Radfem 2013 and the MRAs

I must have imagined the 67 year old bloke working n 2010 then..

Sorry I said I wouldn't reply but you are misunderstanding and I need to correct that. I am still working part-time and I am 69 so your comment above is meaningless. What I said was correct. Up until 2011 people could be forced to retire as long as they followed correct procedure. For example:

www.ageuk.org.uk/work-and-learning/discrimination-and-rights/forced-retirement/

Extract

"For employees over the age of 65? it is lawful for an employer to force them to retire? as long as they follow the procedure outlined below. Employees have the right to request to continue working beyond the date when the employer wants them to retire, but the employer does not have to agree with this request."

Etc.

Someone spouts false equivalence arguments galore and when confronted with a feminist agreeing with an instance of equalisation which disadvantages women, suddenly switches to substantive fairness.

Twisting in the wind.

I never said who was buying what in the restaurant.

Just that person 1 bought salad, person 2 bought steak. The 'you' was a generic 'you' for anyone reading the post, I said 'person' not man or woman when referring ot the steak eater.

Dragging sex in to for no reason?

Which brings us on to insurance.

You do know that in some instances women did pay more for insurance don't you?

A friend of mine worked in the 'maths' department. They actually looked at the statistics and divided the groups from the stats, they didn't start with standardised groups (ie men 18 -30, women 18 - 30, men 30-40 etc). There wasn't an 'unfair' assumption or split in to male and female.

When they looked at the statistics of pay outs that is how it fell out. There were cases of men being cheaper than women too.

I must have imagined the 67 year old bloke working n 2010 then...

I'd like insurance costs to be individual, the realist in me tells me that is impossible and costly, so as many groupings as possible will do.

Well quite, so the division into two big groups - men and women - is simplistic while there are not insignificant numbers of safe men and reckless women. It penalised safe men and let reckless women get away with it. Under the guise of being 'fair' it was in fact grossly unfair.

If you went in to a restaurant for a salad but got charged at a price that covered the next person's fillet steak, bottle of wine and all the trimmings you'd rightly complain.

If you are going to disingenuously compare car insurance with salad and steak then under your reckoning the salad and steak comparison would still apply except it would be only men buying salad who would have to pay extra for the next woman's steak and trimmings.

As a feminist who believes in equality I totally accept that there are some situations where women will lose out and some where they will gain. That's OK.

And, just to correct your error of fact. People have been able to be forced to retire at 60 or 65. Forced retirement was scrapped only in 2011. There is no rational or fair argument for unequal retiring ages.

Sorry for thread derailment. . I'll refrain from replying any more on this point.

I'd be interested to know peoples views on the alcohol induced violence that women have presented increasingly over the last 20 years or so. This is across the whole spectrum of privilage. Can the patriachy be responsible for these actions?

As a feminist or as a muppet?

You think we should be treated equally for car insurance?

If women, as a whole, are cheaper to insure, then that should follow in to what money is taken from them. As should any other recognisable group.

If you went in to a restaurant for a salad but got charged at a price that covered the next person's fillet steak, bottle of wine and all the trimmings you'd rightly complain.

I'd like insurance costs to be individual, the realist in me tells me that is impossible and costly, so as many groupings as possible will do.

It isn't equal, but it is fair.

No body was 'forced' to retire at 60 or 65. Shame married couples are now no longer able to enjoy their retirement together...

We get it, there have been instances where being a woman wasn't great.

Give Lazaruss a round of applause.

As a feminist I agree the equalisation of car insurance is fine because it treats men and women equally. Likewise it is fair that women will no longer be allowed (or forced depending how you look at it) to retire earlier than men.

Still more piffle.

I'll speak here from experience. Former Republic of Yugoslavia, 1990s there was no such thing as an 'individual man treated as more of a human being than a woman'.

We get it, there have been instances where being a woman wasn't great. But thanks to this sort of stance we've just seen the ludicrous 'equalisation' of car insurance.

The last line just puts the icing on the cake...

To respond Lazarus here is the next paragraph from the same article:

"Of course men experience oppression?but not because we are men. Patriarchy means that, no matter the individual man, he will be treated as more of a human being than a woman would within the same circumstances. Men may be subjugated in a myriad of ways?each abhorrent and deserving of resistance in its own right?but not because we were born not female. Indeed, even the most otherwise oppressed or egalitarian or radical men have the capacity to use their power as men to hurt women. We needn?t ignore one injustice to see another."

So no men have been or are oppressed? I am lying if I say there have been or are?

This perhaps is why people don't take feminism as seriously as you wish it to be taken...

the utter nonsense spouted to make women the ONLY victims there has ever been.

And of course, yet again, we get the underlying impression that there is some sort of network at play (the 'manwork' perhaps?)

You are trying to bring about equality for women. ie men and women are equal - a nobel cause.

Push yourselves up, don't pull others down.

This is a relevant article to the thread

"Feminism strikes a nerve. When men don?t get our way, backlash isn?t too far behind. Feminists face it from all directions. It seems anarchists, communists, sexual libertarians, men?s rights activists, and right-wingers can agree on at least one thing: the sanctity of male power. Men, along with whatever groups they dominate, come out in full force to put women back in place, whether through slander, censorship, threats, or physical violence.

There?s been little reason for women to count the male-dominated radical Left as anything resembling an ally. On the contrary, radicals seem ever willing to lend a hand to the other side. Take just this past week for example, when one environmentalist woman was barred from speaking at a university?s Earth Day event because she happened to also be a feminist; and when a decades-old women?s music festival was publicly ostracized for not letting men in; and when a venue slated to host one of the world?s only radical feminist conferences is considering reneging on the agreement after ongoing harassment from radical and conservative men, alike.

But if it?s not blunt retaliation men use to silence feminist women, its outright lies. The most common one is that men are, in fact, oppressed too. The radical Left has taken the bait. In the face of story after story depicting the terror waged daily against women, radicals want to know one thing: what about the men?

Lazarus
"I feel it debases men in general. Insinuates that for men to be men, they must also be something highly negative."

I agree violent masculinity and the culture of violent masculinity does indeed debase men and boys. For those steeped in the culture of violent masculinity it is terrible that they feel that in order to 'be men' they must be doing something highly negative.

"For an organisation/group that allegedly promotes equality of women... how is this an aide to that which is to be achieved?"

Weird comment- doesn't make sense.

"Earlier in this thread we have heard how various groups are excluded, denigrated, have their worth removed and then enslaved/killed off."

Yep, Uh huh..

"Then we find terms such mansplaination for unpalatable explanations, malestream appears to be a term for media we don't really like."
This you pulled from where I don't know. You need to re-read the definition of mansplaining again - it has nothing to do with 'palatability' and everything to do with a man being ignorant, arrogant and sexist without realising it. 'Malestream' is not a term for media 'we' don't like - (I think you can take the word 'we' out - I have no idea why you put it in), it refers to the fact that mainstream media is overwhelmingly by and for men and upholds patriarchy and regenerates misogyny and inequality.

"Should women stand for similar terms used about themselves?"
Ahhh hahahahaha! You couldn't make it up!

"Not to mention the constant singular view of many. We even have a re do of Nimullers 'first they came' poem in regards to the RadFem2013 event and how it is a bad thing for 'women everywhere'."
What?

"I would counter that such a event shut down due to alleged intimidation is concerning for ALL free speech including the MRAs who allegedly shut RadFem down."
What would you counter that with? In order to counter something or dispute it, you do actually have to counter it or dispute it with something a point? A refutation?

"Finally at the other end of the spectrum we get the really sad part. 'Man hate poems' etc. 'Man hate and quotes from books I like'. Delightful.""I appreciate those on this thread may not have heard of the term or used it... but it s out there. Oddly, my very first google of 'radfem' brought it up."
Spectrum? Man hate poems? ....

Don't disagree with any of that.

I disagree with the term 'violent masculinity'.

I feel it debases men in general. Insinuates that for men to be men, they must also be something highly negative.

For an organisation/group that allegedly promotes equality of women... how is this an aide to that which is to be achieved?

Earlier in this thread we have heard how various groups are excluded, denigrated, have their worth removed and then enslaved/killed off.

Then we find terms such manplaination for unpalatable explanations, malestream appears to be a term for media we don't really like.

Should women stand for similar terms used about themselves?

Not to mention the constant singular view of many. We even have a re do of Nimullers 'first they came' poem in regards to the RadFem2013 event and how it is a bad thing for 'women everywhere'.

I would counter that such a event shut down due to alleged intimidation is concerning for ALL free speech including the MRAs who allegedly shut RadFem down.

Finally at the other end of the spectrum we get the really sad part. 'Man hate poems' etc.

I appreciate those on this thread may not have heard of ths term or used it... but it s out there. Oddly, my very first google of 'radfem' brought it up.

'Man hate and quotes from books I like'. Delightful.

Beachcomber wrote - "Violent masculinity is being discussed as a harmful social construct."

LazarussLozenge wrote - "I get that beachcomber. I don't like the term."

LazarussLozenge, you are entitled to not like the term "violent masculinity" but that does not mean that its use is inappropriate or inaccurate when feminists discuss how and why many men behave badly. You give me the impression that you want feminists to stop linking violence and masculinity in any way whatsoever. I don't think that feminists are trying to imply that masculinity is always violent. On this thread, feminists have been prefacing the word masculinity with the adjective violent to distinguish violent masculinity from non-violent masculinity because both forms of masculinity exist, even if you, LazarussLozenge, have a problem accepting that masculinity is often expressed by violence.

LazarussLozenge, you wrote that you believe that "men are no more conditioned towards violence than women."

I suggest to you that men are more conditioned towards violence. A couple of examples: boys play with weapons while girls play with dolls in hundreds of cultures across time and place; men are conscripted into armies to learn how to kill people and then doing the killing. Have these examples of social conditioning somehow passed you by? If men are not conditioned more than women towards violence, that suggests men are naturally more violent, because what other cause is there for the undeniable fact that it is men who are doing most of the killing, fighting and raping in this world?

Why?

It is a term to describe how boys and men are socialised in patriarchal society to associate their sex with the social construct of masculinity as performed through violence/aggression. Sometimes this is also called 'hypermasculinity'.

Neither term is a slur on men and boys - they are both analytical tools used to describe cultural forces.

Do you disagree that men and boys experience this type of socialisation?

(What do you think violent films, gang culture, violent sports, alpha male bullying, etc are all about then?)

If only

I get that beachcomber.

I don't like the term.

LazarussLozenge, have you read your own link?

thegenderblenderblog.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/violent-masculinity-as-a-cultural-ideal-both-men-and-women-are-victims/

The gist of it is 'patriarchy hurts men too'.

Violent masculinity is being discussed as a harmful social construct.

You'll probably find Flora that I am further ahead than that.

But I'm on a different board.

So tedious. No-one said that.

After all the time spent by various posters talking to you, you're still on square one.

TDOS,

Apparently I do anyway...

Mini,

that was sort of my point.

"guilt by gender"?

Excellent, are you carrying the can for all crimes, insults etc to come from men now, LL?

Loz, you accuse us of generalising and then you accuse all of us of having used the term "violent masculinity", I haven't used the term but I guess you assume I must say this because I am a woman? Bit hypocritical.

your most irrelevant post yet

You're fellow feminists did though.

They are women, you are a woman (I think).

Guilt by gender.