men are just as often victims of domestic abuse as women.

Men are not allowed into female domestic violence shelters... And they are not just as often the victims of domestic abuse by women.

This is all something that needs to be worked on and fixed. But as I said, the knowledge that men need these resources hasn't been around as long, because there has long been a bigoted view, that a man isn't a man if he can be abused by a woman.

I think it's perfectly acceptable that someone who has been abused by a man, wouldn't want to flee into an area with other men.
And vice versa.

This makes homosexual relationships even more complicated. But what do you expect to be done already with the limited funding and knowledge?

Men are not allowed to sit next to unaccompanied children on flights etc despite the fact that women are more likely to abuse children.

That's just not true... Women are not more likely to sexually abuse children... Men are...

And yes, that is sexual discrimination. But as men are by far "more likely" to sexually abuse children, what gender would you prefer?

There are no quotas being enforced to ensure enough men sit on boards etc.

I could go on...and on...and on

If you eat veggies every night, and 98% of your veggies area potatoes and 2% are peas, you don't need to implement a quota to ensure you get at least 50% potatoes...



So, how am I, as a generic male, being oppressed?

 

[Pack Specialist]

It's blatant systematic discrimination against men.

How many male domestic violence shelters are there? Where are the campaigns for men?

Men dominate STEM fields, political and the corporate world's because women gravitate towards the median in IQ and men range from brilliant to as dumb as rocks.

The brilliant men dominate these fields and women generally have different interests, this is not mens fault, why take away opportunities for men, just because you are trying to get women involved in something that they have the same opportunity to be involved in as men in the first place.

You are actually being misogynistic by believing that women don't realise that they can be involved in these fields and I am being a feminist by believing that men and women should have the same opportunity.

 

[BORK]

That's not true... Women are not the majority of abusive parents...

Back up this statement.

 

[Pack Specialist]

Back up this statement.

I've looked this up a lot due to my occupation and it is females in the Western World.

 

[Tas]

How am I being oppressed???

As a boy, your school likely standardised your grades lower than women who tested the same, this process of standardisation was implemented by western nations to encourage women to attend universities and colleges and continues despite women now being the majority of tertiary education enrolments.

If you apply for a job that is being forced to meet some gender quota then you will likely be discriminated against even if you are the better candidate. This "diversity" does not exist in fields which women dominate like health services, education, hospitality and retail. This forces men to compete for a smaller pool of possible jobs.

If you commit a crime, you will get a significantly harsher penalty than a woman who commits the same crime.

If you have children and you get a divorce, you will receive a significantly worse determination, are more likely to lose custody of your children and will most likely have to pay to support your ex-partner's lifestyle. You will be indentured regardless of your capability to afford such a determination, you will even be deemed financially responsible even if you are raped or deceived into impregnating someone.

I am sure there are others, if these practices were going on in reverse, would they be accepted?

 

[Tas]

Oppression is a loaded word, nobody is being "oppressed" in western society. You are being discriminated against.

 

[Pack Specialist]

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/6089613/mum-not-dad-more-likely-to-neglect-kids/

 

[CM86]

Back up this statement.

I've looked this up a lot due to my occupation and it is females in the Western World.

You're right, the stats I've seen that included neglect as abuse have women a little more than men.

I was thinking more in regards to sexual assault.
So as I also said in my post, the rest of which was ignored...

That's just not true... Women are not more likely to sexually abuse children... Men are...

BORK missed that one in your post. And mine.

 

[BORK]

I've looked this up a lot due to my occupation and it is females in the Western World.

Single mothers punch well above their weight in this area.

 

[Pack Specialist]

The data shows that parents were the perpetrators in almost 39 per cent of the 1505 substantiated cases of child abuse in 2007-08. Of the 582 cases of abuse by parents, mothers were responsible for 73 per cent, while fathers committed 27 per cent.

Mothers were more than 17 times more likely than fathers to neglect their children, while fathers were responsible for 85 per cent of sex abuse cases against children.

Mothers carried out almost 68 per cent of cases of emotional and psychological abuse committed by parents, about 53 per cent of physical abuse and more than 94 per cent of neglect cases

 

[Pack Specialist]

You're right, the stats I've seen that included neglect as abuse have women a little more than men.

I was thinking more in regards to sexual assault.
So as I also said in my post, the rest of which was ignored...



BORK missed that one in your post. And mine.

You are the one making the mistake that abuse/neglect means sexual, sexual abuse is it's own kettle of fish and is more often (85 percent) perpetrated by men.

Women are not "a little more than men"...women are 17 times more likely...how is that a little bit?

Yet women get custody 9/10 times...

 

[Pack Specialist]

Single mothers punch well above their weight in this area.

Yet they are often single mothers because they have been given custody...this is a huge societal issue.

 

[BORK]

You're right, the stats I've seen that included neglect as abuse have women a little more than men.

I was thinking more in regards to sexual assault.
So as I also said in my post, the rest of which was ignored...



BORK missed that one in your post. And mine.

I have acknowledged that men are well over-represented as perpetrators of sexual abuse multiple times in the domestic violence thread. Sexual abuse also remains the smallest category of child abuse substantiations. I would urge you to not forget about emotional abuse either.

 

[CM86]

As a boy, your school likely standardised your grades lower than women who tested the same, this process of standardisation was implemented by western nations to encourage women to attend universities and colleges and continues despite women now being the majority of tertiary education enrolments.

Really?
That's the first I've heard of that.
I'm going to assume you mean only for the end of year 12, for the Uni grading?

If you apply for a job that is being forced to meet some gender quota then you will likely be discriminated against even if you are the better candidate. This "diversity" does not exist in fields which women dominate like health services, education, hospitality and retail. This forces men to compete for a smaller pool of possible jobs.

That is to compete against the existing sexual discrimination.
So yes it isn't 100% right, but I think it's fair.
Women were being over looked for positions, due to their gender (ranging from thinking of women as lower life forms, to being concerned about time off due to pregnancy).

Health services, hospitality, education, they are all desperate for more men, but a lot of those jobs are still considered below a man.
Teaching transition.
Nursing.
Waiter.

There are still bigots out there, that make these jobs sound unappealing and beneath a man. Which isn't fair on men who have a genuine interest in learning.
Should there be some kind of Gov funding to pull more men into those areas? I think the world needs to be better educated before that kind of thing would be accepted.

It's the same as if we started putting out scholarships for whites...
Sure, there are scholarships for the Indigenous... so why shouldn't there be one for non-indigenous?
Again... it's because there is inherent discrimination, and without some set aside specifically for women/Indigenous etc, there is a higher chance they will only be given to whites/males.

If you commit a crime, you will get a significantly harsher penalty than a woman who commits the same crime.

Is that for everything? Or is it the judges discretion?

I know when I was a pup, a friend of the family (23 year old female) took myself and my twin to court with her... to help get a lighter sentence. It worked...

The system is flawed, and needs work. Human error will always cause problems.
Part of it is still this idea that a man is more than a woman. In a way that you wouldn't consider the actions of a teenager as harshly as if that teenager was mid 30s.

So yeah, I think it's discrimination on both sexes, and something needs to be done.
In general I think the justice system could use an overhaul. But I'm not in the know of how the system really works.

If you have children and you get a divorce, you will receive a significantly worse determination, are more likely to lose custody of your children and will most likely have to pay to support your ex-partner's lifestyle. You will be indentured regardless of your capability to afford such a determination, you will even be deemed financially responsible even if you are raped or deceived into impregnating someone.

I am sure there are others, if these practices were going on in reverse, would they be accepted?

I think I remember reading a story once about a teen who was raped, and had to pay custody.
But I've never heard of a rape victim paying for custody... especially as usually the rapist would be in gaol, so they victim would have the kids anyway?



Anyway, you raise some good points. And yes, discrimination not oppression.

 

[CM86]

You are the one making the mistake that abuse/neglect means sexual, sexual abuse is it's own kettle of fish and is more often (85 percent) perpetrated by men.

Women are not "a little more than men"...women are 17 times more likely...how is that a little bit?

Yet women get custody 9/10 times...

Wait... so you were talking about neglect when you said women abuse more children than men... so that's why men should be able to sit next to children on planes?

If a woman is "17 times more likely" to ignore the kid... and a man is "85%" more likely to sexually assault the kid... I think I'd rather stick a woman next to the kid...

 

[Pack Specialist]

Wait... so you were talking about neglect when you said women abuse more children than men... so that's why men should be able to sit next to children on planes?

If a woman is "17 times more likely" to ignore the kid... and a man is "85%" more likely to sexually assault the kid... I think I'd rather stick a woman next to the kid...

Abuse is both physical and emotional, neglect isn't just "ignoring" a child or children.

Mothers carried out almost 68 per cent of cases of emotional and psychological abuse committed by parents, about 53 per cent of physical abuse and more than 94 per cent of neglect cases.

Sexual abuse is a drop compared to physical, emotional and psychological abuse and neglect which is the ocean.

Assuming a man will molest a child because he is a male and sitting next to them is blatant discrimination.

You are outgunned and shifting the goalposts is not helping you look any less flawed in your belief of feminism.

 

[BORK]

Yet they are often single mothers because they have been given custody...this is a huge societal issue.

Many men are forced to stay in a relationship with an abusive woman that they would otherwise have the agency to leave, simply to protect their own children.