The taboo thread

MonkeyMonster

Rick Chasey wrote:

It makes me sad that someone claiming they're feminist would put you off!

I suspect he like myself is for gender equality but feminism in standard practice [in the news] is not always gender equality...

rick_chasey

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It makes me sad that someone claiming they're feminist would put you off!

I suspect he like myself is for gender equality but feminism in standard practice [in the news] is not always gender equality...

*Confused* but that's what feminism is.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... h/feminism
the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state

And the movement, is the movement to achieve the above beliefs.

Ben6899

Rick Chasey wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It makes me sad that someone claiming they're feminist would put you off!

I suspect he like myself is for gender equality but feminism in standard practice [in the news] is not always gender equality...

*Confused* but that's what feminism is.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... h/feminism
the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state

And the movement, is the movement to achieve the above beliefs.

I believe women should be allowed the same rights etc, but that does not make me a feminist.

MonkeyMonster

Rick Chasey wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It makes me sad that someone claiming they're feminist would put you off!

I suspect he like myself is for gender equality but feminism in standard practice [in the news] is not always gender equality...

*Confused* but that's what feminism is.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... h/feminism
the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state

And the movement, is the movement to achieve the above beliefs.

Which is why i added my caveat of [in the news]. The dictionary definition of feminism is not what is always, let alone regularly, preached.

rick_chasey

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It makes me sad that someone claiming they're feminist would put you off!

I suspect he like myself is for gender equality but feminism in standard practice [in the news] is not always gender equality...

*Confused* but that's what feminism is.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... h/feminism
the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state

And the movement, is the movement to achieve the above beliefs.

I believe women should be allowed the same rights etc, but that does not make me a feminist.

I believe it does. .

That's my understanding of it anyway - certainly how we approached it when we did a bit of feminist history .

rjsterry

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It makes me sad that someone claiming they're feminist would put you off!

I suspect he like myself is for gender equality but feminism in standard practice [in the news] is not always gender equality...

*Confused* but that's what feminism is.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... h/feminism
the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state

And the movement, is the movement to achieve the above beliefs.

I believe women should be allowed the same rights etc, but that does not make me a feminist.

What do you see as the distinction?

rick_chasey

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It makes me sad that someone claiming they're feminist would put you off!

I suspect he like myself is for gender equality but feminism in standard practice [in the news] is not always gender equality...

*Confused* but that's what feminism is.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... h/feminism
the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state

And the movement, is the movement to achieve the above beliefs.

Which is why i added my caveat of [in the news]. The dictionary definition of feminism is not what is always, let alone regularly, preached.

Hence:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think perceptions of what feminism is, and what feminists are is holding back the cause for gender equality.

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

"And this one's for Dave", I may have said.

I had you down as more old school Tory, rather than a Cameroon.

MonkeyMonster

Rick Chasey and MM wrote:

Stuff

and so we basically prove each other correct in the classic way only the internet can do. As for gender equality = feminism then yes I suppose you could say anyone who believes in that ideal is a feminist. The problem being is very few people operate under those strict guidelines. Yes, it is commonly used to describe the classic bra burning lot etc. and thus you would want to be said to be FOR gender equality BUT not a feminist because there are people who do things i nthe name of feminism that aren't. You could say its similar to people of faith saying they have faith rather than saying they are <insert religion here> because there are people who do "bad" things while saying they are <insert religion here> that muddy the waters of what others view what it means to be <insert religion there>.

make sense?

ga02clr

Il Principe wrote:

ga02clr wrote:

Brian Paddock has impressed me in the debates. He seems to talk sense and is certainly not afraid to point out when Ken is telling fragrant lies.

Sorry, but

I intended to write flagrant but they are quite smelly as well!

rick_chasey

MonkeyMonster wrote:

...stuff...
make sense?

Probably.

rjsterry

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It makes me sad that someone claiming they're feminist would put you off!

I suspect he like myself is for gender equality but feminism in standard practice [in the news] is not always gender equality...

*Confused* but that's what feminism is.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... h/feminism
the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state

And the movement, is the movement to achieve the above beliefs.

Which is why i added my caveat of [in the news]. The dictionary definition of feminism is not what is always, let alone regularly, preached.

Come on, stop beating around the bush. What exactly do you find objectionable? The bra-burning always gets cited, but as evidence of what?

Ben6899

rjsterry wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It makes me sad that someone claiming they're feminist would put you off!

I suspect he like myself is for gender equality but feminism in standard practice [in the news] is not always gender equality...

*Confused* but that's what feminism is.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... h/feminism
the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state

And the movement, is the movement to achieve the above beliefs.

I believe women should be allowed the same rights etc, but that does not make me a feminist.

What do you see as the distinction?

I would have to give it some thought. However; with the definition Rick provided, every right-thinking individual is a feminist. Doesn't that dilute it somewhat? Doesn't that water down the words "I'm a feminist"? I think it does.

W: "I'm a feminist."
Others: "Yes, we all are. So what?"

rick_chasey

Ben6899 wrote:

I would have to give it some thought. However; with the definition Rick provided, every right-thinking individual is a feminist. Doesn't that dilute it somewhat? Doesn't that water down the words "I'm a feminist"? I think it does.

W: "I'm a feminist."
Others: "Yes, we all are. So what?"

What the politician means is that gender equality is a reasonably high priority for her.

AFAIAC rightly so.

MonkeyMonster

so given RC and I are square - how many woman do you know who would label themselves as feminist by that definition. ie treated the same way - exactly the same, because given physically we aren't - how can we ever be?
plus the usual that means the classic "manners" ye olde "how gentlemen should treat ladies" is incorrect and breaks the idea of equality, i've had many a conversation with people of the female persuasion who said they gladly give up "some" rights to be treated differently - how does that work?

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

"And this one's for Dave", I may have said.

I had you down as more old school Tory, rather than a Cameroon.

Contextual: rebutting the notion that Dave might have resigned.

rick_chasey

MonkeyMonster wrote:

, i've had many a conversation with people of the female persuasion who said they gladly give up "some" rights to be treated differently - how does that work?

OK - just because they're women doesn't necessarily mean they are pro-equality.

You only need to read some of the daily mail femail columns to see that.

Ben6899

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

I would have to give it some thought. However; with the definition Rick provided, every right-thinking individual is a feminist. Doesn't that dilute it somewhat? Doesn't that water down the words "I'm a feminist"? I think it does.

W: "I'm a feminist."
Others: "Yes, we all are. So what?"

What the politician means is that gender equality is a reasonably high priority for her.

AFAIAC rightly so.

If that's your USP as a politician, then you're scraping the barrel. As far as I am concerned.

rjsterry

MonkeyMonster wrote:

so given RC and I are square - how many woman do you know who would label themselves as feminist by that definition. ie treated the same way - exactly the same, because given physically we aren't - how can we ever be?
plus the usual that means the classic "manners" ye olde "how gentlemen should treat ladies" is incorrect and breaks the idea of equality, i've had many a conversation with people of the female persuasion who said they gladly give up "some" rights to be treated differently - how does that work?

Two genders can be treated equally without being treated exactly the same. Regarding manners, you could hold doors open, etc. for men too. I really don't see the problem. Give up what rights to be treated how?

rick_chasey

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

I would have to give it some thought. However; with the definition Rick provided, every right-thinking individual is a feminist. Doesn't that dilute it somewhat? Doesn't that water down the words "I'm a feminist"? I think it does.

W: "I'm a feminist."
Others: "Yes, we all are. So what?"

What the politician means is that gender equality is a reasonably high priority for her.

AFAIAC rightly so.

If that's your USP as a politician, then you're scraping the barrel. As far as I am concerned.

I find it strange that an issue of discrimination/equality which affects half the country is considered such small fry!

*shrugs*

If you don't like it then you're right in not voting for her.

Ben6899

You're misunderstanding me a little, Rick. It's probably my fault.

I am all for equality and it's great that Jenny Jones is right behind making changes. But she needs to realise that Paddick, Johnson and Livingston are right behind making changes as well.

So she's missing the point, using her feminist beliefs as a USP.

MonkeyMonster

rjsterry wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

so given RC and I are square - how many woman do you know who would label themselves as feminist by that definition. ie treated the same way - exactly the same, because given physically we aren't - how can we ever be?
plus the usual that means the classic "manners" ye olde "how gentlemen should treat ladies" is incorrect and breaks the idea of equality, i've had many a conversation with people of the female persuasion who said they gladly give up "some" rights to be treated differently - how does that work?

Two genders can be treated equally without being treated exactly the same. Regarding manners, you could hold doors open, etc. for men too. I really don't see the problem. Give up what rights to be treated how?

you can and I do - but some girls/ladies like to be treated preferentially as being more delicate/special/sanctified. We never really touched on exactly what losses they would accept and wandering down that path is a minefield I aint going. Equally but not the same... But where does the reason behind the idea of holding doors open, laying cloaks across puddles, making space at the bar etc come from if not from a period of life where there wasn't equality and thus continuation of those ideals is breaking the tenet of equality?

rick_chasey

Ben6899 wrote:

You're misunderstanding me a little, Rick. It's probably my fault.

I am all for equality and it's great that Jenny Jones is right behind making changes. But she needs to realise that Paddick, Johnson and Livingston are right behind making changes as well.

So she's missing the point, using her feminist beliefs as a USP.

I think that's where we disagree. I don't think any of the mainstream parties are particularly good with gender issues.

I like to think the lib dems are better than most, though there is certainly room for improvement. Their record in Europe is quite good.

Labour were OK in bits.

The tories I don't think are very good at all. That minister pushing for all that anti-abortion stuff is a classic example. (Nadine Dorries)

Ben6899

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

You're misunderstanding me a little, Rick. It's probably my fault.

I am all for equality and it's great that Jenny Jones is right behind making changes. But she needs to realise that Paddick, Johnson and Livingston are right behind making changes as well.

So she's missing the point, using her feminist beliefs as a USP.

I think that's where we disagree. I don't think any of the mainstream parties are particularly good with gender issues.

I like to think the lib dems are better than most, though there is certainly room for improvement. Their record in Europe is quite good.

Labour were OK in bits.

The tories I don't think are very good at all. That minister pushing for all that anti-abortion stuff is a classic example. (Nadine Dorries)

You would have enjoyed the hustings I went to. Chaired by the Fawcett Society: "What About Women in London". Boris Johnson's representative was invited to condem Dorries' anti-abortion comment and did so.

I was genuinely encouraged by some of the answers given by all four candidates.

MonkeyMonster

Ben6899 wrote:

Boris Johnson's representative was invited to condem Dorries' anti-abortion comment and did so.

She is a prize nutjob tbh.

rick_chasey

Boris calls himself a feminist here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/pers ... marry.html

and is a hit with the women voters according to the guardian here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... is-johnson

rjsterry

MonkeyMonster wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

so given RC and I are square - how many woman do you know who would label themselves as feminist by that definition. ie treated the same way - exactly the same, because given physically we aren't - how can we ever be?
plus the usual that means the classic "manners" ye olde "how gentlemen should treat ladies" is incorrect and breaks the idea of equality, i've had many a conversation with people of the female persuasion who said they gladly give up "some" rights to be treated differently - how does that work?

Two genders can be treated equally without being treated exactly the same. Regarding manners, you could hold doors open, etc. for men too. I really don't see the problem. Give up what rights to be treated how?

you can and I do - but some girls/ladies like to be treated preferentially as being more delicate/special/sanctified. We never really touched on exactly what losses they would accept and wandering down that path is a minefield I aint going. Equally but not the same... But where does the reason behind the idea of holding doors open, laying cloaks across puddles, making space at the bar etc come from if not from a period of life where there wasn't equality and thus continuation of those ideals is breaking the tenet of equality?

I suspect when it came down to it they wouldn't actually accept many losses at all, but would like the perks anyway. Holding a door open for someone is just being considerate and courteous. I can't see how that has anything to do with gender. True, there used to be different sets of manners that were observed for each gender, but manners have changed over time anyway. Anyway, arguing over whether men should hold doors open or not completely misses the point. Gender equality in the workplace and other areas, despite being enshrined in law for over 30 years, has still not been achieved. My take on it is that the manners argument has actually been pushed, as a distraction, by people who want the status quo to continue.

notsoblue

Why should we vote for Paddick, RC?

Ben6899

Rick Chasey wrote:

Boris calls himself a feminist here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/pers ... marry.html

and is a hit with the women voters according to the guardian here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... is-johnson

Jenny Jones - at this debate - said "Boris is sexist." No whistles, bells or disguise; just straight out with it.

rick_chasey

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Boris calls himself a feminist here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/pers ... marry.html

and is a hit with the women voters according to the guardian here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... is-johnson

Jenny Jones - at this debate - said "Boris is sexist." No whistles, bells or disguise; just straight out with it.

I wouldn't particularly disagree with her.