Feminism

[AngryAnt]

You called me a liar you *smile*, and I'll fire up every time you do it.

STICK TO TO THE *smile* TOPIC!!!!

You did lie. You said Pell was framed through dirty payments of Vatican money. That has been alleged by Pell and his sycophants but there is no evidence that that is the case.

Like I said initially, you just make stuff up.

Fire up over that if you want, the swear filter protects my feelings

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

yep, the topic is feminism, and perhaps now one side topic is are drunk women fair game to be raped, as they wont be able to recall everything so shouldnt report it.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

Is it possible... maybe... in your tiny little world of possibilities that she mistakenly thought she was raped? That she can't actually remember?

I don't know whether she was or wasn't, and neither do you. Maybe even the accused doesn't know. Let the police sort it out.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

You did lie. You said Pell was framed through dirty payments of Vatican money. That has been alleged by Pell and his sycophants but there is no evidence that that is the case.

Like I said initially, you just make stuff up.

Fire up over that if you want, the swear filter protects my feelings

Read between the lines, dude. It was bigger than Pell and it was bigger than Victoria Police. It was made to go away.

 

[Mr T.]

This thread has been unlocked.

Please view the following thread for your input.

T.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Jesus, this thing went off the rails hard. I thought Glantone's posts were interesting and on topic. It is very difficult these days to get at the roots of issues because some online platforms dominate. I'm on Twitter and it is easy to think that it represents the zeitgeist but I doubt it does. Most discussions there go pretty much the way this one did.

Feminism today seems to be approaching a schism. Many modern cultural issues have a big "C" Critical element. I don't claim to understand it but it seems to be being taught in the humanities departments of universities the world over and has spawned "Queer Theory", "Critical Race Theory", "Intersectionality" etc. The schism is between so called "2nd wave" feminists who are essentially Gen Xers and understand feminism to be about gaining equality in the traditional seats of power. Women CEOs, women having long careers with equal chance of advancement to their male colleagues, maternity leave, bodily autonomy (access to abortion) etc. The other modern form encompasses queer theory and trans rights and gives rise to phrases like "Centre Black Trans Sex Workers", "trans women are women" and "some women have penises" and uses lobbying to get what GenXers would call "women's products" to change their labelling to include trans and queer communities and thus we get phrases like "people who menstruate" and "uterus havers".

Reading this back to myself it is pretty clear which of these movements I identify with and which leaves me cold.

 

[DavidSSS]

Knighters Revenge, I think you got the generations wrong, would be more Baby Boomers for second wave feminism, but GenX would likely be in the same grouping.

Second wave feminism was, and remains, somewhat more complicated. What you describe above would be defined as liberal feminism. There were also socialist feminists and radical feminists back in the day, now the socialist feminists are a much smaller proportion but plenty of radical feminists still around, many of my friends are what would generally be referred to as radical feminists.

The whole Trans issue is very divisive and there are many opinions on this. Certainly there is a lot of criticism of trans arguments by radical feminists. Radical feminists have always viewed gender as a social construct, remembering that gender is the role you have in society, sex is biological. Certainly one of the criticisms of the trans movement is that, while they are undermining gender roles to some extent by claiming a right to identify with a gender role not linked to their biological sex, they are also conservative in the sense that they are not challenging the whole edifice of gender roles. Why should men be masculine and women feminine? Why don't we have more of a variety of gender roles so people can be comfortable with their biological sex while rejecting the traditional gender role assigned to that sex?

Intersectionality is, to some extent, a response to how the feminist movement was often seen as dominated by white middle class women. Yes, it is good to promote women to high positions, but what about the really hard yards of the millions of women who are in low pay, low status jobs which are dominated by women? Intersectionality is also not a new concept, it is a nice term in the sense that it describes a lot of situations which used to need specific detail, but the reality is that it has long been recognised that, while middle class white women are discriminated against for being women, there are a lot of women out there who are discriminated against for being women, but also face discrimination/disadvantage on the basis of race, class, caste etc.

This stuff is not simple.

However, what is simple is that no means no.

DS

 

[Tigers of Old]

I'm pleased that this thread has been reopened. It's an important discussion, particularly given recent events.
I'd have it on the Race, religion board though.

 

[IanG]

I'm pleased that this thread has been reopened. It's an important discussion, particularly given recent events.
I'd have it on the Race, religion board though.

Yes I also think it should be moved there

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

However, what is simple is that no means no.

More than happy for punishments for violence against women to be upped substantially. But that would place certain philosophies in a bind.

Anything else is like yelling at a wild animal and demanding "Be good!".

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Cheers DS.

I am technically an Xer and I consider the readers of "The Male Eunich" to be of my generation and thus Xers and 2nd Wave feminists. But that isn't really pertinent to the discussion. The feminism I grew up with feels the most authentic to me, but then I would say that wouldn't I? It was about equality of opportunity. I can't understand why anyone would think *that* battle had been won? (Not directed at you). If that were the case then taxis and late night walks wouldn't be so much more dangerous for women. Dark alleys can be dangerous for men too but I honestly don't know a single bloke who's been propositioned or assaulted by a taxi driver, in a lift, by a co-worker, I know many women who have. In fact nearly all the women I know have. I have no difficulty believing the 97% figure. That doesn't represent equality to me. "Mission accomplished", not even close.

The inclusion of trans is a vexxed issue for me. If equality is the goal then I don't understand why it is women that must yeild ground. If trans athletes want to compete they should be advocating for trans sporting associations, trans categories etc. The singular focus on being allowed to compete in the one category that provides the greatest advantage doesn't seem like a fight for "equality", not to me. My general take is that categories don't matter, until they do. Women, and men, can be categorised by height, for instance. Short women, tall women. The category is irrelevant when you are discussing their ability to write poetry. But if you are recruiting a starting centre for your basketball team all of a sudden the category becomes important. To me woman vs trans woman isn't an important distinction in most situations. But if an occasion arises where it does matter then that needs to be accepted and not reflexively called out as bigotry. I imagine I have a ways to come on this and much as my opinions on gay rights changed over the years I can imagine my position on trans rights moving over time. At the moment the loosest broadest "self-identification" rules don't sit well with me. The advocating of off-label drug regimines for under aged adolescents and kids doesn't sit well with me. The fluffy language used to play with the juxtaposition of biological sex identification and gender-identity just doesn't sit well with me.

Intersectionality seems interesting in a statistical sense but a lot of what I read comes across as people trying to win the "oppression Olympics" by claiming the greatest number of intersections. It feels focused on the oppression, not on helping people. Hence the phrase "centre black trans sex workers". None of qualifiers (intersections) are necessary if our goal is to improve society. "Help sex workers" is sufficient. But that doesn't seem to be the game. At least not to me.

 

[DavidSSS]

You talk of taxis (a good example), when was the last time you jumped in a taxi and the driver was a woman? Only woman taxi driver I can remember was in Germany, do we have any? Clearly it is less safe for women.

The trans thing is an issue which divides a lot of people. The poetry example is good, doesn't matter if you have changed genders, poetry can be written by anyone. But we divide most sports into men's and women's competitions. There is a reason for this, it is because men tend to be larger than women and stronger which is an advantage in many sports (you could argue most sports are invented by men and give men an advantage and that would fit with a society which values men's attributes more than women's attributes). But the reality is that men have an advantage in many sports. Which is where I would say that you can change your gender; or even better in my opinion let's just stop assigning societal roles to sex attributes and have more than 2 genders - things like masculine and feminine are not discreet categories anyway more of a continuum; but you cannot change your biological advantage. There was that footballer who transitioned and wasn't allowed to play women's footy, then went to play handball - you just looked at her and she had such a huge advantage over the rest of the players, built like a proverbial. Then again, plenty of women are larger and bigger build than many men. Not simple, but my opinion is that we can't forget that sex is biological, gender is a societal construct.

As for GenX (which includes me) and Boomers. My understanding is GenX starts with those born in 1965 so with second wave feminism starting in the late 60s I reckon we are a bit too young to claim being part of that, although my mum did take me International Women's Day in 1975, the UN Year for Women. Back then they were just trying to convince people women were the equal of men. We have moved a fair way but far further to go.

DS

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

I honestly don't know a single bloke who's been propositioned or assaulted by a taxi driver, in a lift, by a co-worker, I know many women who have. In fact nearly all the women I know have. I have no difficulty believing the 97% figure. That doesn't represent equality to me. "Mission accomplished", not even close.

I don't see propositioning as an equality issue. If you don't ask, you don't get. Not sure what sort of outcome people are expecting there. Mandatory castration?

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

we can't forget that sex is biological, gender is a societal construct.

Scant evidence for that. You won't get much scientific backing.

 

[Djevv]

2nd wave Feminism is about achieving equality of opportunity which has been achieved in my view.

3rd wave is about female empowerment and that any and every thing that women do is perfectly OK. This requires quotas, and shaming men for doing what men have always done: chasing skirts.

Personally although the media ignore it I think 3rd wave feminism is bad for men and boys and is eroding their rights and freedoms. Men still are more likely to be imprisoned, more likely to suicide, more likely to die by violence, tend to be in the more dangerous occupations (and hence are paid more) and boys are doing much worse educationally these days. These are every bit as much issues as 3rd wave feminism is trying to address.

 

[DavidSSS]

Yep, women do better in education than men, yet . . . men still run the world.

I think that's why they call it patriarchy.

DS

 

[Djevv]

Yep, women do better in education than men, yet . . . men still run the world.

I think that's why they call it patriarchy.

DS

This improvement in educational performance is recent, in the era of feminism. It is clearly feminism having an effect. I have heard that these days women in their 20s & 30s do out earn men!

The patriarchy is a conspiracy theory. A better explanation of male success is gender differences. The basic one being that women have children. Others might be male aggression (due to high testosterone levels) coupled with a well documented male tendency toward risk taking behavior.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I don't see propositioning as an equality issue. If you don't ask, you don't get. Not sure what sort of outcome people are expecting there. Mandatory castration?

This ignores nearly all of the context. Ever heard the veiled threat "that wasn't a question"? The ability of the average man to overpower the average woman means there is an imbalance. There is a world of difference between me propositioning a woman in a lift, and the reverse. There is very little credible threat of her being able to over power me should I spurn her advance. Now add in that the man is often a professional superior. I agree the mere proposition isn't necessarily a problem. But in many cases the woman has a credibile fear of either physical and/or professional harm that isn't there when you reverse the context. So equality isn't achieved.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

This ignores nearly all of the context. Ever heard the veiled threat "that wasn't a question"? The ability of the average man to overpower the average woman means there is an imbalance. There is a world of difference between me propositioning a woman in a lift, and the reverse. There is very little credible threat of her being able to over power me should I spurn her advance. Now add in that the man is often a professional superior. I agree the mere proposition isn't necessarily a problem. But in many cases the woman has a credibile fear of either physical and/or professional harm that isn't there when you reverse the context. So equality isn't achieved.

Why don't we start by addressing the "casting couch", given it's the poster child for what you're referring to? Leading by example should prove popular with everyone in Hollywood being so outspokenly virtuous and all...

 

[AngryAnt]

Yeah not sure that example really works for you given Harvey Weinstein was convicted and sent to jail for sexually harassing and assaulting multiple actresses.

Powerful men abusing their power and pressuring women who work for them for sex is not OK.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Powerful men abusing their power and pressuring women who work for them for sex is not OK.

Sure. Yet it goes on. How many actresses have slept their way to stardom (presumably with less odious figures than Weinstein) and went along with it because that's the system? A public show of hands and expressions of regret would be illuminating, otherwise one has to assume it is considered a fair transaction.

Best person for the job should be the mantra.