This article talks about the first female elected president of Iceland, talking about the worrisome nature of extreme feminism. Although she doesn't name names, this is the kind of thing that has got here worried
Another thing I believe could be the reason for thinking that the feminist movement is too extremist are recent comments made by Ms. Gudrun Jonsdottir, a spokeswoman of one of the most prominent and best funded feminist organization in Iceland, Stigamot. Only a few months back, she publicly spoke favorably towards diminishing the human rights of men only. This she did by claiming that the ideology of assuming a man innocent until proven guilty is outdated in light of feminist research and therefore indicated that this cornerstone of the Icelandic justice system should be abolished. This right of people, that are accused of crimes, is clearly stated in the Icelandic constitution, The European human rights treaty and the United Nations human rights treaty and thus is not just a mere ideology.
Gudrun’s words are not an isolated incident. Other feminists have spoken favorably about reversing the burden of proof in crimes that are committed against women and the NoF cheerfully shared her words on their official Facebook page later to become the most popular record on that page ever, measured in shares and likes. One could have expected that the state funded Center for Gender Equality would utter a sound in protest to such blatantly male discriminating views but nothing has still been heard. Reaffirming the belief of many, that the Center for Gender Equality is actually a Center for Women rights only and not the least bit concerned with men’s rights.
Gudrun’s organization, Stigamot, are almost entirely funded with taxpayers money and to this date, her words seem not to have worried the Icelandic government even though Iceland is part of international treaties that explicitly state that being assumed innocent until proven guilty, should be the cornerstone of a nations justice system if it is to be considered in favor of human rights.
I would have dismissed this incident as an example of the raging left, were it not for the fact that the CGE has said nothing. Isn't this a fairly clear example of feminism going too far.
I disagree. This opinion is the result of a narrative that has existed for the past fifty years, and has not been corrected. Men's problems ARE as severe. You cannot seriously claim that issues such as the overwhelming gender bias towards women in family court, male rates of suicide and incaceration being MASSIVELY higher than women's, women outnumbering men on college campuses and girls doing better than boys in schools etc are not problems of equal magnitude to those of things like rape prosecution stats, women's pay etc.
Yes, and many of those "men's problems" are really the result of benevolent sexism against women. Women are favored by family courts, for example, because they're seen as more nurturing and more suited to being homemakers, regardless of the reality of the situation. Sexism against women isn't just a women's problem, and in working against it, feminists aren't just helping women.
And, not to make this a more oppressed than thou competition, but I think the cultural view of women is certainly less favorable. Women's worth is much more intrinsically tied to their physical appearance, feminine things are seen as less valuble, even demeaning, etc.
Saroja I don't follow politicans any more. Why wouldn't Sarah Palin be a femenist?
Patch I don't think that those are the standards. What I mean is those are exceptions not the rule. And some of those could be misrepresented. I sure hope they were. It is that burden of proof thing. Some careers, at least in the military, are ruined just being accused. Even if later found innocent. It is a messed up situation no doubt.
Some careers, at least in the military, are ruined just being accused. Even if later found innocent
That may be because the means by which these cases are handled are not respectful to the needs of the situation. People throwing around the rumours, rather than following procedure and waiting for the results.
I don't appreciate the title. You're talking about a particular case of radical feminism that oppresses men. Just because they happen to be under the huge umbrella of feminism doesn't mean that they speak for everyone. It's like saying all socialists hate religion - no, that's a particular kind of communism reserved for nutters. There are hundreds of self-identified "feminists" who hate men, trans people, the family, etc etc. Feminism, in its entirety, focuses on the rights of women and gender equality. Anyone who wishes to take that further by hating men, the other half of the global population, can do so at their peril. People who undermine all feminists as hysterical, exaggerated women with PMS are ignorant and misogynistic. End of.
I don't appreciate the title. You're talking about a particular case of radical feminism that oppresses men. Just because they happen to be under the huge umbrella of feminism doesn't mean that they speak for everyone.
While they don't speak for "everyone" what is bothering me is that the organisation in question in this case is state run and has not been condemned by the majority in Iceland or anywhere else. So until such a time as it is responded to negatively by other feminists, I'm going to hold to the view that this kind of view is more widespread than it should be.
I'm going to make a comparison here.
Now, it's obvious no one will support this extreme, hateful view point which the feminists support - other the minority -. That said, simply because no one speaks out against them/it, doesn't mean they support it. You cannot base a view on the ignorance of others. As it were, this view held by the small margin of feminists will not be highlighted because of how small and non-issue it actually is. I doubt we have to come out and proclaim how wrong battering your wife is, before you're acquitted from suspicion actually committing the crime. Same goes for holding said views.
^ nice and succinct. thank you.
You would have a point here, and it would be a correct one, were it not for one important factor which you have overlooked. The opinion here stated is one that comes from a STATE SPONSORED organisation. If the US government funded an organisation promoting an opinion, particularly one as extreme and dangerous and unpleasnt as this one, there would quite rightly be uproar. The problem with a lack of criticism on this point is that this ISNT a fringe organisation. It is being sponsored by the Icelandic government which suggests that, in principle, the Icelandic government is in support of what these people are saying. Now obviously, this is not the case in practice, but the question then becomes "Well, why havn't they said so?" and even more pertinently "Why havn't they cut off funding to said organisation?". The fact is that this organisation is supporting an extreme agenda with the permission of a democratically elected sovereign government. Isn't that concerning then, that no one is speaking out.
And there you have your answer.
A state sponsored organisation is a useful vehicle for promoting the message most likely to get the right wing attacking the left wing, with the left wing defending feminism, when the real goal has nothing to do with either and probably has more to do with removing rights to due process in general.
It's using women's issues as a political wedge, similar to how terrorism has been used to do the same thing.
i.e. the Icelandic government has succeeded in confusing us.
Wait, so you are saying that the Icelandic government have sponsered this person deliberately to get the right riled and the left exposed for what it actually is in this regard? Seriously? That's what you're saying is happening here?
What I am saying is that even though you are quite correct to point out that any given philosophy and/or group has it's extremists, it is of benefit to a government seeking to fit in with the general tendencies in changes to international law, to use a political wedge to deflect from the more likely reason why this change in law would be preferable to said government.
So in short, the Icelandic government is getting left and right attacking each other, instead of the Icelandic government. And Scandanavian feminism happens to be a very useful wedge, as far as populist politics concerning how left and right view feminism (as distinct from what it was intended to be as an originally non-wing theory) are concerned.
That doesn't mean this person doesn't actually believe what they are saying. It just means that "the board has been stacked" which happens very often and is often associated with who funds the organisation itself. In this case, the Icelandic government.
I'm sorry, you're seriously suggesting that the Icelandic government have supported this organisation as a distraction? Seriously? Do you have any evidence or is this pure supposition.