TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 10 °C Monday 20 May, 2013

Column: Feminism is on the up again – but it needs to be for everyone

These times are an opportunity, writes Clara Fischer. Why shouldn’t feminism become the new normal?

Clara Fischer

A RECENT GUARDIAN article examined the current ‘explosion’ in feminist grassroots activism in the UK. New feminist groups are on the rise there, and the intensification of people’s engagement with the feminist movement is being attributed, to a large extent, to young women and men.

Pupils as young as seventeen are reported to have organised in protest against local shops selling magazines that objectify women. There is, thus, a newfound enthusiasm for feminism, spurred by the obvious inequalities that still pervade our so-called liberal democratic societies.

Ireland is no exception in this regard. Recent years have seen a resurgence in feminist activism in Ireland, with new groups like the Irish Feminist Network, Cork Feminista and Feminist Open Forum forming a conduit for people eager to express their dissatisfaction with the status quo and willing to proffer alternative visions for the transformation of social and political structures. Groups focused on specific feminist themes have also sprung up, with the 50:50 Group focusing on women in politics, for example, or Women on Air concentrating on women in the media.

While Ireland has, of course, a continuous history of women and men advocating for changes in gendered power imbalances, and these new groups undoubtedly benefit from the insights and support of their activist forbearers, there is something unique about this particular moment in time which makes it conducive to oppositional political activism.

Mistrust and exasperation

The mistrust and exasperation people feel at the way the country has been mismanaged and brought to financial ruin, has in fact resulted in a general questioning of the wisdom of those in authority, and has ultimately spawned a climate relatively hospitable to a whole plethora of activists, who are not just content with accepting the current state of affairs.

Many of these critically engaged advocates believe that the correctives needed to redress the failings of those in charge are not being implemented – or that they are being meted out unfairly, making certain members of society pay more than others. They resist such unfair treatment at the hands of the powers that be, and bring different perspectives to problems that are frequently portrayed monolithically and in ideologically uniform ways.

Ireland’s activist groups thereby provide alternative analyses of the issues negatively affecting people, or indeed identify certain issues as being problematic in the first place.

In a society where political decision-making still rests in the hands of a largely uniform and unrepresentative body of politicians, and where the news media regularly excludes large swathes of people, it is essential that Ireland’s activist groups voice not only dissent, but also proffer creative solutions that will result in a more just, equitable and therefore stable Ireland. Feminist activist groups are doing precisely that, and are thereby contributing to a more vibrant civil society, which comes complete with demands for increased accountability and transparency.

While the momentum for change is palpable, we should not underestimate the challenges feminists still face. It is precisely the entrenched nature of issues surrounding women’s objectification in the media, denial of reproductive rights, or lack of affordable childcare – to name but a few – that is driving people’s (re)engagement with the feminist movement, but that also highlights the enormity of the task at hand.

The ‘silent majority’

In some cases gender inequality is perpetuated by hugely powerful industries, such as the fashion and beauty industries, and in others, it stems directly from political decision-making that disempowers women and children in particular.

In order to be maximally effective in working toward increased gender equality, feminist activist groups need to build upon their momentum by capturing the spirit of the ‘silent majority’ . That is, the very people who are affected by the issues – for gender inequality affects us all – but who may not be willing to express or act upon their negative experiences. Given the years of backlash against feminism, and its portrayal of feminists as hairy-legged men-devouring monsters, this is a tall order for a reinvigorated movement, but one that is nonetheless achievable.

The environmental movement, which similarly saw its members reduced to tree-hugging hippies, has managed to make the green agenda palatable to the mainstream. Indeed, political parties are now eager to proclaim their ‘green’ credentials, and being concerned with issues of environmental sustainability is no longer looked upon as a radical or outlier position, but rather as the norm.

Building upon its achievements thus far, the feminist movement can and must now follow suit by rearticulating social and political norms, thereby making gender equality the new standard of normalcy. We have already begun to do so by achieving gender quotas, for example, or by getting tangible commitments by government on the issues of sex trafficking and reproductive rights.

In a climate that is hospitable to proposals for wide-sweeping change, and where people are questioning traditional understandings of social and political issues, what could be more normal than the normalisation of gender equality?

Dr Clara Fischer holds a PhD in feminist theory and political philosophy, and is a co-ordinator of the Irish Feminist Network. The network will host a conference on May 19 highlighting the current resurgence in feminist activism, and will place this in the context of the history of the feminist movement in Ireland.

Read next:

Comments (350 Comments)

  • My mother was a woman!! Yaaay women!!

    Reply
  • Always thought it is a bit odd that in the Indo has a section called “Independent Women” which involves celeb gossip. On a side point women are hardly the sole recipients of objectification by the opposite sex. The coverage of the likes of Ryan Gosling, Michael Fassbender, Tommy Bowe are not exactly lacking in objectification. Objectification is increasing in media across all genders. This is not to condone or condem it. But when ever feminism gets debated it often gets descends into a women vs men debate, if you want gender warfare. If objectification in the media is considered a problem then focusing on one side of it, is only going to continue the inequality in society.

    Reply
    • Y’know.. Objectification is a funny thing.
      If a girl actually wants to be a page 3 type model then that’s her choice. Perhaps she likes the idea of what page 3 is usually used for – its up to her..

      I have to say though, pictures of so called “hunks” in magazines doesn’t really do it for me.. I’m more interested in the mind of the man, indeed, the male celebs that I consider attractive I didn’t even look at in that sense, yet after learning about their morals and what they stand for they became insanely attractive (and the same can happen in reverse eg: visually attractive guy turns out to be a total idiot = no longer attractive).

      Not being male I cannot be sure whether this applies to the male perception of attractiveness or not, but I have heard that attraction works differently between the sexes and this may go some way to explaining my feelings about it.. Could the objectification of men as you describe be linked to an attempt at equality? As an ideal it’s a little twisted, especially if the mechanisms for attraction are different..

      I don’t see the point in either, but then again, that might just be me..

      Reply
    • Nah, male or female, it’s just another way to persuade you to spend. Not sexy.

      Reply
  • I’m a 30 something male where is the conference on the 19th of May so I can attend

    Reply
  • When feminists start advocating for equality before the law for men who are unmarried fathers or accused of peer underage sex and campaign against discriminatory gender quotas then they’ll be truly seeking equality for all. Until then, feminism is just misandry mislabelled.

    Reply
    • Hats off the the feminist movement they are really highlighting inequalities that do exist in society. But lets not forget that me face them too i.e. rights of fathers, absence of paid paternity leave in Ireland. I myself am a male childcare worker in the early years sector in Ireland. About 1% of the childcare profession in Ireland is male. Our network, Men in Childcare Ireland, supports and encourages men interested in a career in the childcare profession. Over the years we’ve come across and supported guys who have faced blatant discrimination based on their gender, though thankfully there are a lot more enlightened people who see the importance of gender balance in the workforce. My point being men face discrimination too. I don’t want to see gender quotas for the childcare sector to address the gender imbalance as I want the best males out there to become childcare workers not just males so we can tick a box and say thats great we have 20% and pat each other on the back. Supporting mens/ dads rights too will support the feminist movement to i.e. allowing men/ dads take on caring roles we take the presumption of it being womens work allowing them to follow their careers if they wish. I Also allowing dads to have paternity leave or share maternity leave will allow families make childcare decisions that are right for them and lessen discrimination faced by women and pregnancy levelling the playing field so either parent can care of the child. Men and women need to work together to face inequalities. more info on men in childcare Ireland at http://www.facebook.com/meninchildcare

      Reply
    • Why should one issue take precedence over another- can woman not get equal pay until fathers have rights?

      Reply
    • agreed, women who are bitter at an ex seem very quick to use the skewed family law system in ireland to their own ends , false accusations and generally acting out a distinctly feminine revenge agenda with little or no regard for the children and their right to have a relationship with their father seems to be the norm here, very unequal.

      also if feminism succeeds does that mean feminine drama will become less extreme?

      Reply
    • @Mick – well said. I’m a father of two wonderful kids, unfortunately separated from their mother and fighting to have an equal presence in their lives. The general attitude from the various state or state-funded bodies is that I’m just making trouble and I’d be easier all round of I just slithered away back into my box. Men cannot be pregnant, men cannot breast feed. Apart from these two things there is absolutely no reason why a man cannot be as good a carer as a woman. Real gender equality must balance the scales, and that means on both sides.

      Reply
    • It’s unfortunate that there seems to be some misunderstanding about the motives of feminists here. Many of us are advocating precisely for the kind of changes noted below. We’d like reforms that allow men to become more involved in caring, such as paternity leave reform. Check out this blog post on our website:
      http://www.irishfeministnetwork.org/1/post/2012/03/iwd-special-parental-leave-in-ireland-the-case-for-reform.html

      Reply
    • Many of the comments above assume Feminism is purely for women, but it isn’t, as the author actually said in her article, gender inequalities affect us all. Everyone has the right to be treated equally and fairly.
      I am disappointed by the comment concerning ‘bitter women’ using the system to get back at their exes…not only does it not relate to Feminism, It is unfair to judge any such situation from the outside.

      Reply
    • @ Ailis, @Clara – not to be picky about the language, but the term” feminism” itself is focused on “female”, not both sexes. It’s a loaded term. “gender equality” covers both the male and female positions. Words pick up associations over time and, while previously a very positive word, “feminism” now brings negative associations of inequality. A bit like the loaded terms “gun control” and “gun regulation” in the US. The words themselves show the opinions of the person using them.

      Reply
    • Aoife 10/05/12 #

      John, it might make more sense if you read “feminism” as opposing itself to “patriarchy” instead of as opposing itself to “men”. Feminism is essentially the opposition to the patriarchal structure of society which has negative effects on both men and women.

      The example of unmarried fathers is very relevant here, because the idea that mothers should look after the children while fathers go out to work to support the family is itself a part of this patriarchal structure. It’s certainly not a feminist ideal that women should be the primary carers of the family and it’s not feminists who instituted that law. As Clara has pointed out, many feminists object to it on that basis. I’m very much in favour of equal rights for fathers and equal access to parental leave for both parents because I’m a feminist.

      As for “feminism” having negative connotations, a lot of those connotations were imposed on it by those opposed to it, as Clara has alluded to in the article with her comparison to the environmental movement. The derogatory term “feminazi”, for example, was popularised by the odious American broadcaster, Rush Limbaugh and personally I’m a little reluctant to give in on the language I use because my opponents have misrepresented its meaning. Besides, while “gender equality” is a good term (and an important ideal), it doesn’t convey the same sense of a structural critique of society that “feminism” does.

      Reply
    • Thanks for your comment Aoife. I totally agree with your point on the term ‘feminism’. Changing the terminology would also be a disavowal of the long-standing history of activism for change.

      Reply
    • The problem, Aoife, is that feminist critiques of today’s society are frequently so one-eyed as to be counter-factual. All too often feminists are guilty of lies of omission, like in the comments below where Clara misled readers into thinking that no women’s organisations recieved state funding

      Reply
    • Chuck, I find it surprising that you should misread me in such a way. The statements were articulated clearly twice: the groups I mention in my article do not receive state funding.

      Reply
    • Barry; “a number of prominent feminist groups are funded directly and indirectly by the taxpayer.Is it not an affront to democracy and equality that one gender receives State-sanctioned preferential treatment and access to government?”

      Clara; “Thanks for your long comment. None of the groups I mention in my article receive state funding.”

      Your article was about the feminist lobby in general. Barry’s reply was about the feminist lobby in general. Then you came over all specific in order to avoid the substance of what he said

      Reply
    • Feminists are not to blame for these things in the first place and in most cases they do advocate the abolition of any such restrictions caused by gender roles.

      It amazes me that a majority of people liked your comment and are therefore very ignorant of what Feminism actually means.

      Reply
    • Gender equality is not a bad thing. Attempting to co-opt the feminist movement into some “egalitarian” ideal because you’re uncomfortable with the fact we live in a patriarchy and don’t want to accept that whatever small disadvantages one can encounter as a cis male in modern society ultimately reflect patriarchal ideals anyway is just refusing to accept your privilege.

      Reply
    • Hmmm, wrote a big long post here about 4 pm Irish time, went back to work, just checked the article again and it never made it up. My post mightn’t have been very good, but it definitely wasn’t offensive.
      Pity, it’s nice to see a long, heated discussion here where the majority of commenters are discussing opinions rather than just hurling insults at one another. More, please….

      Reply
    • @ Sarah. Am I reading your comment correctly? You write about someone co-opting feminism to further the/an “egalitarian ideal”. That seems to imply that you think that feminism is not egalitarian. Could you please clarify?

      Reply
    • Feminism is inherently egalitarian, since it deals with *equal* rights…. it deals with equal rights in a world where women are absolutely not equal, hence its inception as ‘feminism’. It also deals with dismantling the patriarchy, which effects both men and women. Attempting to say that feminism shouldn’t be called feminism because of the word ‘fem’ is ridiculous, since the tiny amount of marginalisation that a straight white cisgender male can experience in our society is as a direct result of the patriarchy anyway…. also there are an absolute boatload of gender exclusive terms involving men that have become used to refer to both genders, and nobody is kicking up a stink about those.

      Reply
    • Erm, so it’d be wrong to assume that any word beginning with “oxy-” relates to “oxygen”? I’m not picking holes in your beliefs, I’m picking holes in your use of language. If you say feminism has been co-opted by egalitarianism, this means that feminism in inherently unegalitarian, but has been misrepresented in order to further an egalitarian agenda.

      If you use exclusive language to argue a point, you’re automatically shooting yourself in the foot, as exclusive language will alienate the listener if they don’t already associate themselves with the words used. If you use inclusive language, you’re far more likely to persuade the listener to come over to your way of thinking. Simply pragmatic.

      Then again, may you do want your beliefs to remain exclusive, and then, in that case, go for it.

      Reply
    • LeDroit, I’m sickened so many people have thumbed up your comment. In my experience, far more feminists have been advocating for the rights of fathers (because it has EVERYTHING to do with the feminist agenda, if you actually research it), AND for peer underage sex (because to think that only a boy has sexual agency is completely insulting to both genders). Gender quotas is a whole different kettle of fish, there’s a hell of a lot of differences of opinions on that one.

      BUT: can ye lot please stop with the gender hate here? It’s completely counter-productive. AND DO YOUR RESEARCH, PEOPLE, GEEZ!

      Reply
    • ”you’re uncomfortable with the fact we live in a patriarchy and don’t want to accept that whatever small disadvantages one can encounter as a cis male in modern society ultimately reflect patriarchal ideals anyway is just refusing to accept your privilege.”

      I think everyone should be taught in school to identify this bullshit pseudoscience. -Isms that resort to obfuscating terms like cis, male privilege as if they are scientific facts should be swiftly rejected by any free thinking person.

      Reply
    • Lenbot 12/05/12 #

      Sean Walsh – do you not think that these things exist?

      If by science you mean being backed up by studies and facts, then you’re in the wrong about cis and male privilege not being “scientifically” proven. So much time and research has gone into it, you need only to do a little research yourself (or just look around you) really to see that it exists. A basic cis privilege is not being questioned about your gender identity all the time, not having rights taken away because of it and not being killed over it. For example.

      Don’t worry though, there’s plenty other privileges the rest of us have too, you’re not alone :)

      Reply
  • Okay, many of these comments have enraged me enough to leave my own. Some people here seem to think they know all about the thing without doing any research, and some in particular on here seem to love to critique feminism and dismiss it, based only on their own interpretation of it.

    Feminism is a lot of different things to a lot of different people. But in general, feminism is about EQUALITY BETWEEN THE SEXES/GENDERS. Okay? It means that both women and men are treated with the same respect, given the same rights etc. That means that feminists fight for father’s rights and men’s rights. If you do any research, you will realise pretty quickly that feminists have been some of the most vocal advocates for father’s rights – AND they’re the first to point out that media objectification of men is happening and is wrong.

    Now – I’m not saying that ALL feminists are like this – there are different types of feminism like I said and not all of it is good (in my opinion). But that’s the thing: it’s a giant global, historical movement with lots of different strands, factions and so on – you can’t expect it to all be the same. But in general, it is about equality. You can’t have equality for just one group of people. So if you’re going to give your opinion, do some research first.

    It’d be nice if we could move the conversation away from all the basic stuff and actually try to come up with ways to make feminism more inclusive – because that’s an important issue right now.

    Reply
    • One way of making Feminism more inclusive would be a gender neutral title. Genderism for instance

      Reply
    • “That means that feminists fight for father’s rights and men’s rights. If you do any research, you will realise pretty quickly that feminists have been some of the most vocal advocates for father’s rights – AND they’re the first to point out that media objectification of men is happening and is wrong.”

      Joke of the day!

      Reply
    • Look, feminism is aimed at making society more inclusive. Feminists are both women and men who understand that patriarchy hurts men as well as women. But it hurts men differently, by pushing them into a role of dominance over women. Men who prefer equality and do not wish to dominate anyone will have a huge stake in fighting patriarchy.

      Women, of course, have even more at stake, as every one of us is a target to be under domination, by such men and such institutions that continue to benefit from dominating us.

      We can’t wage that fight if we cannot highlight what we are talking about!

      Reply
    • Auntie
      There’s not much to be disagreeing with in all of this. You’re right, patriarchy hurts males as much as females. Take the most patriarchal organizations in this country – the Roman Church, some members of which were indiscriminate regarding the gender or age of those they sexually and physically abused. Yet 84% of the population declared themselves to be members of this organization in the last census! Not all men I’ll wager.
      From my own observations it seems that women, by and large, maintain a more devout and loyal following than men in defiance of that organizations stance on issues relating to women’s health and welfare – abortion for example. Likewise, the current recession and it’s effects, caused in the main by patriarchal organizations like our political and banking structures, which affects each gender equally. These patriarchal religious and political structures are equally supported by male and female and the effects of their ineptitude and hypocrisy are shared equally.
      However, if we are to successfully challenge these gender specific institutions of state and religion doing so under a gender specific banner such as feminism compounds the issue. A civil right is everyone’s right, civil inequalities affects everyone. United we stand divided we fall.

      Reply
    • John you’re right there’s little to disagree about here. Patriarchy is what we’re fighting. And the fundamental mechanism of patriarchy is that women must be under outside control and ownership. Not every man benefits from this (maybe not most men) and many are hurt, because they do not wish to be a controller or owner of another. Still, unless we can look at the nature of this patriarchy squarely, and see that it impacts DIFFERENTLY on men and on women, and that its MO is fundamentally about the control of women, we won’t be able to solve it. And that includes figuring out what drives women to prop up patriarchal structures at their own expense, as you’ve pointed out.

      Reply
    • It’s called feminism and not “Genderism”(ugly title) because women are still held at a disadvantage and while feminists will speak up for any kind of gender inequality, it’s still primarily women talking about their rights. That is not preventing men from doing the same, but most “anti-misandrists” feel the need to do nothing but put down feminists, even when they are often the ones fighting for their rights too.

      When things are truly balanced, we will have no need for “feminism”. We still have some way to go yet.

      Reply
    • If it’s about equality between the genders, the name should reflect that. The word feminism alienates so many people, and stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that for fear that you’d be aquiescing to “the menz” is just counter-productive.

      Reply
  • I’m proud to be a feminist. What does feminism mean to me, it’s the strive for gender equality and it’s a battle that both men and women can partake in. Some of the comments on here just miss the point.

    Reply
  • I am grateful to the feminist movement for all that they have done in advancing the cause thus far. I have everything to thank my foremothers for, and this I cannot forget as it affects every aspect of my life.

    As we strive toward equality, occassionaly the scales tips over to the other side, and it seems certain elements of the modern feminism movement get the ideology a bad name. Truly feminism is about the struggle for balance, to combine patriarchy with matriarchy rather than have one over the other. At present in some areas it seems as though men are being trampled on, and even though women have been throughout history – that doesn’t mean we should repeat the same mistakes.
    There’s still a long way to go, in the struggle for parental rights, the system currently predominantly sides with the mother – the ONLY consideration in legal parental matters (eg, mat/paternity leave, custody etc) should be the children and THEIR best interests, being the mother doesn’t automatically make you the best choice (with the exception of the biological differences, eg gestation, birth and feeding!). But then again, children’s rights is another area we have a long way to go on.

    I can see where the term “feminism” comes accross as unequal, but I appreciate it from the point of its original intention, the struggle for EQUALITY, that should never mean more rights for women to the exclusion of men, what on earth is equal about that?

    Reply
    • Aoife 10/05/12 #

      Shanti, great comment, but I think it’s worth pointing out that it isn’t feminists who are encouraging the system to side with the mother in family court cases. That’s the law itself, which is stuck in the past and still seems to operate with the underlying assumption that women should be the ones predominantly responsible for childcare – which, of course, is not a feminist ideal at all. To the best of my knowledge, it has always been the law in Ireland that unmarried fathers have no rights to custody over their children; it’s certainly not a law that was promulgated with feminism in mind.

      Or, in short, can men stop bringing father’s rights up in discussions about feminism? “But what about fathers?” is invariably one of the first comments on every article I’ve ever read on feminism, yet I’ve never encountered a feminist who didn’t support father’s rights.

      Reply
    • We’ll stop saying it when it stops being true

      If feminism is all about equality then I don’t see how it’s inappropriate to reference glaring inequality in discussions about feminism

      And when you say “it’s not feminism – it’s the law”; that’s just pathetic. It’s like saying the marriage ban wasn’t patriarchy, it was just the law.

      Reply
    • Aoife – I appreciate what you are saying, and as it was placed in law by a patriarchy it was initially thought to be of benefit to men, but it’s not. It’s not of benefit to either man or woman – the kids should be the only thing that matters and that brings us back to the children’s rights issue.. I reckon children deserve to have parents who look out for their best interests, be that mother or father or both (or even two of the same – so long as the child is loved and nurtured effectively that should be the primary concern).
      I would disagree though that men shouldn’t bring up these things in discussion about feminism – this seems a little divisive, and as we are struggling for a balance, to start removing weight from either side is not going to help, merely tip the scales more.

      We can all see that current parental Rights and laws do not benefit anyone and need dramatic overhaul, so I would welcome discussions about fathers rights into discussions on feminism – as it can only benefit both sides.

      Reply
    • I think I have an answer for you Aoife.
      Us men are not all that organized when it comes to family matters in relation to partnership breakup. The support groups are not there and moral support does not exist.
      I went through the family law mincer in this state and came out a physical, mental and financial wreck. I remember once phoning a men’s support group for help and advise whereupon I spoke with a person who told me he had gone through exactly the same situation as my self and understood it perfectly. His advise to me was to not expect it to get better, in fact to expect it to get a lot worse, and likened the journey to being on a runaway train with no brakes! As it turned out was perfectly right!
      So why do men bring fathers rights up in discussions about feminism? Because there are very few other forums in which to do so. In fact, when I felt a bit ‘shook about’ on that train and felt like a good moan about my situation it was mostly ‘feminists’ who would listen and care?

      Reply
    • Aoife 10/05/12 #

      “If feminism is all about equality then I don’t see how it’s inappropriate to reference glaring inequality in discussions about feminism.”
      No, but it is inappropriate to blame feminism for that inequality. It’s comments like LeDroit’s above which I’m referring to – he describes feminism as “misandry mislabelled” until it starts campaigning on issues such as fathers’ rights (despite the fact that, as per Clara’s link above, they are: http://www.irishfeministnetwork.org/1/post/2012/03/iwd-special-parental-leave-in-ireland-the-case-for-reform.html).

      “And when you say “it’s not feminism – it’s the law”; that’s just pathetic. It’s like saying the marriage ban wasn’t patriarchy, it was just the law.”
      That analogy makes absolutely no sense. Both the marriage ban and inequalities in family law are (or ‘were’ in the case of the marriage ban) the result of a patriarchal legal system. In both cases, it’s both patriarchy and the law. Here’s Ivana Bacik on the subject of paternity leave as a feminist issue on this very site: http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-we-must-introduce-paternity-leave-–-for-the-sake-of-women-too/

      How is it “pathetic” to point out that feminists are not responsible for a law they didn’t implement and don’t support?

      Reply
    • Aoife 10/05/12 #

      Fair points, John and Shanti. I’m mostly speaking out of the frustration of seeing “but what about fathers’ rights?” *always* being in the first five or so comments on feminism, usually written by someone whose trail of logic is something like: feminists support women’s rights –> that means they’re anti-men –> feminists are anti-fathers! It’s less the fact that the (very real) deficiencies in the family law system get brought up that annoys me, but instead the fact that they are often blamed on feminism. These issues need to be addressed, and I do think that the impact of feminism and the breakdown of the patriarchal structure on men is an interesting issue in itself and should be discussed, but it isn’t feminists who made those laws.

      I’m very sorry to hear about what happened to you, John. That’s a horrible situation to be faced with, and a definite reminder that the system needs to be fixed.

      [The comment above is aimed at Chuck, by the way, just in case that isn't clear.]

      Reply
    • Aoife.
      I’m not going to get into the business of referencing links and stuff like that.
      As far as the law goes in relation to men in partnership breakdown the abiding impression of my experience in court was of an authoritarian, conservative, alpha MALE judge in a big wig making sure that HE was not to be seen as not to be doing HIS level best for ”the little woman”. These guys are not properly trained to adjudicate in such circumstances and view the male protagonist as a criminal defendant.
      I spent a substantial amount of my career as an expert witness in court disputes and no amount of familiarity would have prepared me for the level of gender bias displayed in the family law courts. In fact most legal practitioners of my acquaintance will admit that female judges are often more sympathetic to their male clients than male judges. Not all is ever as it may appear.

      Reply
    • Don’t worry Aoife – it was clear you were replying to Chuck!!

      Perhaps it’s down to our closed off self centeredness – and that’s not criticising men or women, it’s just a human trait.. We will always look out for our own needs first – its about self preservation..

      It’s a little harder to try and consider all sides of the conundrum, the fight for women’s rights has highlighted the inequality in the family courts system – but as you correcty pointed out, it wasn’t caused by feminism, it always existed it just became more apparent, sure women were (are we still?) considered Chattel under the constitution!!

      Sometimes people confuse correlation with causation, in reality it’s a mess no matter what way you look at it and so long as there are those like you described who think of feminism as being anti-man we will continue to meet these unnecessary blockages.. Mis and disinformation, the plague of modern life!!

      Reply
    • Aoife it’s nonsense ot say that the justice system is a patriarchy. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is a woman. The Attorney General is a woman. It was this Chief Justice who recently upheld the constitutionality of imprisoning 15 year old boys for having sex. As pointed out earlier, the courts sentence men to longer terms in prison for committing the same crimes as women, and the biased nature of the family courts is well documented

      It’s impossible to say that ‘feminism’ does or doesn’t support this inequality. Feminism is such a nebulous concept that there are 8 or 9 definitions on this page alone. What we can say is that our society funds feminism, has more feminist organisations than can be counted and has a justice system led by women. And that system is biased against men.

      Ivana Bacik has no credibility as far as Im concerned. She is nowhere to be seen when a man is falsely accused of rape and needs help or when the courts lock up a teenage boy for having sex. Her article betrays her, she talks at legnth about how paternity leave would advantage women and makes almost no mention of justice or of the rights of children. She’s the embodiment of one-eyed feminism

      If a genuine egalitarian like Camille Pagilia or Christina Hoff Sommers wrote the article, I’d give it the benefit of the doubt. But you’ve been clearthat you wouldn’t want them making such points in a conversation about feminism….

      So, we’ll stop asking for equality when we get it. until then, you’ll just have to put up with us

      Reply
    • Hey Chuck, the system was put there in times of patriarchy, just because there’s women at the helm now doesn’t change much.
      And I agree with you – the statutory rape area is one that needs careful reconsideration. From a number of aspects. And the fact that it is a statutory charge and leaves little room for lee-way must be taken into account, as there are numerous grey areas. The system is the fault there – so lets change that and make it more balanced and equal, rather than dividing further over the means of how to get there..

      Reply
    • Shanti ‘the system’ is not a monolith. It changes with every decision and is controlled by legislators and judges, especially the supreme court. (unless you want to talk about institutional change like getting rid of juries or something)

      If you want the law to be balanced and equal, then fine. That’s exactly what im saying! Let’s have that! I just don’t think the way to go about it is to portray one half of the world as constantly being the victim and to treat male-ness as a pathology, which is what feminists do

      Reply
    • Aoife 10/05/12 #

      Chuck, the “system” is controlled by those who pass laws – the government. Not the judiciary.

      “The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is a woman. The Attorney General is a woman. It was this Chief Justice who recently upheld the constitutionality of imprisoning 15 year old boys for having sex.”
      Yes, but it wasn’t the Chief Justice or the Attorney General who wrote the constitution. That was that prominent feminist Éamon DeValera. The Chief Justice can only interpret the law as it’s written, and it’s not her fault that it’s written unfairly – that’s the responsibility of the government (which is predominantly male, I might add). A judge’s job is to evaluate legality, not fairness. Do you think judges should ignore the law?

      “Feminism” is indeed a broad spectrum, but you’re confusing correlation with causation in your comments on the number of feminist organisations in existence and the injustice in the family law system. It doesn’t matter how many feminist organisations there are unless you can find any who are opposed to fathers’ rights to support your argument. As for Ivana Bacik, I actually agree that more emphasis on the benefits for paternity leave for men would be welcome, but she’s still clearly in favour of equal parental rights.

      I should probably clarify my comments on fathers’ rights above. I dislike it when people blame feminism for the lack of justice in the family law system. The family law system is an antiquated structure which assumes that women are the ones who take care of children and therefore should have custody. This is wrong, but it’s nothing to do with feminism; indeed it’s a result of a patriarchal assumption as to the roles of men and women. It is thus frustrating when feminism is blamed for something it’s not responsible for. John’s example above (and again, I can’t emphasis enough what a horrible situation that is) makes clear that feminist ideology is not the reason for the injustices of the system.

      On the other hand, I absolutely support fathers like John who bring up the rights of fathers without being antagonistic towards women or feminism, as I do believe that the family law system should be restructured. I probably should have made that distinction more clearly.

      Reply
    • Chuck, as you have heard from several of the self confessed “feminist” contributors to this discussion, we do wish for equality.
      It’s actually a minority who wish to push the scales and tip us over to matriarchy instead, this would be as disastrous as patriarchy, and for that reason I oppose it. But I’d still consider myself feminist in the sense that in recent history women had to fight to win the rights that I have in my life now, in the same way black people had to fight apartheid and slavery, and gay people fight to be allowed to express their love like anyone else.. Equality is what we need, we need to stop seeing people as groups to be tarred with a brush. People are people, regardless of what body they were born with, that’s all there is to it.

      Reply
    • Aoife the government of the UK has superiority over the courts but that’s not the case here. Justice Denham was well within her rights to strike down the law as unconstitutional and chose not to. She said that the threat of pregnancy is enough to circumvent equality, she didn’t explain why. Also the act specifically includes buggery. So, in the name or preventing pregnancy, two 16 year old gay boys can go to jail? She was well within her rights to strike that down

      As for laws being made by the government. They certainly don’t draft the laws, and the people who do are definitely influenced by tax-payer funded feminist groups. That’s how that stupid law came into existence

      I wasn’t confusing correlation with causation. Im saying that the notion that we live in a patriarchy isn’t true. Feminism has had a huge effect on society and (my central problem with feminism again) it’s a very one-eyed philosophy in which women can only ever be victims.

      This is subjective, but i really feel it’s true and I can’t say it better than Bill Maher http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x64cy3Bcr98 . We live in a feminised society. Tangent warning! On the issue of women in government, our last government had women in charge of 75% of the budget. Feminist lobby groups get far more press than men’s groups – hence this article

      But if you’re saying that you don’t have a problem with people commenting on father’s/men’s rights in discussions about feminism then really anything I have to disagree with you on is entirely subjective. It was just the assertion that I thought you were making – that feminism is about equality, so stop talking about men – that I took issue with

      Reply
    • Aoife 10/05/12 #

      Chuck, you’re misunderstanding. The government passes laws (unless they are contrary to the constitution; in that case they’ll be struck down). The judiciary interprets the law. The Chief Justice can only strike down a law as unconstitutional if it is actually against the constitution. However, it is entirely possible for something to be both constitutional and unfair. The Chief Justice only evaluates a law on its constitutionality and, if it is constitutional, she can’t decide to strike it even if it is unfair. That can only be decided by a referendum.

      So, no, it’s not the case that “Justice Denham was well within her rights to strike down the law as unconstitutional and chose not to”. The law wasn’t unconstitutional. It is unfair, but that’s different.

      We absolutely live in a patriarchy, albeit less of one than the country used to be. Why else do you think that people assume that women are primarily responsible for child rearing? Or men are seen as the primary economic providers?

      Reply
    • Chuck’s arguments about the legal system seem to fall down to one point, there’s women in the higher echelons, therefore it can’t be biased. Black people work for the London Metropolitan Police, an organisation deemed institutionally racist about 10 years ago. That argument is ridiculous. Any women who climb to the top of the chain in politics, business, the legal system, etc, are playing the game of patriarchy. Individuals can’t change anything, we need societal change. A revolution perhaps ;) But that’s just the socialist in me speaking.

      Reply
    • I’m really, really not misunderstanding, Aoife. I’ve studied that judgement in detail and written about it. There was plenty of leeway for striking down that law. The government does NOT draft laws. They have civil servants to do that for them and they vote to pass laws.

      If we live in a patriarchy, why do people assume that when girls get better leaving certs they are “outperforming” boys but when young men earn more than women there is a “glass ceiling”? Why do we allow tshirts that say “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them” but get upset with TopShop for their tshirts? Why do we laugh at men who are raped in the movies, but never, ever at women? I’ve outlines many biases against men below, why do they exist?

      And as I said before, 75% of thebudget of our last govt was controlled by women

      Reply
    • By the way Aoife, sorry if my earlier post was confused – i was on my way out the door and wanted to say a lot but in a concise way!

      No martin, you obviously werent paying attention. My main point about the legal system was that it IS biased against men. Not that it can’t be. That’s the opposite of what I said.

      Then i pointed out in addition that it was led by women. Aoife said I was confusing correlation with causation and it went from there. Take better notes next time

      Paul, I don’t understand the point of your blog! (if it really is yours)

      Reply
    • Er, okay… I think that’s perhaps a little more information than I ever needed.. If that’s Paul’s blog then I kinda feel like I just walked in on him.. I guess some people like that.. Can’t say I’m one of them..

      Reply
    • Aoife 11/05/12 #

      OK, I’m going to make one last comment on this thread because I’m masochistic like that. Then I’m going to stop.

      “I’m really, really not misunderstanding, Aoife. I’ve studied that judgement in detail and written about it. There was plenty of leeway for striking down that law. The government does NOT draft laws. They have civil servants to do that for them and they vote to pass laws.”
      I know. I have twice said that the government *passes* laws. I have never said that the government *drafts* them. I am entirely aware that Enda Kenny isn’t personally writing each law the government passes, but the government still decides which laws are to be drafted and then votes them into law. They’re the ones who are ultimately responsible for the laws passed, not civil servants.

      You’ve studied that judgement in detail? Are your qualifications comparable to those of the Chief Justice? I’m sorry, but I’m not taking your word that there was plenty of leeway in place to strike it down above hers. I’m fairly sure that a lawyer would be linguistically precise enough not to confuse *pass* and *draft*, for one thing.

      As for the rest of it, I’m not entirely sure that sexist t-shirts are comparable to the well documented evidence of sexism towards women. I also don’t laugh at men being raped. Although, strangely, I’ve very rarely seen depictions of men being raped in the movies or t.v., because about 95% of rape victims on screen seem to be young, beautiful women. I wonder why that is?

      Reply
  • Sure women are equal since they got the vote. Just like when racism ended with the cessation of hostilities in the 1860s after the US Civil War. Oh, hold on a sec…

    Reply
  • Gender quotas are a red herring and are, by definition, unjust and discriminatory. “Sorry mate, can’t give you the job, we already have enough men”. The right person for the right job, regardless of their sex, ethnic background, etc. should be the way. Also, equality is enshrined in law, thus making discrimination on the basis of many factors, illegal. Any woman who is discriminated against should fight it tooth and nail, but shouldn’t need to have the label ‘feminist’ put on her for it.

    Reply
    • What’s wrong with being a feminist?

      Reply
    • Unfortunately the right person for the right job has not always been the man who gets it. Prior to the mid 1970s a whole swathe of working women were lost to this country because of the marriage bar that prevented them from continuing in state sector jobs. This not only deprived institutions liked the central bank of talented women but deprived women starting their careers of role models and mentors and helped to propagate patriarchal working environments. In the private sector, at senior levels, much of the networking and social interaction that takes place is at sporting events (such as golf) where women and men don’t participate as equals. Hard to feel comfortable walking into a club that doesn’t allow female members. If a decision on a job or promotion comes down to 2 equally qualified candidates candidates and one has played golf or 5 a side with the boss and socialised with him afterwards then he’s in a better position to get the job. The deck has been stacked against women, some positive discrimination may be necessary to rebalance it.

      Reply
    • Scarr 10/05/12 #

      @sheila – positive discrimination is still discrimination. What if we had positive discrimination for people of colour and you or your child lost out on a job or college position based on the fact that they weren’t the right colour? Be that white / black, just to fill a quota? Genuine question.

      Reply
    • Charlie “What’s wrong with being a feminist?” The same thing thata wrong with looking for Mens rights or Gay rights or Disabled rights or unemployed rights or low paid workers rights etc etc. It is divisive. It has spiecial intrest groups all fighting their own corner instead of fighting for human rights across the board. We allow ourselves to be played off against each other while flageant inequality runs rampant, and each group can blame the other for it as we sit in our little whinge groups and complain we need more women/disabled/ethnic minorities in politics. Well get off your ass get involved in your comunitty and run for the council or the dail.

      Reply
    • Francis Devaney. You are correct in one way. There is only one set of rights. Human rights. HOWEVER, when certain groups are systematically denied their human rights BY VIRTUE of their gender or sexuality, etc, it becomes necessary to fight for the human rights being denied in a partitionist way.

      Feminism’s fight for “women’s rights” is short hand for women’s fight for the human rights denied them because they are women.

      And the resistance to this idea comes from people who derive privileges and benefits (largely CONTROL) from the denial of women’s rights.

      Such people like to argue that a denial of their PRIVILEGE and power of CONTROL, is tantamount to a denial of their human rights, and sometimes they do manage to confuse people. (See for example the current argument in the US, claiming that losing the PRIVILEGE of controlling women’s health care options is tantamount to an attack on religious freedom.)

      Reply
    • Francis you are quite clueless on this. The problem is when people who have never had to fight for their rights tell people who in some cases have been doing so for many years and even achieved some real victories how they should be doing it.

      The idea that “gay rights is divisive” is an extremely abusive and privileged mentality. The reason why we need feminism, gay rights and not just “egalitarian” is because different groups need to speak up about THEIR experience. And they’re not obligated to fight for everyone else, since they can’t speak form experience about it.

      Ultimately all you are doing is fighting to silence the voice of marginalised people for “general niceness”, a concept we’ve had for hundreds of years and hasn’t worked.

      Reply
    • Leigh Firstly you know nothing about me and what I have or have not had to fight for. You know nothing about my Sexuality, my Wellbeing or my religious belifes so the first part of your statement is meaningless. Secondly How can you be for equality and not egalitarinism they mean the same thing. Yes you are right “different groups need to speak up about THEIR experience. but should we not ALL have that right? In fact do we not all have that right? where you are wrong, is that we are not obligated to fight for eachothers rights we will never have a truely just and equal world untill we are all prepared to do just that, even for those we disagree with.

      Reply
    • Lenbot 12/05/12 #

      Francis, you’re right: we should all be defending each other’s human rights. And I hear what you’re saying: sometimes groups get a little caught up in the “who’s got it worse” war. Some actively trample on other people while going about getting their rights.

      I’m not going to say feminism is immune to this either. It has happened with certain sections of feminists (like some radical feminists being extremely transphobic for example). That IS a problem.

      Your comment just comes across very preachy and dismissive. The whole “get off your arse and do something” is insulting to the many people who work hard and fight for justice every day.

      Reply
  • I agree with this article, and do find it interesting that it somehow needs to be ‘framed’ relative to make rights- equality isn’t a single issue, so why should paternal rights be linked to female political representation (for example)…?

    Reply
  • Hi Diarmaid,
    Actually feminism isn’t just for women, and our members are also men. So if you’d like to become involved, feel free to join our ranks and advocate for equality for all.

    Reply
    • I was not speaking about the actual feminist groups, but more about organisations promoting for women only led by feminists. I would agree with previous posters that certainly we all want equality, well I do anyways, however, certain feminists are not interested in equality at all. But I suppose who am I to pass judgement, being a man etc?

      Reply
    • Not that it bothers me or anything, but I don’t remember any feminists complaining about an article that was written on this site recently about certain parts of Michael Fassbender? I am certain if it was written in reverse these supposed equality seekers would have been out in force, so feminism is actually not about equality. That’s ok like, it just needs to be labelled for what it actually is!

      Reply
    • What are these women only clubs led by feminists? If they’re everywhere, where are they? The groups I noted in the article, Irish Feminist Network, Cork Feminista, Open Feminist Forum, and others, all welcome men and include men. And like I said, you’re more than welcome to join us and become involved.

      Reply
    • Women mean business, women on air, there are women only gyms all over the country.

      Reply
    • No need to be so defensive, it really doesn’t bother me about those groups or feminists in general. I too want an equal society, but some feminists are mid labelling their cause quite clearly!

      Reply
    • Strange to be interpreted as defensive when I’ve invited you to join us twice, that you are welcome, and will say so a third time. There is a historical marginalisation of women in those areas, the media and business, hence organisations to redress that. However, I’m sure those organisations would also welcome men’s input, including yours, so why not get in touch with them and help advocate for equality?

      Reply
    • Clara, are you seriously saying that you, the Co-Ordinator of the Irish Feminist Network, don’t know of any women only clubs?

      Have you never heard of the Irish Women’s Lawyers Association? They dedicate themselves to “Providing a professional and social network for women lawyers”. You actually don’t need to be a lawyer to join – only a woman, but isn’t “providing a professional and social network” exactly what Portmarnock GC were accused of doing? And yet the Irish Women’s Lawyers Association feel free to castigate them!

      Reply
    • Clara I am not trying to insult you or any women or anything and I hope I have not offended. I just believe there is alot of selective equality by some feminists. I don’t hear anybody complaining about womens only insurance companies. That is prejudice against me, a young male driver who has to pay ridiculous car insurance. I have to reiterate, I too want an equal society, what I don’t like is people claiming they want equality and using this motive to push for inequality. You clearly do not fall into that category, however, many feminists do I am afraid!

      Reply
    • If there was a movement called masculism, that campaigned for rights for men, and occasionally seemed like they were blaming women for the state of the world (whether they actually were or not) and refused to discuss the fact that many of their perceived problems affect women too, while at the same time claiming to be campaigning for women’s rights too and equality, I probably wouldn’t join them. I’d feel like they didn’t really care about my issues or opinions, and I would want to join a group that campaigns for equal rights for everyone, and where everyone’s voices are equally important. I just can’t take a movement for equality seriously that has such a partisan agenda. It’s oxymoronic.

      Reply
  • Sharrow 10/05/12 #

    Feminism isn’t just about equal rights, it is about encouraging and empowering women to exercise those rights were they have them. It is also about accepting that women do get treated differently due to being women and you have to acknowledge there are problems before you can look at solving them.

    Reply
  • Hi all, thanks for your comments. Just a reminder that personal abuse of other commentors or authors is expressly forbidden by our comments policy.

    I’ve had to delete a few comments from this thread so please have a read: http://www.thejournal.ie/comments-policy/. Thanks!

    Reply
  • OH NO! Chuck is right!! There is NEVER anything published about labiaplasty, and how many women are getting cosmetic surgery on their vaginas for fear that there’s does not look like the “ideal” portrayed in porn. And I wonder how much the male bikini line waxxing industry makes – what with all those magazines and newspapers (not top shelf) showing bald lady gardens. And TV shows, and movie posters, and ads in the middle of the afternoon for girls of every age to see….
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/oct/14/designer-vagina-surgery

    Reply
    • Don’t forget the vajazzles!!

      Reply
    • So Bebhinn, you comment on one article about how women can do what they want with their own bodies, and now you are upset because you don’t like the decisions they make?

      To use your own argument, if you don’t want one – don’t get one

      I wonder how many women are killing themselves with steroids in a bid to achieve the perfect body…….?

      Reply
    • No I didnt get in the least bit stalky, I just asked a question and you refused to answer. How is it stalky to comment in a comments section? Do you know what stalking is? Researching me to see what my “real” facebook picture is is a lot more stalky

      I don’t see the disconnect here – if it’s your body then it’s your choice to have cosmetic surgery. Don’t like it? Don’t get it.

      Reply
    • Next up: Somebody gives Chuck the magical gift of understanding what ‘cultural context’ means when we discuss societal pressures on women to conform.

      Also featured: Chuck embarrassingly realises what ‘choice’ means, and the fact that freely choosing something and choosing something because of pressure or duress are not the same! (Hopefully Chuck doesn’t discover this when somebody has a gun to his head and gives him the ‘choice’ to give up all his money or be shot!)

      Reply
    • So Sarah, I suppose there’s no cultural pressures on men then?

      And when you imply that women are somehow compelled to get labiaplasty by cultrual forces you infantalise women and make them seem weak

      Reply
  • Excellent article. Some of the comments display a real misunderstanding of feminism, which is sad to see. To me, feminism is about achieving equality for both women and men and the term itself is an acknowledgment of the fact that women have historically been discriminated against in terms of voting rights, political representation, the rights to work and to equal pay, and so on. The reality is that the current status quo isn’t good for either gender – to take just a couple of examples: women remain under-represented in politics and therefore at the decision-making table, they also carry out the majority of care work be it for children, the elderly or the sick. At the same time, we are seeing terrifying suicide rates, with men four times more likely than women to die by suicide (and a serious problem amongst young men in particular), and men have borne the brunt of unemployment with 60% of jobs in the construction sector alone having disappeared since the onset of the recession. Campaigning for parental leave reform, proper childcare and equal political representation is not about screwing men over – it is about improving society for the better, for everyone.

    Reply
  • Sharrow 10/05/12 #

    Yes there should be statutory paternity leave be for the last general election I contacted all the political parties and only Sinn Fein have a policy on it. If fathers and fathers to be want paternity leave then they need to start making their voices heard and demand it, I will be more then happy to assist and work with them but they have to step to the plate and lobby for it. Twice I have tried to help get an action group formed on this issue and both times they failed due to lack of interest and engagement from men.

    Reply
  • At the end of the day men and women are symbiotic, neither one can live without the other for humanity to survive. I see fathers who make great house parents and mothers too. Both my brothers are house parents due to the economy. They are fantastic fathers, as are some of the fathers I know that work. I have been a stay at home mother and a working mother. I am divorced now and my kids are pre-teens, but I believe my children need their father as much as their mother. I would love their father to be more involved and I encourage it as much as possible. I try to raise my son and daughter to believe their future is not subject to their gender. But I find this difficult when people (usually men, but not always) tell them that a woman’s place is in the house, women shouldn’t be soldiers, boys don’t cry, boys should leave the babies with the mothers, men are not natural nurturers. Men and women working together in all areas of life will lead to more balanced outcomes and attitudes. It’s up to us parents to encourage this attitude from a young age, except nothing else. That goes for racism too. We may not have the same beliefs, there are criminals and bad people in every race or ethnic background. If people were to follow one rule, “treat others as you would expect to treated yourself” (exception to that rule is if your a Masicist. Lol) There is after all only one Race, The Human Race. We should have no need for feminism….but unfortunately this world is unequal on many fronts.

    Reply
    • Nicely put.
      My uncle gave up his job to stay at home and raise my cousin because my aunt had better prospects in her job, that was back in the 80s and he was treated like some sort of crazy person, but I have always respected him for making that choice.
      We condition kids into these roles that reinforce the whole idea that differences are a bad thing. Guys can be feminine, girls can be masculine – like yin and yang – there is an element of masculinity in every female and a feminine element in every male, we seek to create a divide rather than recognising our similarities.. And to think we call ourselves an intelligent race..

      Reply
  • There’s a huge line of one red thumbs down this page. Paul, get out and get some fresh air mate will ya ;)

    Reply
  • We live in a largely patriarchal society, so what’s wrong with feminism?

    Reply
  • Did you hear about the man-slaying robots being produced in the feminazi’s factory? They extract his sperm, castrate him, and then bring him to the feminazi work camp. Tis shockin’ stuff altogether… I’m cacking myself.

    Reply
  • So, I have a better idea. Lets talk seriously about father’s rights (ie short hand for the human rights denied to a group of people by virtue of their being fathers).

    Lets consider the ways in which boys are socialised into roles that alienate them from their natural nurturing abilities. Boys need dolls to practice on, and people should stop trying to prevent boys from learning these essential fathering skills. No one should shame a boy for playing at being a father and rocking, cuddling, feeding and changing his doll child. Boys should also not be shamed for crying or emotional expression – they will need lots of empathy when caring for their children and this is a great place to start.

    Boys need better training in school in issues that will further nurture their fathering skills. Cooking, budgeting, first aid and general healthcare should be priorities in the education of boys who will grow up to be equal co-parents in an equal society.

    Equal pay and family-friendly workplaces will hugely benefit men who wish to be proper fathers, as it will remove all financial constraint from the considerations of any individual couple as to who will be the main carer and who will be the main earner. Such couples can give proper consideration to their true inclinations rather than the expectations of others. Equal parental leave should be a given.

    Law courts should, of course, be gender blind when considering how to best promote the child’s interests when marriages break down, but in an equal society either parent may turn out to be the best carer and either may turn out to be the best financial supporter, regardless of gender.

    Let’s, seriously, make it so. Let’s get on the same page – equality!

    Reply
  • BOO WON’T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE MEN WE HAVE NO IDEA OF THE MARGINALISATION THEY FACE AS A GROUP WAAAAAAA

    Reply
    • How DARE you belittle their plight? Such a man hater. Next you’ll be hijacking the article with comments that are completely beside the point and only really relative to one particular man in your private life who has wronged you….

      Reply
    • Privilege? What’s what? Don’t be silly, ladies, patriarchy don’t real…. and even if it did, we all know who that *real* victims are: Men.

      Reply
    • Patriarchy don’t real? Wow….

      Look it’s nice that you two are having a sarcastic little chat and thumbs-upping each other. But it seems that your female privilege is preventing you from seeing the verifiable, real-life examples being cited and referenced further up the board.

      In the grown up world, you make points wiht facts rather than reciprocal agreements to back up each other’s unfunny jokes.

      Reply
    • umadbro?

      Reply
    • Wiht facts?

      Answer me this chuck: What steps do you take on the average night out so you aren’t sexually assaulted/raped? Is the answer “nothing”?

      Ladies, same question? Is the answer something along the lines of “don’t go anywhere after dark alone, try to get taxis where ever possible, avoid large groups of drunk men?”

      This is an example of what we mean when we talk about privilege. You’re doing a great job as an example of what its like to be blind to that.

      Your jimmies seem to be getting seriously rustled by two people making a joke on the super serious thread about how your rights are so poorly represented in this country compared to the wimmins!

      Reply
    • Jimmies status

      Not rustled [ ]
      Rustled [ ]
      Ridiculously rustled [x]

      Reply
    • Graham, why ask a question if you are going to answer it yourself?

      As a man, especially a black one, I am more likely than either of these two geniuses to be assaulted on a night out and I take precautions accordingly. Despite this, I have been assaulted several times, often in broad daylight

      Most men I know could tell similar tales. I’ve had several friends walk down a dark street and wake up days later in hospital. That’s why every few weeks we have deaths like that of Brian Murphy, Brian Mulvaney and more recently Andrew Dolan & Lukasz Rzeszutko (I suspect the journal would prefer if sub-judice cases weren’t talked about)

      Anything is fair game for a joke, but I wouldn’t be downright flippant about being either raped OR kicked to death

      Reply
    • Rustled jimmies thinks there are more lads hopped on on a night out than there are girls sexually assaulted. Maybe rustled jimmies is asking for it. It’s probably how he dresses. Or maybe he had a drink ,so sure what did he expect?

      Reply
    • As a white woman, Chuck is having a laugh. Black people don’t face discrimination in our country, and even if they do I often feel discriminated against when I’m in a predominantly black area…. why can’t we spend all our time discussing that?? Again, as a white person, I’m well versed in the marginalisation of a group I’m not a part of.

      Reply
    • But Sarah, Im not on here expounding on the philosophy of Jesse Jackson or the Black Panthers. If you want to talk about stuff that only affects whites – like the shocking treatment they are getting in Zimbabwe – then Im all for it. If you want to say white-guilt is a load of crap then go ahead

      I wont resort to some childish whinge if you do

      Reply
    • These two geniuses are making far, far better points than you are. They’re a lot funnier too. And notice how I said “sexual assault/rape” not “assault”. These things are not the same. I’ll ask you again, what steps do take to stop yourself being raped on a night out?

      As a white man there is no way for me to truly understand the marginalization and discrimination you face as a black man. Conversely, there’s no way for you or I to truly understand the marginalization that women face in our society. The parallels you are trying to draw in your other comments (you seriously think someone calling your knob a trouser snake has the same pejorative connotation as “Beef curtains”? Or is used with the same dismissive tone of contempt? Seriously?) are weak because the things you are talking about do not happen to anywhere near the same extremes as they do to girls.

      I’m a software engineer. Do you know how many times someone has made comments about my weight, appearance or mathematical ability because of my gender? Zero. Can I say the same for my female colleagues? Nope. This is privilege.

      Reply
    • Sorry that last point should have been “attractiveness” not “appearance”.

      Reply
    • Loving how Chuck just stops commenting on threads he know’s he’s lost. WE LOVE YOU, CHUCK!

      Reply
    • Chuck, I do not mean to belittle the fact that you have been the victim of an assault, but may I ask you, when you reported it – did what you were wearing at the time come into the discussion?

      I mean, did any one suggest that you were dressed in a manner designed to attract attacks? Because if a woman were to be sexually assaulted by a stranger at night, it’s usually asked of her.. As though the percentage of skin that was visible was somehow an excuse for her attacker.
      That would be an example of objectification, because if she had a certain amount of cleavage on show, or a short enough skirt, she’s obviously no more than a receptacle for anyone she may turn on..

      Reply
    • I’d like to thank all the feminists and gender “egalitarians” who have sarcasically belittled men’s issues in this thread. You’re all providing wonderful examples to prospective readers of the sexism inherant in almost every feminist group I’ve had contact with.

      http://www.derailingfordummies.com/

      Try applying that list to yourself, you may not be happy with what you find.

      Reply
  • OMG, the article was about feminism, ironic that the board gets hijacked to discuss male problems

    Reply
    • Pani 10/05/12 #

      Feminism is addressing gender inequality by only addressing the issues with one gender. This is probably why they don’t get as much credence as they should. If they addressed all gender inequality issues then you’d see a lot more support.

      Reply
    • Well, there you have it. Men’s issues can’t be discussed under the umbrella of feminism.

      “Feminism is on the up again – but it needs to be for everyone”………everyone with the good manners to be born female

      Reply
  • Feminism is the pursuit of equality between genders by focussing solely on one of them….Epic Fail.

    Reply
    • Gavin, feminism is about dismantling the patriarchy, which has effects on us all, male and female. Attempting to co-opt the feminist movement into some “egalitarian” ideal because you’re uncomfortable with the fact we live in a patriarchy and don’t want to accept that whatever small disadvantages one can encounter as a cis male in modern society ultimately reflect patriarchal ideals anyway is just refusing to accept your privilege.

      Reply
    • What do you mean by patriarchy ??

      Reply
  • All hail how outstanding Fassbenders penis is!! Next page, look how fat and unattractive all these females are getting!!!! I mean, it is the same thing really. iT’S, LIKE, SOOOOOOOOOOOO UNFAIR!!

    Reply
    • “ook how fat and unattractive all these females are getting!!!! ”

      I must’ve missed that article. Surprised the Journal published it………which, of course, they didn’t. Why not whinge about real-life things?

      Reply
    • Yeah……that’s still not an example though is it? If these things were so prevalent you’d be able to prove them. Scroll up and you’ll see how I backed up my statements with facts. You should try to do the same

      Reply
    • You need to find articles on *thejournal* specifically to back up your point, Beibhinn…. didn’t you listen to what Chuck is saying at all? THE JOURNAL posted an article about Michael Fassbender’s penis….unless you can find an article objectifying women specifically here on thejournal, you are wrong and he is right.

      COME AND SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM. HELP HELP I’M BEING REPRESSED.

      Reply
    • Poor Michael Fassbender getting compliments on his big penis. What has the world come to when we treat men in such a callous and cruel fashion, as if they are no more than pieces of meat or property?

      Reply
    • What never gets discussed those is if Fassbender was a shower or a grower. If he’s a grower we should all bow before his enormous knob. Replace the patriarchy with the cult of Fassbender’s knob, woop! I’m just jeleaous though really :(

      Reply
  • This is an excellent article written by a man and may appease those who are bothering replying to some of the nonsensical and irritating comments on here.
    http://www.cracked.com/article_19785_5-ways-modern-men-are-trained-to-hate-women.html

    Reply
  • Why do men feel so threatened by feminism? Scared to share their privileges?

    Reply
    • The privilege of absorbing the overwhelming majority of assaults, murders, workplace fatalities, homelessness, unemployment, suicide and discriminiation by the civil and criminal courts? I suspect feminists dont want equality in any of those

      Reply
    • I’ll trade you for most of the seats of the Dail and a large amount of protection from sexual violence, the freedom from the expectation that most of the childcare will fall on me and to not feel scared when a man walks behind me on an abandoned road at night. Deal?

      Reply
    • Because men have nothing to fear from being followed on an abandoned road?

      Regarding children, there are lots of fathers down the courts every day fighting a losing battle against a corrupt system for what you consider a burden. They’d be happy to trade their positin for yours

      Reply
    • yeah, chuck, sure they would…

      Reply
  • Thanks for the reminder of why feminism is still a draw.

    Turns out these two enduring truths have not changed:

    1) It’s always and ever and always about the men. Male reality is the real reality, male concerns are the only important concern.

    2) To be a “real” woman is to lose, submit, give up, give way … because 1).

    Reply
  • Men must feel so equally objectified since there was a little bit of talk about Michael Fassbenders penis. Because he’s in a movie, specifically about his penis. I’m just waiting for the d anorexia nervosa related deaths because of the few Michael Fassbender magizine covers.

    Reply
    • It’s literally *exactly the same*. Don’t you like to look at attractive celebrities? Bam, objectification. Take that, feminism.

      Isn’t everybody pretty much equal by now anyway? You feminists are just looking for things to be upset over. I, as a white straight middle class male, know exactly about all the issues you face. It isn’t that I’m blinded by my privilege, it’s that privilege doesn’t exist and is just a buzzword feminists like to use to make their cause look like anything other than pure misandry in an attempt to institute a matriarchy where every man ever pays child support even for children that aren’t his own while being denied custody, and women rule on gold thrones summoning men on command to service their slutty sexual desires.

      Reply
    • When we see a serious article published on the journal that centres on the tightness of an actresses vagina, then you’ll have a point

      (for anyone wondering what’s being referred to here; http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-i-couldn’t-stop-thinking-about-what-was-in-michael-fassbender’s-pants/ )

      Reply
    • NOOO people are saying bad things about men’s body parts, this is awful! We’re just lucky no other group is subjected to that EVERY DAY CONSTANTLY, amirite? We’re lucky that no group has been taught to hate their bodies so much that cosmetic surgery to alter their genitals has risen in rates exponentially in the past few years, or that there isn’t a group who has their private parts regularly compared to ‘meat curtains’ or a ‘bulldog eating mayonnaise’.

      Luckily none of that is an issue, so we can focus on what’s really important: Men and the awful awful objectification they face.

      Reply
    • “or that there isn’t a group who has their private parts regularly compared to ‘meat curtains’ or a ‘bulldog eating mayonnaise’.”

      Or a bologne pony, or a gut-stick, or a trouser snake, or a one-eyed monster, or the bald man, or a bratwurst, or a boastful plum, or a wanghorn…..

      If you think men arent subjected to unrealistic body images then open your eyes next time you pass a stand full of Men’s Health magazines, Alpen ads or diet coke ads or for that matter Dunnes Stores underwear

      Everything that you are whinging about happens to men. Why not just treat it equally? Does it hurt you that much or is victimhood a part of your privilege?

      You either want equality or you don’t

      Reply
    • As I’ve already said, gender equality is not a bad thing. Attempting to co-opt the feminist movement into some “egalitarian” ideal because you’re uncomfortable with the fact we live in a patriarchy and don’t want to accept that whatever small disadvantages one can encounter as a cis male in modern society ultimately reflect patriarchal ideals anyway is just refusing to accept your privilege.

      It’d be like me asking the NAACP what they are going to do with the small ways that racist culture impacts on white people.

      Reply
    • …. which, by the way, they totally *should*. I’m sick of the white race being subjugated, and ‘civil rights’ is clearly a poorly veiled attempt to overthrow caucasians. They don’t care about equality at all!

      Reply
    • Well I have no time for the NAACP (Jackie Robinson ran out of patience too) precisely because they seem to spend too much time blaming whites for everything.

      (I qualify that by saying I dont live in America)

      I don’t see anyone trying to co-opt feminism into campaigning for men’s rights, I see people criticising it for painting an inaccurate picture of the word.

      Reply
    • Can you *read*? I never said anybody was hijacking it for ‘mens rights’. I said it is being hijacked into some ‘egalitarian’ ideal as if everybody is oppressed the same, ignoring thousands of years where women were property, and completely ignoring the privileged position men are in. Also ignoring that the few disadvantages men can experience in our society are a result of patriarchal values anyway.

      (though psst, can you keep a secret? It’s not about that at all. Its really about WOMEN RULING FOREVER YAAAAY)

      Reply
    • In fairness though, twas an epic penis.

      Reply
    • Lad gets sizeable lad out: hero. Girl gets vagina out: gross, slut, disgusting, isn’t she too old, isn’t it too hairy, etc, etc,.

      Reply
    • I’d say you’d have no problem finding a glut of men to fill up a cup with some sperm for ya. But if you asked you’d be a slut or something. Probably.

      Reply
    • All Sarah’s posts being deleted makes me look like a) mad for fassbender’s cock and b) obsessed with people sperming in cups. Excellent

      Reply
    • Unless I’ve been shadowbanned (is that even a thing on thejournal, I wonder?) I’m not seeing what comments of mine are missing, unless I’m forgetting some of them. I’ve ensured I didn’t personally abuse anybody, so if they were deleted then it would simply go to show that thejournal are (PERSONAL INSULT>>>REDACTED)

      Reply
  • Damn right. Hoped I’d get in before the manboys came on board to make cheap misogynistic jibes, but too late.

    Reply
  • Firstly, where is the evidence that “the intensification of people’s engagement with the feminist is being attributed, to a large extent, to young … men”? I have no doubt that young men support equality, but feminism is not a synonym for equality it is organised activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests.

    Secondly, what exactly are the “inequalities that still pervade our so-called liberal democratic societies” which are specifically attributable to the non-proliferation of feminism, and how do you maintain that feminism, as distinct from the promotion of greater equality, would cure them?

    Thirdly, a number of prominent feminist groups are funded directly and indirectly by the taxpayer. Is it not an affront to democracy and equality that one gender receives State-sanctioned preferential treatment and access to government? Consider the converse, a lobby group dedicated exclusively to the promotion of male interests which informs national legislation and is partially funded by the women of Ireland through income tax.

    Fourthly, the debate concerning the lack of women in politics is misleading. The barriers to entry for election to the Houses of the Oireachtas are the same for men and women. The fact that women do not put themselves forward for election is a lifestyle choice, not evidence of gender discrimination. The long hours associated with political life is not conducive to family life. The media needs to stop selling the “Sex and the City” message to young women that you can have it all: a high powered career and a family. You can’t! If a successful career woman wishes to start a family, her career must, as a biological fact, take a back seat for at least several months during pregnancy and, depending on her individual family and economic circumstances, perhaps several years. The law recognises this fact through the tender years doctrine which provides, all things being equal, that the mother should have custody of an infant rather the father. There is no empirical evidence that Ireland’s recession could have been avoided if we had more female politicians and it is sexist to so suggest. Clearly, we needed, and still need, a better calibre of politician, but that is a societal issue not a gender one. Gender quotas are just wrong. Irish people want to, and will, vote for the best candidate and it is an anathema to the essence of democracy that we could be forced to elect a candidate solely because she is a woman.

    Fifthly, the objectification of women is a conundrum. It is a biological fact that heterosexual male sexuality is influenced to a far greater extent by visual stimulus than heterosexual female sexuality. Consequently, there is, and always will be, a demand among men for pornographic and quasi-pornographic materials. Attractive women have exploited male weakness in this regard since time immemorial to their own end. Does a woman who makes an informed and voluntary decision to, for example, work in the adult entertainment industry not have the same right to make that career choice than a woman who decides to work as a university lecturer; or is feminism also a didactic movement seeking the homogenisation of women?

    Sixthly, what is intended by the reference to the “denial of reproductive rights”? I can only assume it is an allusion to the recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Evans v UK where the Court held, quite rationally, that the woman’s Conventional right to family life, in the context of a frozen embryo, did not override the man’s withdrawal of consent to be a father. Consider the alternative, a woman forced to carry a foetus to term against her will just because the man wants to be a father.

    Seventhly, please furnish examples of the “political decision-making that disempowers women … in particular” to which you refer. Even if such examples exists, which is unclear, they would have been made by, or on behalf of, public representatives who are democratically elected by the men and women of Ireland.

    Finally, as outlined above, feminism is not synonymous with gender equality. They are two incongruent concepts. The former champions the interests of women over the interests of men. The latter seeks to equalise such competing interests. While greater gender equality is desirable in a modern society, the obvious differences in gender should not be overlooked. Men and women are not the same. For example, the average woman is not as strong as the average man so that where a female construction worker actually performs less work than her male counterpart she should not, as a matter of principle, be paid the same wage for doing less.

    Arising from our membership of the European Union, women’s rights are, quite properly, protected by Irish law. The debate is over and women won! However, it suits feminist groups, especially those funded by the taxpayer, to continue ‘the struggle’ as a means of justifying their existence.

    Reply
    • Hi Barry,
      Thanks for your long comment. None of the groups I mention in my article receive state funding. The Irish Feminist Network are a voluntary organisation that exists solely through the efforts of the co-ordinators and its supporters.

      Extensive research has been carried out over several decades on women’s exclusion from the formal political structures of the State, and the structures which marginalise not only women, but also other historically underrepresented groups. One good place to start would be with the recent Oireachtas report on the issue:
      - Houses of the Oireachtas, Joint Committee on Justice, Equality Defence and Women’s Rights, Second Report, Women’s Participation in Politics, PRN. A9/1468, October 2009
      or with the country’s foremost political expert on the issue:
      – Galligan, Y., “Women in Politics” in Politics in the Republic of Ireland by Coakley, J. & Gallagher, M. (eds.), PSAI Press & Routledge, Oxon, 2005
      Alternatively, you’re also more than welcome to take a look at our policy paper on the topic which draws on all the latest research:
      http://www.irishfeministnetwork.org/uploads/8/4/9/1/8491921/irish_feminist_network_policy_brief_on_womens_political_representation_in_ireland.pdf

      Reply
    • Erm, Barry, wouldn’t Clara be referring to the fact that no abortion is permitted in the Republic of Ireland, when she writes about “the denial of reproductive rights”?

      Reply
    • How very selective of you, Clara. He made 7 points and you reply to one in an obtuse fashion, ignoring what you knew he was referring to – The NWCI. Do you think they should continue to recieve funding or not?

      Reply
    • Unfortunately all the research shows us that the debate is not over at all and that women have not won. There’s still a significant pay gap between women and men, women have never made up more than 15% of the Dail, and we do not have shard family responsibilities, as earlier commenters quite rightly pointed out with regard to paternity leave. For further details see:
      http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/othercsopublications/womenandmeninireland2011/
      The NWCI is seeking to redress these inequalities, so why shouldn’t they be funded? If the rationale is to only fund organisations that entrench gender inequality, well then we’ve already got them in droves….

      All of these issues affect men, of course, as well. The NWCI and similar organisations are trying to redress these issues to ensure equality for all.

      Reply
    • “a lobby group dedicated to the promotion male interests which informs national legislation” is a nice description of the Dail itself, and also of a very large number of the corporate “friends” who have its ear. Thanks.

      “consider the alternative, a woman forced to carry a foetus to term against her will” – and I do, every day, because that is the law of the land. Not so much to satisfy a particular father, but to satisfy the collective of fathers (patriarchy) which benefits from preventing from owning and controlling her own body, uterus, and fertility. Thanks for them fighting words!

      Reply
    • Clara, if women are being paid less for the same work, can we have some specific examples please?

      Now you say that the NWCI should be funded, in your first post you deliberately gave the impression that women’s groups weren’t being funded. This makes you seem dishonest

      I’ll give you a reason why the NWCI sholdn’t be funded – their treatment of the women from Women Hurt was pretty unsisterly and not appropriate for an organisation that demands a share of my taxes

      Reply
    • I clearly stated that the groups I noted in my article are not funded. For information on the gender pay gap, please see the CSO report I already cited. Further details also available from here:
      http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0302/breaking15.html
      http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/2011/09/IE1109019I.htm

      Reply
    • @clara how do women win in a struggle for equality? Can you imagine if Martin Luther king or Nelson Mandela took this stance in their respective struggles? You have made some very valid points but a society called feminism can’t pretend to be inclusive to men.

      Reply
    • No Clara, I mean a specific example of a woman being paid less for the same work, because she is a woman

      I have no interest in board figures skewed by special interest groups. If you want to talk about Equal Pay Day then you should also talk about Equal Occupational Fatalty Day
      http://blog.american.com/2010/04/creating-%E2%80%98equal-occupational-fatality-day%E2%80%99-occurs-next-in-2021/ A picture is worthless if you don’t look at the whole thing

      So can you give some examples of women being paid less because of their sex? If it’s so prevalent, this should be easy

      Reply
    • @ everybody Thank you for your comments. I will reply them shortly.

      Reply
    • I take exception to much of what you have said but particularly your 4th point. It is absolutely possible to have a successful career and a family.
      My husband is a stay at home dad to our 2 kids and with a 3rd on the way, my career flourishing and a very happy marriage I feel it IS possible to have it all.
      Assuming that the woman is the automatic full time care giver is holding us all back.

      Reply
    • Thanks for all your comments folks and I’m glad my article got a debate going! Now it’s back to the day job for me, but I hope you’ll continue to discuss the issues. If any of you want to join us or simply learn more about the IFN, feel free to log onto our website at http://www.irishfeministnetwork.org/

      Reply
    • @ Clara in relation to your first reply, I have had a brief look at the Irish Feminist Policy Brief on Women’s Political Representation in Ireland and note your organisation has identified five causes for the under-representation of women in Irish politics: childcare, culture, cash, confidence and candidate selection. With respect, I am at a loss to understand how these causes affect female candidates more particularly than male candidates. Any candidate, either male or female, will have confidence issues the first time he or she faces the electorate. Similarly, independent candidates have to finance their own election campaign whether they are male or female. As you will appreciate, political party members have a democratic right to select the candidate of their choice, and presumably will vote for a candidate who they think will be elected, irrespective of that candidate’s gender. Ultimately, your argument reduces itself to child care and culture. As outlined in my previous post, deciding to have a family is a lifestyle choice. I fail to see how a single woman, who does not have a family, is discriminated against in favour of a single man who does not have a family. The reality is that politics is a difficult job, with long hours and constant media scrutiny, and most women, sensibly, want a better quality of life for themselves and their family.

      Reply
    • @ Paul it is not clear what Clara intended to refer by “reproductive rights”, but personally I would be pro-choice subject to abortion being available in limited circumstances, and not on-demand, and the father having the right to an input on the decision

      Reply
    • @ Clara in relation to your second reply, you miss the point I was making in my original post. Why should the taxpayer continue to fund the National Women’s Council of Ireland when there is, to my knowledge, no National Men’s Council of Ireland. The lack of a legitimus contradictor in any argument gives rises to uninformed decisions being made which have the potential to be highly prejudicial. One wouldn’t conduct a criminal trial without the defendant being given an opportunity to put his side of the story to the jury. I do not accept your suggestion that the NWCI promotes gender equality. Indeed, according to its website the “central purpose of the National Women’s Council of Ireland is to promote women’s rights and women’s equality”, which is a markedly different thing from gender equality.

      Reply
    • Should I take that as a no then Clara?

      Reply
    • @ Auntie Dote this comment is unworthy of the debate on this thread. We live in a democracy. If you don’t like the law, vote for someone who will change it. Don’t try and blame men for the collective failings of Irish society.

      Reply
    • Barry: it was perfectly clear to me that what Clara meant by the “reproductive rights of women” was the extraordinary situation regarding abortion in the Republic of Ireland.

      The Republic of Ireland is the only country in all of Europe, with a population of over a million people, not to have abortion on request, de facto or de jure, with the exception of Poland. Even in Poland, abortion is permitted in cases of foetal abnormality, rape, mental health or threat to life. In the Republic of Ireland, we have a de facto blanket ban.

      Reply
    • @ Clara in relation to your third reply, I agree with Chuck. Where are the concrete examples of women not being paid the same wages for the same work as their male counterparts? I assume you are referring to the private sector as I would be surprised if evidence of such discrimination existed in the public sector. The study to which you refer is clearly qualified by reference to women’s childcare responsibilities. A private sector employer is obviously going to reward, through higher wages, employees who work longer hours. If there was cogent evidence of female employees, who don’t have childcare responsibilities, being paid less for the same hours worked as their equally qualified and experienced male employees then there would be a clear breach of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2011 and the Equality Tribunal would award appropriate compensation. The fact there has not been an avalanche of such claims supports the argument that it is women with children who are paid less than their male colleagues, not because they are women, but because they have (more important) commitments outside the workplace.

      Reply
    • @ Cathy you are in the fortunate position that your husband is able to take care of your children while you pursue your career. My essential point is that there is no hard evidence of women being actively discriminated against in favour of men in the workplace. Any differences in pay must be attribute to differences in their capacity to work longer hours and their productivity generally (i.e. a lifestyle choice and not gender related). If not, surely there would be a plethora of claims before the Equality Tribunal and attendant media coverage.

      Reply
    • @ Paul rightly or wrongly the majority of Irish people do not favour on demand abortion and we would require a further constitutional referendum to change that.

      Reply
  • Feminism is not about gender inequality. It is about promoting the interests of women. Which is fine. But please don’t pretend it is about equality. And please don’t tell me that it is my business to sort out the areas of inequality that affect men. If you say your political ideology is rooted in eliminating gender inequality, then your pursuit of that should not focus on just one gender. That is nonsensical. Gender is two sides of a coin and should nearly always be evaluated this way.

    None of this is not to say that the large majority of gender inequality affects women (most especially in the third world and in Islamic countries ) but by no means all of it. Also, many women are fully complicit in the causes of this inequality but this never seems to be addressed.

    Reply
    • I guess the question you’re asking is why feminist groups seem to focus on women’s rights. Traditionally, feminists were a group of women who had no rights and had a problem with that, so they campaigned for the vote etc. Today, when we look at Irish society, it’s easy (for me anyway, and in the interest of full disclosure – I am a woman myself) to pick out loads of areas where women are a disadvantage, e.g. reproductive freedom, political involvement, media involvement and representations, economic inequality, domestic violence, prostitution and sex trafficking etc. Then again, we do consider the men in these situations too. When 50:50 says the Dail is 85:15 men:women they have looked at how men feature too. They just decided it was women who needed help in the situation!
      To be honest, the lack of focus on men’s rights and the lack of involvement of men in the movement are two sides of the same coin. That’s not however, an invitation to assign blame. Blaming isn’t productive and if you look at our site and our work, we don’t focus on blaming anyone, men or women. We see gender inequality as stemming from patriarchy and as such that system is to blame rather than any individual/group.

      Reply
    • It’s about equality in the same way gay rights is, despite only really forward the interests of teh gays.

      Reply
  • Since the National Women’s Council of Ireland is funded by the Irish taxpayer, then we should have a National Men’s Council of Ireland with matching funds from the Irish taxpayer.

    Reply
  • Feminism is great and all that, just that it’s totally hypocritical. So called feminists have no problem objectifying men on live tv but let no man cast back a stone. Women only clubs and organisations everywhere, led by feminists who would be protesting outside any club that only allowed men. If they lose the hypocrisy, more power to them!

    Reply
  • All I ask is that you leave the toilet seat UP. I’m taller than you….

    Reply
  • If you have a good look at the unemployment, homelessness and discrimination rates, you will realise it’s women who mostly suffer of them.

    Reply
  • Feminism is the pursuit of equality between genders by focussing solely on one of them…. Epic fail

    Reply
  • Bebhin and Sarah Lounsey – thank you, thank you. This morning the whole “misandry” derail on this thread had gotten me seriously down. But coming back to this thread to find your comments has been a tonic! Laughing myself silly, and for a bonus feeling optimistic again!

    Reply
    • Derailing seems to be code for “people are disagreeing with me and demanding their say”

      When feminist organisations such as IFN denounce misandry and embrace gender equality they may find themselves facing less “derailing.”

      Reply
    • Well some people can not and should not be taken seriously Auntie, there’s no point in debating with people who are trying to have a completely seperate and nonsensical argument to you. If you didn’t laugh you’d cry!

      Reply
    • If they aren’t doing so already then they aren’t much of a feminist network are they?

      Reply
    • Lenbot 14/05/12 #

      It’s amazing how silly – and how butt hurt! – some people can get whenever they come in contact with anything that tries to question the status quo (and especially when that questioning is coming from women). Shocking.

      Wow…I didn’t know feminism caused people so much pain and anguish…lol.

      Reply
  • alexrpm 29/05/12 #

    Feminism is in massive decline. Masculinism however is truly growing, as feminism has become a parody of itself.

    Reply
  • I find it amazing that so many of these Feminists still want maintenance for their ex husbands, surely if they wish for equality, then that’s what they should have. Absolute equality in Family law, earning potential etc. However the band of Feninazis what superiority and not equality and that to me is just a roll reversal of how things were in the past…….. Now there’s change for the better…HAHAHAHAHA

    Reply
    • Have you ever met a feminazi? What do they look like? What do they wear? Do they eat men for breakfast?

      Or do they just exert more subtle pressures to make men insecure about their appearance, too sexy, not sexy enough, burdened by all the unpaid work that must be done to keep the family going, on top of earning a wage that is bound to be smaller because men just don’t have the same commitment to the workplace, you know, and responsible for keeping her aggression in check, cause if she rapes or beats you its your fault, you shouldn’t have been wearing that, going there, drinking that, so there? Is that what feminazis do?

      Reply
  • A lot of women seem quite happy to use their sexuality to manipulate men in any way they can. Seems to me the feminists are the ones who need to use politics to get what they want.

    Reply
  • The author claims that feminists oppose “the objectification of women in the media”. That’s code for porn. So what’s their solution there? Ban it? Turn the clock back to the 1920s and 1930s? That’s a non-starter if ever there was one. I’m pretty sure, for all our problems in modern Ireland, we are not going to go down such an authoritarian or fascist path, at least, not yet.

    A lot of these feminists also oppose prostitution, citing “the Swedish model”, where the purchase of sex is banned but it’s still okay to sell sex, as a model to follow in this country. Really, though, there is no difference between this and the US model where both the the sale and purchase of sex is criminalized in all 50 states. The Swedish model is just the US model by the backdoor. This proposal is another example of authoritarianism or fascism.

    What’s the problem with feminism in Ireland? Irish feminists. I suggest they drop the stuff about banning porn and prostitution because the agenda there is clearly a hatred of men.

    The problem with Irish feminists is that many of them are political conservatives, just like the mainstream political parties. They’re not really progressives.

    Reply
    • Actually, feminism is pretty diverse, and not everybody shares the same opinions on the issues you cite. So yes, some feminists are in favour of the Swedish model, some aren’t; some find mainstream pornography harmful, others don’t. As real human beings, we are all unique with our own views on different issues, rather than a monolithic group of identikit people.

      Reply
    • The objectification of women is not a code for porn, it’s a far wider problem. Just look at any copy of the Daily Mail, or those horrendous fashion mags, fixated on dieting and an appeal based solely on appearance. You couldn’t possibly call these porn?

      And prostitution is already banned, but the issue there isn’t a hatred of men, and neither is it fascism. I agree, the laws concerning prostitution need to be looked at, but with the primary concern being the health and safety of all sex workers, male or female.

      Reply
    • The purchase and sale of sex is legal in the Republic of Ireland. Surrounding activities are not: such as keeping a brothel, soliciting, procuring, living off the avails of prostitution and so on.

      What we should do is decriminalize/legalize the whole adult sex industry, like is done to a large extent in New Zealand. We should grant sex workers, including migrants who do sex work, the full protection of the law. We should allow street sex workers the right to work anywhere in the country. We should also allow smaller sex worker run cooperatives, up to, say, 4 people, to set up anywhere in the country. Subject to some zoning restrictions, larger manager run brothels will also be permitted. The safety and welfare of the sex workers will be paramount. Also, this would be a useful source of additional revenue to our cash strapped government. Also, this would pose less strain on the time and resources of our police service that can then devote more time and resources to tackle real crime, not the imagined crimes of certain “feminist” ideologues and religious crackpots.

      Reply
    • Regarding “horrendous fashion mags”, everyone, men and women, should be concerned about their appearance. Nobody wants to look like Jabba the Hut, aside from the health and life expectancy implications. Similarly, with diet. We should all think about what we eat.

      Reply
    • Porn is really a media all of it’s own. I don’t like most porn pesonally but don’t think it should be banned. Most feminists these days tend to lean towards the sex positive end of things.

      The problem is with porn-like objectifying depictions of women where it doesn’t belong. And it happens *far more* than with men, before someone says it.

      You’re talking out of your arse with regards Irish feminists.

      Reply
  • I’ll be staying clear of Dublin 3 on that date!

    Reply
  • “While the momentum for change is palpable, we should not underestimate the challenges feminists still face. It is precisely the entrenched nature of issues surrounding women’s objectification in the media, denial of reproductive rights, or lack of affordable childcare – to name but a few – that is driving people’s (re)engagement with the feminist movement, but that also highlights the enormity of the task at hand.”

    Hang on a second, is it not due to feminism that there is now a denial of reproductive rights and a lack of affordable chidcare? These issues were caused by women leaving the home in order to work.

    Reply
  • Frailty thy name is… man.

    Reply
  • Advice to feminist groups in Ireland:

    Drop the campaign to “end the objectification of women in the media” because all you are doing is alienating A LOT of people.

    Reply
    • Yeh, also, anti-racist campaigners, stop giving out about racism, sure that only alienates racists like.

      Reply
    • Martin: How does the “objectification of women in the media”, however that is defined, lead to discrimination against women? Please explain the exact sequence of cause and effect there.

      Reply
    • There are loads of serious harms caused by the objectification of women in the media. Check out the film ‘Miss Representation’ by Jennifer Siebel Newsom for a great explanation. In fact, we’re hosting screenings of this film right now, http://www.irishfeministnetwork.org/2/post/2012/03/would-you-like-to-screen-miss-representation.html. Would you like to set up a screening with us?

      Reply
    • Emma: Martin says women are being objectified in the media. He defines an object as being inhuman and inanimate so presumably there are depictions in the media of women who are presented as inhuman and inanimate. I’d like him or you to give me examples of this, give links and so on, from the last month, say.

      Reply
    • You just said yourself that objectification of women exists, because you wanted feminists to stop complaining about it. It’s clear you don’t really understand what it means. Essentially reducing women to objects of sexual desire to sell a product for profit. Reducing women to the level of, “check out your ones tits”. Just follow twitter any night while Vincent Browne is on, if there’s a woman on the panel the streams of abuse she gets about her appearance, etc, will flow regardless of the content of her argument. Hence the objectification is complete, women have no opinions, but are only there to be fawned over or criticised about their appearance.

      People like yourself think that feminists, like myself, are trying to stop men from finding women attractive. That’s not it at all. In fact most feminists I know are randy feckers :D You’re just missing the whole point Paul.

      Reply
    • People objectify other people all the time. Individuals objectify other individuals all the time. It’s part of the human condition. There is nothing inherently right or wrong about it. It just is.

      Reply
  • @Aoife – I understand your point completely about feminism being in opposition to patriarchy rather then in opposition to men. I don’t I stated my point clearly. I’m aware of what a patriarchal system is, but then again I spent a fair few years in the University system reading critical theory, but I’m well aware that many people have not done this, and so the academic language that filters into feminist commentary can be off putting and have negative connotations for them. I’m not saying the feminist stereotypes are true, but I am saying that these stereotypes are in people’s minds, and the invocation of these stereotypes makes people less willing to listen to the content of the message.

    It might be pragmatic to switch “feminism” with the term “gender equality” as it might mean more people would be open to the changes that need to be made to achieve the aims that the many feminist groups and movements want to achieve, which I’d imagine to be a balanced society free of gender bias.

    I can understand that many commenter here might perceive this as selling the “name of feminism” short, but I think that it is a concession well made if it brings us a little bit further along the road. Better to be a unknown part of a successful movement than a famous member of an unsuccessful movement. They’re only words, after all.

    Reply
    • Words are important though – the fact that people feel the need to blindly dismiss or rage against a movement just because it’s linked to the advancement of women in society is a huge problem in itself. Giving up the word feminism would be another instance of women having to silence themselves and hide their presence so that people who disagree with them will be placated.

      I’d be more in favour of feminists (women AND men) being proud of the word and for more people to be proud to call themselves feminists – so that people have a chance to explain what it means. And the more people use the term like this, the more people who are ambivalent towards it will have their views challenged. That can only be a good thing.

      Reply
    • Yep, words are important, I’m glad someone picked up on that :-). It’s the chicken and the egg revisited. Should we use the terms that we want to use, the words we think are accurate, even if those words now have negative connotations and run the risk of alienating a wider audience ( patriarchy, etc.. ), or should we water down the message in blander language so make the content more innocuous and, once the content has been accepted and agreed with, reintroduce the “proper” terms?

      The danger is that, if the argument is formed in the same ways, using the same language, the listener will interpret it in the same ways, it’s preaching to the choir. If the argument is formulated in new and unexpected ways, maybe the listener will react to it in new an unexpected ways.

      If we repeat something often enough it simply becomes a habit. And habit, as a privileged middle-class white male once said, is the great deadener.

      Reply
    • For now, we still have a patriarchy to fight. And “feminism” fits that bill. We need the term to keep the reason for the fight in front of us. I’ve never found the word “feminism” to be offensive or worrying to men who ARE in favour of gender equality. They realise that it is patriarchy we are fighting and that anyone, male or female can join that fight.

      When there is no patriarchy left to fight, then I’ll be happy to keep my ambitions to a stricter/broader definition of defending gender equality wherever it is threatened.

      Reply
    • @ auntie – in an earlier comment you said that “feminism is aimed at making society more inclusive” and above you say that there’s “patriarchy to fight”. When you talk if fighting, you’re invoking an “us” and “them” situation, which, rather than promoting inclusivity, will instead risk fostering alienation amongst not already convinced by the feminist argument. You cannot fight for peace, and you cannot force others to agree with you. To make myself very clear, I’m not disagreeing with your point of view, I saying that the language being used here leads towards entrenched opinions, it doesn’t promote flexibility of opinion. A carrot works better than a stick..

      Reply
    • Lenbot 12/05/12 #

      Just to be clear: patriarchy is a social system – not a word to describe actual men themselves. Fighting a social system that excludes people and negatively impacts on ALL people is not invoking an “us vs them” scenario. If, however, you agree with and support the system of patriarchy, then you will be opposed to the feminist cause.

      Simples.

      Reply
    • @ lenbot. Yes, “patriarchy” is a model, the people, and not the world. So you can say we can fight patriarchy when you mean you want to change processes in the world in order to make it more equal. But framing it in language like ” fight the patriarchy” is invoking a parallel with actual fighting against an actual enemy. The language is, at best, unhelpful. Just as terms like, War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on Proverty are nice soundb

      Reply
    • Lenbot 13/05/12 #

      Hm. Well I mean, you could say end the patriarchy I guess. We’re struggling to make society more equal by ending the patriarchal reign. I get what you’re saying. Do you think people who aren’t familiar with feminism think it’s scary and militaristic because of this language or because it’s simply a group of people kicking up a fuss?

      I guess “fight the patriarchy” works for people because they genuinely see the patriarchy as a real enemy. And the struggles against it are all too real, as are the ways they’ve been hurt by it. Using the word “fight” fits the bill, yanno what I mean? It’s important to see the patriarchy as a system of structures that work together to keep people in their places etc and not just one giant enemy (like your examples of War on Drugs and all) because it’s all a lot more complex and nuanced. But that’s kind of the whole point of feminism: understanding and deconstructing all those little systems. Any feminist worth their salt will understand that. But just as important is recognising that all those little things (the things you physically and mentally have to fight for and against every day) are part of the bigger picture. Hence, we’re fighting the patriarchy.

      (The danger comes when you just see red and everything bad that ever happens is the patriarchy’s fault and you turn into the Hulk and smash everything without thinking about it because you’re angry. ^_^)

      Reply
    • @ Lenbot – Thanks! I don’t know the breakdown on whether certain people would be scared or dismissive of a movement because of the language being used, but either way it’d mean they maybe less inclined to actually listen to the information carried by the language. And getting people to listen is the only way to achieve the goal or changing society. That or shooting everyone who disagrees with you, but that’s not a road any sane person wants to follow.. :-)

      Reply