#WomenAgainstFeminism

[Fay_Galore]

In a few countries paternity leave is just as long and common as maternity leave. And I don't think that implies that anyone's job is raising children anymore than companies not offering that implies that no one should have any kids.

That's the way it is over here. Hell, we even call it Parental Leave (and have for as long as I can remember). Both parents have the exact same rights in this regard.

well, that's not reeeeaaally true, I happen to have heard a lot about this because my friends were trying to get this.

it basically comes down to, as a parent (male/female) you're allowed by law to cut your hours in half, this is unpaid. (no benefits from government either)
if you have a really groovy employer, they could let you take up to 26 weeks off. again, unpaid.

difference with maternity leave is that you receive your missed salary from the government (as benefits), and it's exclusively for women obviously.

so, maternity leave is only available to couples who can actually afford to take that time off and miss salary. (so definitely not for everyone)

 

[Leon_Omega]

In a few countries paternity leave is just as long and common as maternity leave. And I don't think that implies that anyone's job is raising children anymore than companies not offering that implies that no one should have any kids.

That's the way it is over here. Hell, we even call it Parental Leave (and have for as long as I can remember). Both parents have the exact same rights in this regard.

well, that's not reeeeaaally true, I happen to have heard a lot about this because my friends were trying to get this.

it basically comes down to, as a parent (male/female) you're allowed by law to cut your hours in half, this is unpaid. (no benefits from government either)
if you have a really groovy employer, they could let you take up to 26 weeks off. again, unpaid.

difference with maternity leave is that you receive your missed salary from the government (as benefits), and it's exclusively for women obviously.

so, maternity leave is only available to couples who can actually afford to take that time off and miss salary. (so definitely not for everyone)

Really? I looked it up (admittedly not too thoroughly) and what I found was that you have the right to 26 weeks of leave. Admittedly this is only from the perspective of government benefits. I don't have any actual experience with how this works in practice though.

 

[Fay_Galore]

In a few countries paternity leave is just as long and common as maternity leave. And I don't think that implies that anyone's job is raising children anymore than companies not offering that implies that no one should have any kids.

That's the way it is over here. Hell, we even call it Parental Leave (and have for as long as I can remember). Both parents have the exact same rights in this regard.

well, that's not reeeeaaally true, I happen to have heard a lot about this because my friends were trying to get this.

it basically comes down to, as a parent (male/female) you're allowed by law to cut your hours in half, this is unpaid. (no benefits from government either)
if you have a really groovy employer, they could let you take up to 26 weeks off. again, unpaid.

difference with maternity leave is that you receive your missed salary from the government (as benefits), and it's exclusively for women obviously.

so, maternity leave is only available to couples who can actually afford to take that time off and miss salary. (so definitely not for everyone)

Really? I looked it up (admittedly not too thoroughly) and what I found was that you have the right to 26 weeks of leave. Admittedly this is only from the perspective of government benefits. I don't have any actual experience with how this works in practice though.

yes up to 26 weeks, no benefits/social security/"uitkering". It's basically just a way to get some unpaid leave if you've got kids. As opposed to maternity leave where you always get benefits from the government.

it's not being used a lot because most people don't have the funds to miss out on a period of salary.

 

[weirdbr]

I want to explain why, though. Men and women have evolved to have a basic exchange of power, because women have to spend 9 months carrying a baby and men can make as many as they want. A woman is in sexual high demand, while men are in low. A woman operates on the principle of being selective, while men operate on the principle of proving worth to earn the choice.

It shows up in today's culture, too. Men work out at the gym to prove dedication and strength, which is attractive to women cause they subconsciously think the man can fight off predators and will protect them. Women make their hair look lucious and healthy and try to get a high hip to waist ratio so that men subconsciously think they are fertile and will produce many children. Men HAVE to prove their worth if they want any chance of getting laid, much as women HAVE to prove their fertility if they want to have a good selection of suitors.

The thing is - to me you are looking only at the biological aspect, without looking at the environmental side of things. Granted, our primary biological objective is to procreate at all costs (ideally with men having multiple children from multiple partners to achieve maximal genetic diversity for the sake of the survival of our species), but the environment dictates whether or not it is possible or desirable.

For example, you are disregarding how society now pushes us to bypass that primal reproduction drive and end up having a limited number of children (or none!) with a limited number of partners (to quite a few people, the ideal number is just one partner to whom you will stay married until death).

The desirability of a given look also is highly variable - I suggest you compare what was considered sexy/desirable over the last 200 years and you will see that this has changed wildly, with higher variation over the last century or so (unsurprisingly, lining up with the popularisation of mass media like movies, TV and now the internet). The only factor that is somewhat unchanged is the desirability factor for men - rich men have pretty much always been desirable, but artists for example who have for a long time been ostracised.. Now, you can be a broken famous artist and you are still extremely desirable simply because of your fame.

This thread, other than the discussion on physical assault, has been mostly about mental limitations put onto girls. I believe this goes back to victimization. So, instead of saying to themselves, "I thought math was hard and didn't want to major in it." They say, "I was persuaded not to do math and science, because I was told those subjects were for boys."

It's not that simple. Sadly I can't share the best data I have access to (it's from an unreleased study my employer is still working on, so still company-confidential), but I will just say that the data shows that perception of difficulty is only one of multiple factors that lead to that choice.

My personal story involves me going to Engineering school upon graduation. And sure as shit, when I arrived on my first day, our freshmen class only had about 25% girls. I knew it was a male-dominated field and that was partly WHY I wanted to do it. And I remember when, after my first year, I went home and cried to my mom about how "My high school didn't prepare me for the math at all!" "The guys all just naturally KNOW Calculus!" And then I dropped out. I gave up. And I blamed it on anybody or anything I could, instead of just accepting that I did not give it my all, and that the other people who made it through were not given any special treatment. They tried harder than me.

To me this is a symptom of another set of problems completely unrelated to victimisation or feminism (but I wont deny that victimisation helps in 'justifying'/rationalising it); some of which are well understood too and I could rant about for hours - the quality/level of STEM that is taught in high school is insufficient/out of line with what is expected in higher education; the content/time ratio is also an issue - in higher education you are taught double or triple what you are taught in high school, but in a third of the time, which is something that most (perhaps all) students aren't prepared or warned about - you just one day realise you are swamped with things to read/study and not enough hours in the day while the professors keep throwing more and more complex assignments at you. It's a system aimed at natural selection instead of what it should be about - education. And the worst part is that a considerable number of the professors really love bragging about how many students they manage to make drop out of the course or failed their class as if that were a badge of honour (this is a side effect of them being hired mostly to be researchers to bring prestige/money to the university and teaching being a secondary requirement of the job).

And with that said, your experience is far from abnormal. In my computer science course, on the first semester we had at least 2 drop outs, 10+ people failed one class or more (I failed two that semester) and the remaining 28 people had scores that were more towards Cs and Bs than As. And if you looked at our profile that wasn't supposed to be happening at all - we were supposed to be the top 40 of at least 5000 people that applied for that course+university pair that year and yet there we were, failing courses all the time.

Maybe the difference in why I stuck in (even after failing 8 classes over the whole course) was two-fold: I became friends with a few folks who also were having an extremely hard time at the course (as some say, shared pain is half the pain).. And because my older brother was doing the same course as me and kept reminding me that it wasn't a walk in the park for him .. And every time I had doubts, he would show me data from his class which proved that me (and my classmates) weren't the exception, but rather the rule.

 

[evie-aholic]

Just wanted to add something in - I think that some might forget that feminism very directly benefits women and men.

We live in a culture today where men are struggling to define what masculinity means in this day and age. We also find that numbers of male students are dwindling in universities, while numbers of female students are on the rise. Areas that were traditionally "masculine" (such as university studies) are shifting to more gender-neutrality, yet with that we see more men abandoning these areas. This is because society undermines femininity and anything associated with femaleness (whether overtly or more covertly), and men are encouraged to define their masculinity in doing things that are not associated with women or femaleness - in fact, the very definition of "masculinity" is that which is not feminine. Why is it not masculine to see a man knitting? Because it's feminine. What's wrong with being feminine? Well in our society, femininity is still equated with weakness, powerlessness, mildness, and so on. To be masculine is to be powerful, to be feminine is to be weak. Therefore in professions where there is an influx of women, we see a decline in men.

Feminism attempts to challenge these constructs, which is why it benefits everyone - it remains with the name "feminism" (as opposed to say, "humanism") as it strives to make place in society for femininity and femaleness without their corresponding associations of weakness - in women and men. Just as women are no longer hesitant to do things that are traditionally "masculine", feminism strives to make it so that men can equally feel comfortable doing things that are associated with femaleness. However, to do that, we first need to re-examine the way we perceive women and the traditional notions of femininity in our society.

Once we start shifting the way we think about/perceive women in our society, men directly benefit from it as well - in fact, with this shift, men can do things that are traditionally associated with femininity, and it does not challenge their masculinity. That is because, in this "ideal" society, to be female or to do feminine things is not to be lesser, or to be weak.

Does that make sense?

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Just wanted to add something in - I think that some might forget that feminism very directly benefits women and men.

We live in a culture today where men are struggling to define what masculinity means in this day and age. We also find that numbers of male students are dwindling in universities, while numbers of female students are on the rise. Areas that were traditionally "masculine" (such as university studies) are shifting to more gender-neutrality, yet with that we see more men abandoning these areas. This is because society undermines femininity and anything associated with femaleness (whether overtly or more covertly), and men are encouraged to define their masculinity in doing things that are not associated with women or femaleness - in fact, the very definition of "masculinity" is that which is not feminine. Why is it not masculine to see a man knitting? Because it's feminine. What's wrong with being feminine? Well in our society, femininity is still equated with weakness, powerlessness, mildness, and so on. To be masculine is to be powerful, to be feminine is to be weak. Therefore in professions where there is an influx of women, we see a decline in men.

Feminism attempts to challenge these constructs, which is why it benefits everyone - it remains with the name "feminism" (as opposed to say, "humanism") as it strives to make place in society for femininity and femaleness without their corresponding associations of weakness - in women and men. Just as women are no longer hesitant to do things that are traditionally "masculine", feminism strives to make it so that men can equally feel comfortable doing things that are associated with femaleness. However, to do that, we first need to re-examine the way we perceive women and the traditional notions of femininity in our society.

Once we start shifting the way we think about/perceive women in our society, men directly benefit from it as well - in fact, with this shift, men can do things that are traditionally associated with femininity, and it does not challenge their masculinity. That is because, in this "ideal" society, to be female or to do feminine things is not to be lesser, or to be weak.

Does that make sense?

I was going to edit this but when I re-read it, I realized that is well constructed argument and it certainly makes sense. It's just an argument that I profoundly disagree with most of the assumptions as being remotely true in 2014.

I earlier linked to a Bill Mahr clip, in it he makes an important statement that in "Western culture feminine values have won" Macho=bad, feminine=good. " You can say that the objective of feminism was to allow both sex to feel comfortable doing non traditional roles without feeling weak. But the way that has been done is to glorify feminine values and vilify male values. So for example leaders, need soft skills. Everybody needs to attend sensitivity training. Children are rewarding for sitting quietly at desk and listening to the teacher, some which little girls are able to do far more than little boys. Much schoolwork now involves team projects, and equal weight is given to how you worked as part of the team as actually mastering the material.


Men who display traditional masculine characteristic are mocked on a sitcom. or real life Then when adopt a more feminine behavior, after listening to their wise wife or SO, they are praised.
President Clinton was applauded for his ability to feel your pain, while President George W. Bush was ridiculed for his cowboy attitudes. The situation is worse for European men than American men. At least it is still ok to be macho, in Football, MMA, as firefighter and as a soldier in the US.

Aggressiveness is considered bad, and lots of effort goes into rooting it out in school and in corporations. Now while it is still slightly worse for woman to be aggressive than a man, bitch vs asshole both are bad. It is cool for woman to have rape fantasy fetishes, but if a guy is at all aggressive during sex, basically not getting permission at each step, he is part of the rape culture. Evidently he risks jail time in California.

There is no doubt that much of the work feminism did in the 60s was badly needed. CNN is running a series called the 60s, one episode "the times they are all about changing' was all about early Feminism. It is eye opening the changes that have occurred. http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/07/living/sixties-women-5-things/index.html. But in no small part the backlash against Feminism is because of the determination of some feminist to completely obliterate the sex differences.

Has been it helpful for both men and woman.? Not always. I guess it would be cool for me to stay home and take care of the kids without be subject to ridicule. If I had any and if I wanted to, I don't. A year or so ago I was dating a much younger woman. She told me that I wasn't masculine enough for her. She was exactly right, I have been sub-consciously hearing all the stuff about masculine traits are bad, female are good that I changed. Her next boyfriend was plenty macho, which is why he demanded that she ditch her 4 year old for them to be together

 

[evie-aholic]

Just wanted to add something in - I think that some might forget that feminism very directly benefits women and men.

We live in a culture today where men are struggling to define what masculinity means in this day and age. We also find that numbers of male students are dwindling in universities, while numbers of female students are on the rise. Areas that were traditionally "masculine" (such as university studies) are shifting to more gender-neutrality, yet with that we see more men abandoning these areas. This is because society undermines femininity and anything associated with femaleness (whether overtly or more covertly), and men are encouraged to define their masculinity in doing things that are not associated with women or femaleness - in fact, the very definition of "masculinity" is that which is not feminine. Why is it not masculine to see a man knitting? Because it's feminine. What's wrong with being feminine? Well in our society, femininity is still equated with weakness, powerlessness, mildness, and so on. To be masculine is to be powerful, to be feminine is to be weak. Therefore in professions where there is an influx of women, we see a decline in men.

Feminism attempts to challenge these constructs, which is why it benefits everyone - it remains with the name "feminism" (as opposed to say, "humanism") as it strives to make place in society for femininity and femaleness without their corresponding associations of weakness - in women and men. Just as women are no longer hesitant to do things that are traditionally "masculine", feminism strives to make it so that men can equally feel comfortable doing things that are associated with femaleness. However, to do that, we first need to re-examine the way we perceive women and the traditional notions of femininity in our society.

Once we start shifting the way we think about/perceive women in our society, men directly benefit from it as well - in fact, with this shift, men can do things that are traditionally associated with femininity, and it does not challenge their masculinity. That is because, in this "ideal" society, to be female or to do feminine things is not to be lesser, or to be weak.

Does that make sense?

I was going to edit this but when I re-read it, I realized that is well constructed argument and it certainly makes sense. It's just an argument that I profoundly disagree with most of the assumptions as being remotely true in 2014.

I earlier linked to a Bill Mahr clip, in it he makes an important statement that in "Western culture feminine values have won" Macho=bad, feminine=good. " You can say that the objective of feminism was to allow both sex to feel comfortable doing non traditional roles without feeling weak. But the way that has been done is to glorify feminine values and vilify male values. So for example leaders, need soft skills. Everybody needs to attend sensitivity training. Children are rewarding for sitting quietly at desk and listening to the teacher, some which little girls are able to do far more than little boys. Much schoolwork now involves team projects, and equal weight is given to how you worked as part of the team as actually mastering the material.


Men who display traditional masculine characteristic are mocked on a sitcom. or real life Then when adopt a more feminine behavior, after listening to their wise wife or SO, they are praised.
President Clinton was applauded for his ability to feel your pain, while President George W. Bush was ridiculed for his cowboy attitudes. The situation is worse for European men than American men. At least it is still ok to be macho, in Football, MMA, as firefighter and as a soldier in the US.

Aggressiveness is considered bad, and lots of effort goes into rooting it out in school and in corporations. Now while it is still slightly worse for woman to be aggressive than a man, bitch vs asshole both are bad. It is cool for woman to have rape fantasy fetishes, but if a guy is at all aggressive during sex, basically not getting permission at each step, he is part of the rape culture. Evidently he risks jail time in California.

There is no doubt that much of the work feminism did in the 60s was badly needed. CNN is running a series called the 60s, one episode "the times they are all about changing' was all about early Feminism. It is eye opening the changes that have occurred. http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/07/living/sixties-women-5-things/index.html. But in no small part the backlash against Feminism is because of the determination of some feminist to completely obliterate the sex differences.

Has been it helpful for both men and woman.? Not always. I guess it would be cool for me to stay home and take care of the kids without be subject to ridicule. If I had any and if I wanted to, I don't. A year or so ago I was dating a much younger woman. She told me that I wasn't masculine enough for her. She was exactly right, I have been sub-consciously hearing all the stuff about masculine traits are bad, female are good that I changed. Her next boyfriend was plenty macho, which is why he demanded that she ditch her 4 year old for them to be together

Thanks for this response! Indeed I did know about the shift to more "soft skills" in school, which is supposedly easier for females than it is for males (teamwork projects for example) - so yes this is a good example of the way in which we can't prioritize one set of skills over the other (whether these skills are more traditionally masculine or traditionally feminine). However - I still don't see the link to feminism? Indeed perhaps it is indicative of a greater amount of women becoming schoolteachers over men (which is the case), and who would thus try to cultivate more of these "soft skills". If this is true then clearly, we need to encourage more men to become schoolteachers - yet that also links back to my first post of allowing men the space to feel comfortable in traditionally more female-dominated professions. For now, until that happens, schoolteachers should be educated to teach their curriculum in a manner in which both females and males can thrive.

Unfortunately I can't comment on Bill Maher because he makes so many misogynistic comments that it seems to come from a biased sourced. Likewise I don't watch sitcoms myself, but surely they can't be considered to be representative of reality? I don't think men or women are well-represented on sitcoms - nor are African-Americans, Asians, Jews, gays and lesbians, transgendered individuals, etc. etc. etc. Surely this isn't the only source you're using to demonstrate these points.

And not to get into politics - but I I suspect that George Bush was ridiculed for slightly more than simply just having a "cowboy attitude" (but I digress)!

You did make an interesting point about the vilification of male values - and I was curious myself as to what that might be, coming from a male's perspective. But then you only went on to mention one thing, aggressiveness - is aggressiveness the only male "value" we're talking about here? Aggressiveness is frowned upon in society not because of its association with masculinity, but because of its sheer destructiveness to society and its civilians. Are you saying that before first wave feminism in the late 1900's, aggressiveness was something that was ever promoted in society? Historically of course, in some societies, yes - but I don't think that in our contemporary society we vilify aggressiveness due its association with masculinity. I don't think I need to explain why - don't we all agree that aggression serves no purpose in civilized society unless it is used in self-defence, or in the protection of one's children/family? I never thought of aggression as a masculine "value", although it might be associated with masculinity - I thought you were going to say one of the many other values traditionally associated with masculinity, such as leadership, steadfastness, courage, pride, etc. etc. etc. If you're arguing for the male right to be aggressive, you might be fighting an uphill battle. Join a boxing club, watch some mixed martial arts, participate in sports, exercise - take out your aggression in a healthy way, as you will never gain the "right" to take it out on society.

And in terms of using aggression in the bedroom as you noted, you commented that it is odd that men would need to ask permission at each step, otherwise the guy could potentially risk jail time. I mean - duh. You can't slap your girlfriend across the face during sex without asking for consent first, and then claim "it's unfair - some women claim to enjoy it!" Clearly if you want to try some aggressive acts during sex thinking that it might be kinky, then obviously you should talk to your S.O. about it first. That's just common sense. I don't know why it would come as such a shock. :icon-rolleyes:

 

[weirdbr]

Thanks for this response! Indeed I did know about the shift to more "soft skills" in school, which is supposedly easier for females than it is for males (teamwork projects for example) - so yes this is a good example of the way in which we can't prioritize one set of skills over the other (whether these skills are more traditionally masculine or traditionally feminine). However - I still don't see the link to feminism? Indeed perhaps it is indicative of a greater amount of women becoming schoolteachers over men (which is the case), and who would thus try to cultivate more of these "soft skills". If this is true then clearly, we need to encourage more men to become schoolteachers - yet that also links back to my first post of allowing men the space to feel comfortable in traditionally more female-dominated professions. For now, until that happens, schoolteachers should be educated to teach their curriculum in a manner in which both females and males can thrive.

The thing is - teaching was a male-dominated profession until not so long ago. There's an interesting video on youtube (the one below) that touches on this.

The "Too Long; Didn't Watch" version: this guy (who IIRC was in the school board for his city/region - it's been a few months since I watched the video) claims that in a push for equality in the educational system, there were multiple mistakes (include by him) in hiring/promoting women even if they weren't as qualified as their male peers just to meet quotas. His claim is that this led to a reduction in the number of male professors, leading to kids (and later society) seeing teaching as a profession for women due to the lack/reduced number of male teachers/role models.


Was it an effect of feminism? In part ,yes. But to me it's more an effect of the usual horrible implementation of policies that focus on fixing the immediate problem rather than the cause.

 

[Ambers Troll]

Any models with sons should watch the video above.
Education is only a little thing though compared with the crisis coming but this video was spot on for my experience of education, and for my sisters son.

 

[mynameisbob84]

Excellent article here - http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...per-laughs-julien-blanc-inequality?CMP=twt_gu - that pretty much pinpoints the main problem with modern feminism (I think). I don't really follow her point about the Porn Star clothing label (possibly some subtle slut shaming going on there) but everything else, I tend to agree with. Well worth a read, innit.

The scientist of Rosetta mission fame, Matt Taylor, is arguably better known at the moment for a shirt he wore, depicting scantily clad women than his extraordinary scientific breakthrough. After a massive kerfuffle, led by feminists, Taylor broke down in tears at a briefing recently and said: “I made a big mistake and I offended many people, and I am very sorry about this.”

Many would hail this as a feminist victory: a big-name scientist apologising on TV and being reduced to tears for his apparent sexism. We must have come a long way to wield so much influence. But there’s another way of seeing it. As less of a victory, more of a sign of a shift in feminist tactics. Instead of attacking the root cause of women’s inequality, we’ve moved towards the vilification of individuals.

Daniel O’Reilly, a comedian who created the misogynistic Dapper Laughs, has had his TV programme axed, and there is pressure on those who do not publicly condemn him to do so. The Canadian broadcaster Jian Ghomeshi has been convicted by the kangaroo court of social media. CBC, the radio station where Ghomeshi worked, terminated his employment in October 2014 after several sexual abuse allegations were made against him, despite his denials.

The US “pick-up artist” Julien Blanc has been forced to leave Australia, after receiving a barrage of criticism over his “dating seminars”; these suggested that men deploy tactics of harassment and abuse to attract women. Britain and Canada are also considering a ban. He is described as “the most hated man in the world”, but rather than using racist and sexist immigration laws to keep Blanc out of the country we should be looking at using the criminal law against him. The petition to deny him a UK visa so far has more than 156,000 signatures. Would we get anything like so many signatures on a petition pressuring David Cameron to fund rape crisis centres, or to close down Yarl’s Wood – the immigration detention centre for women that has been widely criticised for its treatment of vulnerable inmates? I bet not. In fact, a petition to close Yarl’s Wood was set up earlier this year, and has attracted fewer than 50,000 signatures.

Feminism, a great social movement, is in danger of becoming toxic and repressive. The focus on individuals, however vile they may be, signifies a shift away from the more difficult, long-term work of making institutions such as the Crown Prosecution Service and other governmental departments accountable. Justice for Women, a feminist campaigning group I co-founded, managed to change the law to prevent men claiming that “nagging” was a justifiable reason to kill female partners; Southall Black Sisters successfully challenged Ealing council when it proposed cutting women’s services. The CPS, badgered for decades by anti-FGM campaigners, ended up changing its policy and began to proactively seek prosecutions. Feminists campaigned all through the 1970s and 1980s to make rape in marriage a crime – and in 1992 the goal was achieved.

Rather than spending so much energy piling on a man for wearing a sexist shirt, is it not better to focus on the manufacturer? Is Taylor’s shirt really as problematic as an entire clothing label named Porn Star?

The current climate of McCarthyism within some segments of feminism and the left is so ingrained and toxic that there are active attempts to outlaw some views because they cause offence. Petitions against individuals appear to be a recent substitute for political action towards the root causes of misogyny and other social ills. Petitions have taken over politics.

Ched Evans is the only Football League player who has been convicted of rape, out of the many who have been accused, and yet feminist energy at the moment is being directed towards him as an individual rather than towards a criminal justice system that fails rape victims. It has been long known that there is endemic misogyny within football. What are we doing about the culture within the sport that makes it OK for groups of men to use their power to lure young, impressionable women back to a hotel room and queue up to “roast” her? I want the FA to initiate a “Kick Sexism out of Football” campaign.

I have absolutely no sympathy for Evans, because he has refused to admit his guilt, and shown no remorse whatsoever. But I would far rather be waging a war against the FA for its inaction against endemic sexism in the game.

The “ban this sick filth” approach is starting to look more like censorship than progressive politics. Political protest and heated debate has been replaced with a witch-hunt mentality.

It would appear we have forgotten how to target institutions. The tactic du jour is to wind up a crowd and shut down any nuanced discussion or debate. Patriarchy is being left to its own devices while bad and unpalatable men are being taken to task one by one.

Last year more than 20 student unions in the UK banned Robin Thicke’s song Blurred Lines, which was widely thought to glamorise rape, forbidding the playing of the song at functions within union spaces. But when University College London held events at which gender segregation was enforced, at the request of the Islamic Student Society, the women’s officer of King’s College London Students’ Union, said that “gender segregation should be respected, if not tolerated, in institutions of higher education”.

Identity politics and the emergence of feminist preciousness – the tendency towards putting trigger warnings on everything and wrapping each other in cotton wool – has translated into a disproportionate focus on individuals who offend, rather than the culture that allows them to do so. That lyrics could be a more legitimate feminist target than universities that support gender apartheid is depressing.

It is hugely important to hold abusive men to account, but we feminist campaigners have learned that the state allows men to perpetrate individual crimes, and have therefore tended to focus on making root and branch change. Lately we appear to have gone backwards. It is as though we have lost the strength and confidence to effectively challenge institutions.

Moral superiority and “call out” culture has trumped political activism. Feminists have a proud history of taking state institutions and corporations to task. It would seem this is being lost in a sea of vitriol. We built this movement on a desire and willingness to question and challenge old assumptions and truisms. We are in danger of becoming autocrats who would rather organise a pile-on than try to change systems. The life blood of feminism is in danger of becoming bile.

 

[SoniaSilk]

Best topic ever, even though I chose a side a long time ago: I am a feminist since the first time I've heard the F word.

Feminism saved my life after I was rapped (more than once).
[Yes, I was a victim once. I've overcame it with the help of feminists. We need to recognize we are a victim if we suffer any kind of violence. Not because we want revenge, but this is the only way we can prevent it to happen again with ourselves and others.]
Feminism helped me to figure out how to protect myself (I was raised "to be a princess", which didnt include safety lessons).
Feminism saved my life when I had an abortion in a country where its still criminalized.
Feminism helped my grandmother to get divorced in the 70's.
I'm grateful to feminists cause they are rewriting History, including women's achievements in it.
Third wave feminism (or queer movement, or lgbtt movement) was crucial to help me get out of the closet.
Third wave feminism works everyday to stop homophobia, which I assume is saving me, my wife and my friends.

I could go on and on and on, but I'd like to wrap it up with

----> Feminism brought me to camming*. <------

And my instincts were right cause I've never seen a group of professional claiming themselves feminists so often as I see around here.

*And if I've failed once as a camwhore (blablablacamscoreblablabla) and haven't gave up yet, that's because feminism helped me to believe I'm fabulous, powerful and can do whatever I want if I just work hard enough and never ever let people bring me down. Which is pretty different from the mainstream discourse on women.

 

[eclipse76]

I think #EveryoneForUnderstandingFeminism or #AgainstMisuseOfFeminism would be better. It's sad that feminism even needs a name and worse that people pervert it into something it's not. Every good, necessary movement has people who pervert it for their own purposes. But, I think just throwing "women against feminism" out there is dangerous. Too many women (and men) already misunderstand what feminism really stands for.

I know one antifeminist woman with ten years of feminist activism behind her before she got fed up by the people in the movement. And another one who is still working monthly at PP. And another one working in a feminist group who is currently wondering if she still want to be associated with feminists. It's a bit condescending to think they don't know what feminist is about.

(I'veJustSeenThatThread)

 

[CthulhusSon]

We still need it because the ratio of female earnings to male is still abysmal.

I disagree with that wholeheartedly.

http://www.warrenfarrell.net/

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-...?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1407786142&sr=1-1

Controversial and exhaustively researched, gender expert Warren Farrell's latest book Why Men Earn More takes as its stunning argument the idea that bias-based unequal pay for women is largely a myth, and that women are most often paid less than men not because they are discriminated against, but because they have made lifestyle choices that affect their ability to earn.Why Men Earn More argues that while discrimination sometimes plays a part, both men and women unconsciously make trade-offs that affect how much they earn. Farrell clearly defines the 25 different workplace choices that affect women's and men's incomes -- including putting in more hours at work, taking riskier jobs or more hazardous assignments, being willing to change location, and training for technical jobs that involve less people contact -- and provides readers with specific, research-supported ways for women to earn higher pay. Why Men Earn More, with its brashness in the face of political correctness, is sure to ignite a storm of media controversy that will help to make this thoroughly pragmatic exposé Warren Farrell's next bestseller.

From Publishers Weekly
Why do men earn more than women? Because they deserve to, argues this contrarian challenge to feminist conventional wisdom. Men work longer hours at more dangerous and disagreeable jobs. They more readily accept night shifts, hardship postings to Alaska and entrepreneurial risks. Men get in-demand degrees in engineering, while women get degrees in French literature. Female librarians earn less than garbagemen, not because of discrimination, but because so many applicants compete for the safe, clean, comfortable, convenient, fulfilling jobs women prefer. Indeed, the author insists, statistics show that women and men with equal experience and qualifications, doing the same job, for the same hours, under the same conditions-get paid the same.

There's several parts to this video (so you'd have to go to youtube to see the rest) where he's talking about the reason men make more is simply because they earn it. It has nothing to do with a gender bias, it's job related choices that are different.

I live in arguably one of the most equalitarian countries in the world. Yet people felt not enough has been done and a new political party called the Feminist Initiative was created and almost got into parliament this year. Yes, the salaries in the same line of work are becoming equalised, but the main problem is that jobs that have been labeled as women's work (teaching, daycare, cleaning, healthcare, etc.) are not paid anywhere near equally with a so-called man's job that requires a similar amount of education or LESS! Why don't teachers get paid the same amount as civil engineers? Why are well-educated (university required for some jobs) daycare teachers paid around the same as trash collectors? That's where the true gaps are.

 

[CthulhusSon]

In a few countries paternity leave is just as long and common as maternity leave. And I don't think that implies that anyone's job is raising children anymore than companies not offering that implies that no one should have any kids.

That's the way it is over here. Hell, we even call it Parental Leave (and have for as long as I can remember). Both parents have the exact same rights in this regard.

well, that's not reeeeaaally true, I happen to have heard a lot about this because my friends were trying to get this.

it basically comes down to, as a parent (male/female) you're allowed by law to cut your hours in half, this is unpaid. (no benefits from government either)
if you have a really groovy employer, they could let you take up to 26 weeks off. again, unpaid.

difference with maternity leave is that you receive your missed salary from the government (as benefits), and it's exclusively for women obviously.

so, maternity leave is only available to couples who can actually afford to take that time off and miss salary. (so definitely not for everyone)

Really? I looked it up (admittedly not too thoroughly) and what I found was that you have the right to 26 weeks of leave. Admittedly this is only from the perspective of government benefits. I don't have any actual experience with how this works in practice though.

yes up to 26 weeks, no benefits/social security/"uitkering". It's basically just a way to get some unpaid leave if you've got kids. As opposed to maternity leave where you always get benefits from the government.

it's not being used a lot because most people don't have the funds to miss out on a period of salary.

Move to Sweden

In Sweden, parents are entitled to 480 days of paid parental leave when a child is born or adopted. This number is super high by international standards (see the infographic below) and is perhaps Sweden’s most famous argument when it comes to being a child-friendly system.

For 390 of the days, parents are entitled to nearly 80 per cent of their normal pay. Benefits are calculated on a maximum monthly income of SEK 37,083, as of 2013. The remaining 90 days are paid at a flat rate. Those who are not in employment are also entitled to paid parental leave.

Parental leave can be taken up until a child turns eight. The leave entitlement applies to each child (except in the case of multiple births), so parents can accumulate leave from several children.

Outside the 480 paid days, parents in Sweden also have the legal right to reduce their normal working hours by up to 25 per cent until the child turns eight. Do keep in mind, however, that you get paid only for the time you work.

from https://sweden.se/society/10-things-tha ... -friendly/

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Last week, Time magazine did its annual tongue-in-cheek poll of over used words that should banned or vote off the island or similar concept.

This years entry including, bae, literally, influencers, #sorrynotsorry and om nom nom nom. All worthy contenders in my opinion.
It also included this word "feminism".


This week Time stopped the poll and add this apology before a static list of the nominees.

TIME apologizes for the execution of this poll; the word ‘feminist’ should not have been included in a list of words to ban. While we meant to invite debate about some ways the word was used this year, that nuance was lost, and we regret that its inclusion has become a distraction from the important debate over equality and justice.

.

What was fascinating to me was the reporting of this. I had intended to just do a quick cut and post from some website. Instead what I found was the blatantly slanted reporting on both side.

The anti feminist articles pointed out the following facts.
1. The inclusion of the word feminist, sparked a storm of angry protest by feminist writers and groups outraged by Time's decision to include the word, demands for the editor and writer to be fired were common.
2. Before the poll was taken down feminism was a landslide winner for being banned with 51%

Almost all of the anti feminist articles mocked Time for its apology and failed to give the magazine for including the word in the first place.

The pro feminist articles pointed out that 4 Chan hacked the voting process. They took Time to task for including the word feminism in the first place.

I read more than dozen articles in search of something I could cut and paste, and literally :-D , not a single article included all of the facts.

This and the thread leads me to conclude that feminism is such polarizing word that it pointless to have a discussion trying to define it. I do think discussing specific issues about gender equality is worthwhile.

 

[RandomGuppy]

This topic has reminded me of a current scandal happening at the moment by the name of GamerGate. The 'movement' is being labelled by many people misogynist and motivated to keep women out of the gaming industry.

Weird thing is though is that it has a lot of women on the GamerGate side defending their side as actually being about 'ethics in game journalism', plus many of them being behind the #notyourshield hashtag (claiming that Social Justice Warriors do not speak of them).

So I'm not really sure what to make of it, unless ALL of the women on the GG side identify as anti-feminist. But a lot don't, though I have noticed some seem to be a little right wing or libertarian leaning.

I was surprised to see one female supporter, who happens to be a porn star, actually seriously use the term "Female Privilege", which a lot of feminists deny exist at all:



(That was in response to a male who works with Anita Sarkeesian, where they recently published a youtube video about male privilege in gaming)

I'm not too sure what to make of all of it to be quite honest, but I do know that a lot of anti-feminists and misogynists support it. Though I'm not sure that reflects the nature of the movement at its core.

 

[eclipse76]

The most active GamersGaters on my Tumblr feed are women, one of them is a designer, another wants to be a game journo (well wanted cause she has been very disappointed), and yet another is studying to be a game dev.

 

[RandomGuppy]

^^^ They're actually male-basement-dweller-sockpuppets right?

 

[ACFFAN69]

This topic has reminded me of a current scandal happening at the moment by the name of GamerGate. The 'movement' is being labelled by many people misogynist and motivated to keep women out of the gaming industry.

I've been following the whole gamergate saga since August merely for the fascinating ups and downs it has gone through.

It started with the most ridiculous "scandal" involving a woman that slept with many journalists/developers presumably to get good ahead in the industry. It was all so silly, because there is no question that if a man did the same thing no one would care, and even if anyone was morally appalled by it they should be focusing on the journalists (who should show more integrity in their reviews) then the person using sex to get ahead (because let's be honest, most of us would in her situation, it's just sex).

But then things turned, and very minor further journalistic scandals began emerging, which did raise my eyebrows, but nothing more.

Then came the unspoken thing that no one discusses anymore, but is the sole catalyst anyone is even talking about the gamergate movement: Any posts on 4chan or reddit discussing these very minor scandals (even if there was no mention of the original ridiculous sex scandal) were auto-locked and deleted. One reddit post even had more then 25,000 comments, all deleted. 4chan preventing discussion on gaming journalism was completely shocking. Anyone that knows 4chan knows that there is very little lines drawn on what can or cannot be discussed.

The audience for these sites are huge, and understandably so, any member of a forum that they love that sees valid discussion being squelched would become upset. It even bothered me and I'm not an active member of those forums!

Further scandals came about, for example the people running the independent gaming awards directly directly funding games that they were voting on, to make profit. Shocking I know, an award show being corrupt <sarcasm>!

Suddenly the issue started moving from journalistic integrity to misogyny in gaming. Articles began coming out at a spurious rate about Gamergate being a misogynistic movement, all at once, from various gaming media sites, in what seemed like a calculated move. No surprise that one of the biggest media giants that was being targetted by Gamergate as unethical was Gawker who have a very large presence in the feminist movement (via their subsite Jezebel)

This is when a large sub-sect of the feminist movement got involved, and things became very strange. Gamergate swelled with even more douchebags then it originally had, and it became a war between feminism and gamers. The silly movement became co-opted just as any massive, open, movement with no official leaders always does (see: Occupy Wall-street and the Tea-party movement) by misogynists and became even sillier.

The feminists are pointing out various examples of sexism in gaming (in my opinion correctly). Shocking that an art-form that has historically been developed and sold to a male audience has sexist elements in it. I think and hope this is changing now as gaming has become more mainstream, but no amount of strong-arming is going to change it. It will be a dynamic change that comes with a more female market becoming involved, like a snowball rolling down a snowy hill.

This is when the right wing media got involved, presumably spurred to argue against the feminist movement. Brietbert discovered a forum for gaming journalists of different publications who collude with each other. As if this should be shocking to anyone with an iota of knowledge of the journalistic world. Is it wrong and corrupt? Yes. But journalists are people, and people generally network with like-minded people. It's not shocking.

The war between feminists and gamergate quickly turned into a game of "gotcha", which generally occurs in ethical arguments of this nature (see the ferguson thread), where both sides argue with the lowest common denominator of the other side, or take the worst arguments from either side and focus on that.

This is now where it has gotten too. It's no longer about changing anyone's mind, anyone that is interested in "the debate" has already chosen a side and is so firmly entrenched with their point of view that no amount of discussion will change it. It's now just shit being flung between feminists and gamergaters back and forth. Both sides have valid points, but both sides are equally ridiculous. Both sides instantly labeling the other as something they are against, and mentally checking out of a valid discussion there.

I understand that feminists involved in this argument see sexism in gaming as an important issue, but browbeating and trying to policing art (games) will never work. Art is strange in that it mirrors culture, and in shining that mirror on itself directly changes it. Trying to force art to be a certain way that matches your values will not work. What will work is making art that matches your values to affect the consciousness of those who view it. That's where the feminist focus should be on.

I understand that gamergaters feel that this is an important issue. That it isn't actually about ethics in gaming journalism, but is about ethics in journalism altogether, and that changing ethics in gaming journalism is a small step toward that goal. Maybe you're right, but the way you are going about it is not changing anyone's mind sadly. It is merely turning people off from your arguments. Focus on identifying and bringing to light specific examples of corruption, assuming there are larger examples of corruption that have been discovered, and only that.

Of course both are giant movements that exclude no one, and generally the loudest voices are the ones heard, rather then the most interesting. It still makes for a humorous adventure to follow at least!

 

[Felicity]

This is just my opinion, and I'm aware that not every one agrees with it. But I don't see Feminism as a white/black for/against type of thing. There are things that I agree with and things I disagree with.

My biggest gripe with feminism is that it tries to sell this unattainable dream to women that you can have everything. You can have the perfect family, job, and marriage, and nothing will suffer. Believe me this is false. SOMETHING will suffer. Running around 6 am til 5 pm for a job, then coming home to cook and clean, and then somehow magically have enough energy to put romance into your life is a dream. If both parents work this is definitely the false reality (although I'm aware there are exceptions). I'm sorry, call me old fashion if you want, but I don't think children deserve to be raised by a daycare, fed frozen pre-packaged food, and beg for attention from parents that are too tired. I personally think at least one parent whether the dad or mom should stay at home especially before school age.

Am I offended that most males assume that women should take on this role? No, not at all because I'm a mother. When you hold that baby in your arms you want to stay with it and protect it all day every day, and every fiber in my being is saying don't hand her to that stranger in the daycare. It's in our DNA, and that's why the majority of stay at home parents are females. I'm not saying a male doesn't deserve or doesn't have the same inclination, but it is mainly in their DNA to want to go out and forage or "work" and bring home the "bacon". My first priority is my family and my "nest". Do I think a husband that works his ass off from 6 am - 5 pm in a good job to provide for his family deserves someone to look after him and cook him a meal and raise their family? Yes, because good, loyal men deserve much more credit than they currently get. It's not about a woman's place being in the kitchen, it's about caring and sacrificing for the ones you love. Putting a real effort into your family and marriage (and yes men need to put in the effort too).

It's easy before children to say what you would or wouldn't do, but when the time comes to have a family your whole mindset changes, and all preconceived notions fly out the window from parenting techniques and everything else.

Am I glad that as a stahm that if my situation was to ever change that I would be able to find a job and childcare, thanks to the work of feminism? Of course, we have come so far, and I'm grateful I wouldn't be passed on to the nearest male relative as a burden. Am I happy that if my daughter decided that she wanted a career and that she could go anywhere she wanted? Absolutely. The sky is the limit, but I will also warn her that everything has it's pros and cons, a price to pay, and sacrifices will have to be made.

I personally don't need a job to be happy or fulfilled. I also don't need women who hold a feminism sign to tell me I'm setting my daughter a bad example by not working or pursuing a "goal" or a "dream" and living off of a man. I know some feminists don't think like this, but some do, and that's why one label for a broad spectrum of topics is unrealistic.

Feminism has it's place, but it has grown into something it didn't use to be, and people will take advantage of that to turn it into some ugly. Workplace inequality is real, but it's not just women. It's men and women, different races, ages, sexuality, tattoos, you name it. There is a whole range of topics on inequality that shouldn't just be labeled as feminism because the current thinking of today is that if you disagree with feminism you are wrong and you are taking stance against women everywhere. People need to stop worrying about labels and start focusing on the issues at hand. :twocents-02cents:

 

[JerryBoBerry]

This is just my opinion, and I'm aware that not every one agrees with it. But I don't see Feminism as a white/black for/against type of thing. There are things that I agree with and things I disagree with.
...

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

ACCFan thanks very much for the most even handed description of gamergate I've seen. I have been trying to get a decent description of what all the fuss has been for several months.

I asked the question in a game forum, which is run by a prominent game journalist and has a lot developers on the forum and it got locked with a couple of pages,something practically never happens on the forum.

Still I think the way to get more female friendly games is for more woman to get involved in the game industry. But of course the issue is that one of the best ways to get into the industry is to get a degree in computer science or related field, astonishingly the percentage of woman getting computer science degrees has decreased from when I got my degree in the 80s at 35% to about half that now. http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/...egrees-conferred-to-women-by-major-1970-2012/

There are other ways for woman to get involved in the industry beside programming, but at the end of the day programmer really make a lot of the decisions, and most game designer come from the programmer ranks.

 

[RandomGuppy]

Heh... looks like #GamerGate has now reached MFC (in the form of a FeministFrequency spoof).

 

[zippypinhead]

Heh... looks like #GamerGate has now reached MFC (in the form of a FeministFrequency spoof).

Wow, she does look a lot like Anita Sarkeesian.