Nerdfighters

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 This she did by claiming that the ideology of assuming a man innocent until proven guilty is outdated in light of feminist research and therefore indicated that this cornerstone of the Icelandic justice system should be abolished.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

Views: 701

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think I need to point out that although you're both quite accurate to point out that sex is a grey area that is poorly understood, there are cases of rape where violence has not been used. For example, date raping and having sex with an unconscious person.  In the case of date raping, the person may have willingly accepted a drink from a person who seemed friendly; a mundane (but not exactly wise) behaviour.  It doesn't give sexual consent though, and the drink has been spiked with something....that's not violent force, but it's still rape.

It's still a case where your choice has been taken away, though, which is what I think matters.  If somebody has sex with you when you are either unconscious or too drunk to make a decision, they are taking away your choice.

If somebody is trying to guilt or pressure or verbally manipulate you into sex, they might be setting up a crappy choice, but they are still allowing you a choice.  You are still in a position where you can say no and walk away.

Well...most of the time, on the second point, you're probably right.  However, there are some issues there too.  Some relationships do not have equal power, and in that sense, if the person with greater power is using it to manipulate or pressure the person with lesser power into a sexual activity, that is a form of abuse. It's not quite rape in the strictest sense of the term, but I would hardly call it true or full consent, nor would I call it respectful.  It also depends on how the pressure or manipulation is applied;  this could be a form of coerce as well. 

I would distinguish it from the harmless occassions where a person just goes along with it, not out of coerce or fear or anything like that, but because they simply want to make their partner happy.  Still, if the relationship were equal the partner would be content to only engage in the behaviour when it is mutually desired.

I suppose I need to say, any gender can be sexist.
Feminism is okay, for trying to put both genders on equal-par.
But it's these nutters and extreme eejits that blur it all up.

Bur then, each side has its own branch of crazies; no?

I really don't think you could find anyone wanting to change the law in favour of men in this way on the other side of the equation. Certainly, no one who had received state funding and who hadn't been scrutinized as a result.

Oh, come on. Sarah Palin calls herself a feminist, too. There are extremes with everything. The true definition of feminism is wanting equality. For everyone. Male or female.

If it's equality for everyone, why is it called "FEMINisim" and why do feminists support the kind of action here described. And as I have said, these people are state sponsored, they cannot be simply brushed off as extremists.

It is called FEMINisim because it is from the perspective of women being unequal to men with the objective of gender equality.
There are also a few philosophies of MENism which vary from male superiority to men's perspective of how a patriarchal society (or a society in which being female or feminine is inferior, creating gender inequality) also hurts men. (IE: Men's right to take an absence at work for parenting time. Speaking out against "feminine" traits, such as caring for a child on an emotional level, being seen as "weak" and "unacceptable" behavior for men.)The latter group are usually feminist allies.

You prolly don't hear any american-feminists speaking out against these feminists because none of the news is in english...and we don't really have media outlets to bring this news to us. And we're kinda busy fighting to keep our birth control and right to divorce right now.

It is called FEMINisim because it is from the perspective of women being unequal to men with the objective of gender equality.


That's my problem. It automatically assumes that women are the victims, thus instantly relegating any problems men have to being second order concerns, not as important, thus denying equality.

Nooo, as women ARE and continue to be unequal to men, they continue to need solidarity in overcoming adversity as they live in a society that has traditionally seen women as less-than-men. No minority group is capable of overcoming such adversity without organization and solidarity that make groups, like Feminists, a necessity.

Men's concerns ARE equally important. But the magnitude and frequency of their issues does not compare to the magnitude and frequency of women's issues. Men's issues are still valid, however, women's issues are more prevalent.

The society we live in is created by men, for men. Men are the universal. Women are the peripheral. To remove the divide and the struggle between the dominant and subordinate gender, women and their allies need to organize with the common goal to challenge and remove the barriers that keep women from being equal-to and independent-from men.

In doing so, there will be many shifts in social and domestic dynamics that will often leave men displaced, with fewer privileges than they are accustomed to or, otherwise, in a state of transition as roles between the genders blur and stabilize.

The roles and benefits of men ARE affected by the changing roles of women. But men are not dependent on women. Men are not denied gainful employment because of their gender. Men can more sufficiently survive, financially, without a partner. Men do not have their attractiveness values over their skills. Men are not shamed and marginalized in their profession or politics for being male. Men's health issues are "standard" while women have to pay more for health coverage and have to seek out specialty groups to assist her. Men, in the united states, do not have laws and policies that target them or discriminate them as a gender. Men do not have the ruling gender, which is men not women, creating barriers to keep men from advancing. Politics, media, wall street and entertainment in this country are still "Boys clubs". Many of the disadvantages men suffer are caused by the expectations a male-dominate society places on men. Many of the inequalities that arise are due to the transition of male-dominated areas into something more egalitarian. Sometimes because men don't want to share with women. Sometimes because women displace men as they move up in society - which does not offer any compensation for men.

Such transitions deserve attention, from both men and women, to make the transition away from male-dominance a fair one. But such turbulence does not make Feminism wrong, bad or unproductive.

 as women ARE and continue to be unequal to men,

In SOME areas. Not all. Saying "Women are unequal to men" is a loaded statement. It implies that women's inequalities and problems are "the" definitve sufferings, and that men's problems are not as important.

Men's concerns ARE equally important. But the magnitude and frequency of their issues does not compare to the magnitude and frequency of women's issues. Men's issues are still valid, however, women's issues are more prevalent.



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.

The society we live in is created by men, for men. Men are the universal. Women are the peripheral.



Disagree, and I have evidence. Women are doing better in schools, there are more women in higher education, women are not in prison nearly as much, women are not committing suicide as much etc etc. The opinion that women's problems are somehow the most important ones is the result of feminism overreaching.

Men are not denied gainful employment because of their gender.



Wrong. In the US now, if you apply for a job with any department of the federal government, it has been legislated that women should be more likely to get the job. 

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. 

RSS

Youtube Links!

Here are some YT links to channels related to Nerdfighteria and educational content!

*Can you think of any more? Pass along any suggestions to an Admin who will then add it to this list should it fit!

© 2014   Created by Hank Green.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service