Feminists... they crazy

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

http://forrettindafeminismi.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/worlds-first-f...

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 This she did by claiming that the ideology of assuming a man innocent until proven guilty is outdated in light of feminist research and therefore indicated that this cornerstone of the Icelandic justice system should be abolished.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.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

What you're suggesting is that the Icelandic government sponsered a group 10 years + ago, in the hope that one day, they might need something to distract the public from debates about an economic crisis that had not happened yet, and then use it to provide some fairly mild, and apparantly ineffectual distraction from said economic crisis's main concerns? Do you not realise how moronic and conspicricy theorist this sounds? Even if, for the sake of argumebnt, your suggesting that there have been changes in funding recently, in order to get this story into the press, you have yet to prove it, nor have you managed to propose it as a realistic option. Provide me some evidence, and then maybe your idea looks believable. Right now it just looks like "The government is sponsoring a story to distract us from all the horrible economic things! Keep the tinfoil hats on!"

[CD]

That is the coolest response you've given on this thread so far. 

• I never mentioned the economic crisis, but okay, sure why not. It's all pulling stuff out of the air, isn't it?
• Have we looked at this from the general pattern of before versus after?  Not really, it was just speculation on both our parts.  Show me that the organisation hasn't changed. ie. that this person was a spokesperson for this group, saying the same crap, 10 years ago, before government funding.  And of course in this scenario my hypothesis will be likely wrong.
• Even if it is not this "conspiracy theory", your hypothesis is still wrong.  Mainstream feminism does not make such ridiculous claims.  Idiots who happen to be feminists, do. That is why the term 'extremist' applies.  I can assure you of that, as a person who is well versed in feminist literature, in both the political and the academic sense of the term. 
• And yes, even if my speculation / poorly defined hypothesis is wrong, organisations do work like that.  Short term thinking is for the drinking classes.  Funding does impact results.  In layman's terms it's known as 'don't bite the hand that feeds you'.  That is why in scientific papers it is expected (but does not always occur) that the researcher must declare sources of funding. It is a known variable.  The addition of board stacking and/or "just change this one little thing" is a common practice in organisations around the world.  Have you ever had a job?  Are you still at school?  If you answered no to the first and yes to the second, you haven't seen what I mean.  I have also studied things that relate to this.  These are known variables in the general, that may apply (but are yet to be demonstrated) in the specific.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

• Even if it is not this "conspiracy theory", your hypothesis is still wrong.  Mainstream feminism does not make such ridiculous claims.  Idiots who happen to be feminists, do. That is why the term 'extremist' applies.  I can assure you of that, as a person who is well versed in feminist literature, in both the political and the academic sense of the term.

The problem is though that these feminists have NOT moved to condemn this person in any capacity, despite the fact that these people have made very outlandish claims. Can you imagine what would happen if it was discovered that the US government was giving money to the WBC to support religious institutions? So many Christians would decry this as massively misguided. So why don't we see the same here?

[CD]

In case you hadn't noticed, there have been at least a few people replying to your discussion who are supportive of feminism, and decrying the comment this Icelandic person made.

And you would probably notice that neither the Christians decrying WBC, nor the feminists decrying this person, would get mainstream media coverage.  The mainstream media thrives on muck racking.   We all know all feminists are man haters and all Christians are woman haters?  And that a person can't be both feminist and Christian?   (in case you didn't notice, I was being sarcastic). 

Media does not publish the facts.  It publishes what sells copy. That's why you never hear the outcry.

[Latch33570]

Just to stick my nose in Rush Limbaugh calls them femminazi's.

[CD]

Isn't Rush Limbaugh a bit of a shock jock though?

[Latch33570]

NO Rush is a VERY influential republican right wing radio talk show host. Mainstream not shock jock.

[CD]

If it's mainstream to call feminists "feminazis"  then your country is truly in the shitter.  On the other hand, if he's just referring to the extremists then it may be a slightly humorous and apt term.

[Madelyn Donahue]

Let me just say this, even though I am very late in the discussion: throughout history, there have been many groups with well meaning whose image is tainted because of extremists. Most recent, are the Muslim extremists, who are and do everything the peaceful Muslim religion hates. Every movement has crazy extremists, be they left or right wing. It is kind of wrong to assume that all feminist are crazy because of a small population of extremists. All this movement is about is woman equality, and you are basically stating (even if not intentionally) that the fact that woman want equal rights as men is insane. So yeah, pretty late it, but I saw this and just had to say something.....

[Madelyn Donahue]

Let me just say this, even though I am very late in the discussion: throughout history, there have been many groups with well meaning whose image is tainted because of extremists. Most recent, are the Muslim extremists, who are and do everything the peaceful Muslim religion hates. Every movement has crazy extremists, be they left or right wing. It is kind of wrong to assume that all feminist are crazy because of a small population of extremists. All this movement is about is woman equality, and you are basically stating (even if not intentionally) that the fact that woman want equal rights as men is insane. So yeah, pretty late it, but I saw this and just had to say something.....

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Let me just say this, even though I am very late in the discussion: throughout history, there have been many groups with well meaning whose image is tainted because of extremists.

The problem is more that A) this group is state funded, suggesting acceptance of extremists by the mainstream and B) the lack of widespread condemnation of this by outside groups. Imagine, if you will, that the Iranian government openly funded an organisation whose intent was to commit terrorist activity. That's serious. This isn't just a matter of them "being" extremists, it's a matter of the position these people are in, and the fact that its not being attacked.

And you would probably notice that neither the Christians decrying WBC, nor the feminists decrying this person, would get mainstream media coverage.

I'm calling foul. If there was a large scale protest organised outside of WBC, then yes, it would get attention. Secondly, when the Turkish government even suggested that they would make adultery a criminal offense, there was massive outcry that was very widely publicised. The fact that it has been suggested, by a state funded institution, that presumption of innocence should be removed in the case of men, is very serious and deserves more coverage and condemnation.

[CD]

I wouldn't assume that protest movements always get widescale coverage.  At least not everywhere.

Take for example,  some issues in Australia, which have almost never got coverage outside of indy type media groups that support the cause anyway:

• Australian Tent Embassy has been sitting outside Parliament House for 40 years.  It only really got mainstream coverage when someone wound up with the PM's shoe this year. But it's been there for 40 years.  I call muck raking.
• There are protests in remote Indigenous communities every day concerning the racist aspects of the so called NT intervention.  I have never heard of any mainstream coverage of that. 

Indigenous issues are not the only ones where this problem of reporting is unbalanced or non existent.  Almost anything where the government gets some kind of benefit from the issue not being addressed, has this problem.  Given that this organisation you're talking about is state funded, I doubt that the protests would have been covered, if these happened at all.