Male Feminists

donfers

Sharrow wrote: »

It's called feminism as the first step is to say that women are not treated equally and not held to the same standards as men. That society can and will treat women as 'other' imposing a separate set of standards and assumptions which we have to struggle against.

The notion that all women are better suited to nurturing and caring careers is one of those.

what? you mean some people think men and women are different.....what utter mentalists!

jaja321

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

ixoy wrote: »

OK, maybe I'm mis-reading something here but it's saying that the pay disparity of 17% could be because many women work part time. Surely this needs to be taken account so we get a better figure on a per hour basis? Generally if you work less, you get paid less.

I can't say I've noticed attitudes in my work place (IT). I've had more female managers than male for example and it's quite level across the company. The pay would be the same as well as are the promotional opportunities.

And another thing that needs to be taken into account is maternatiy leave. If there are two people equally qualified for a job, one man and one woman, it makes sense to give it to the man because there is a certain percentage chance that the woman will get pregnant, need to be paid for 9 months while not working and a temporary replacement will have to be hired in the interim. The chance for this happening to a guy is zero.

It's not sexism, it's capitalism

Another reason there should be parental leave as opposed to maternity leave so that either the man or woman can take the leave or share it as they see fit. It is downright discrimination to hire a man over an equally qualified woman, purely based on the fact that she may go on to have children.

later12

benway wrote: »

From a capitalist point of view, why should women have special allowances made if they're going to take substantial amounts of time "off" on maternity leave over the course of their careers?

I can't speak for everyone, but that's not necessarily the problem. My Mum took about six years off work to raise me and my sisters because there was no way my Dad would entertain doing such a thing, and they couldn't afford a permanent childminder.

This is not an exceptional case. It is indicative of the predominant mentality that exists on every street in every town in Ireland (and indeed elsewhere): that a woman must be the one who takes the active part in raising the child. This is what needs to be challenged, and it can start by affording discretion to couples as to which one stays at home to mind the children.

K-9

later10 wrote: »

I can't speak for everyone, but that's not necessarily the problem. My Mum took about six years off work to raise me and my sisters because there was no way my Dad would entertain doing such a thing, and they couldn't afford a permanent childminder.

This is not an exceptional case. It is indicative of the predominant mentality that exists on every street in every town in Ireland (and indeed elsewhere): that a woman must be the one who takes the active part in raising the child. This is what needs to be challenged, and it can start by affording discretion to couples as to which one stays at home to mind the children.

Sweden showed that you have to force men to take a certain share of it, otherwise things don't change much. They introduced shared parental leave but until they put in a requirement for men to take two months minimum, not a lot changed!

--Kaiser--

jaja321 wrote: »

Another reason there should be parental leave as opposed to maternity leave so that either the man or woman can take the leave or share it as they see fit. It is downright discrimination to hire a man over an equally qualified woman, purely based on the fact that she may go on to have children.

It would be 'downright disrimination' to hire a man over a woman if there wasn't such a thing as maternity leave. Since there is, hiring a man over a woman of a certain age (say 25 - 40) and all other things being equal is just common sense

jaja321

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

jaja321 wrote: »

Another reason there should be parental leave as opposed to maternity leave so that either the man or woman can take the leave or share it as they see fit. It is downright discrimination to hire a man over an equally qualified woman, purely based on the fact that she may go on to have children.

It would be 'downright disrimination' to hire a man over a woman if there wasn't such a thing as maternity leave. Since there is, hiring a man over a woman of a certain age (say 25 - 40) and all other things being equal is just common sense

Based on that logic, any job I apply for, an equally qualified man should be hired instead of me, purely based on the fact that I have a womb. It is discrimination. Parental leave is a possible solution to this.

benway

later10 wrote: »

My Mum took about six years off work to raise me

I'm thinking more so of people for whom six months off would be a severe setback to their careers - the kind of people who are back doing 13 hour days two weeks after giving birth.

Absolutely agree that the decision as to who becomes the primary care-giver should not be based on arbitrary gender grounds - but so long as it is worked out by consensus, then I don't see the problem with a woman taking in that role.

After all, there's more to life than money, and it seems to me that many people sacrifice their family life for earnings .... question of priorities, I guess. Plus, doesn't placing such primacy on the bottom line neglect the satisfaction that can be derived from actively raising a family? Not everything can be quantified, much as the capitalist system tries.

I'm noting that no one wants to address the issue of casual sexism against males, which to my mind is more prevalent and "respectable" than overt sexism against females.

Another few from my exe's canon that have always bugged me:

"The global sisterhood" - the idea that there's a more profound connection between women all over the world that men can never understand or be part of. That a western middle class woman has more in common with another woman living in an African village than with a man from her own class and cultural background.

"Human history has primarily been defined by gender based oppression". We're gender roles not as much a function of the division of labour as of willful oppression? And isn't a male serf at least equally oppressed to a lady of the manor?

"There would be no war in a world ruled by women", I give you Margaret Thatcher, Elizabeth I, etc.

Does anyone actually believe this stuff? Am I missing something here?

later12

benway wrote: »

Plus, doesn't placing such primacy on the bottom line neglect the satisfaction that can be derived from actively raising a family? Not everything can be quantified, much as the capitalist system tries.

That's not really relevant though. Nobody is asking for judgement of the grounds upon which someone is going to decide to stay at home to raise the children. That's a private matter - or rather, it ought to be.

I'm noting that no one wants to address the issue of casual sexism against males

Maybe because it's not especially relevant? I'm sure you'll find nobody finds casual racism particularly relevant to feminism either - it is acceptable to only focus on one movement at a time. Calling yourself an egalitarian (which I'm sure absolutely everyone does) is only a very vague description, and it can be helpful to use some more specific tags, such as and including feminist. for the purpose of arguing a point that relates to the treatment of women.

"The global sisterhood" - the idea that there's a more profound connection between women all over the world that men can never understand or be part of. That a western middle class woman has more in common with another woman living in an African village than with a man from her own class and cultural background.

Actually, I do think they have something in common in that societies both in the west and in the developing world have a habit of treating them like second class citizens (I'm not necessarily talking about lawmakers, but social structures and norms). Having said that, I don't think many western women would be so presumptuous to assume they have a "profound connection" with severely impoverished women. I'm not sure if you really think that is a mainstream feminist viewpoint.

Same goes for the issue that there would be "no war" if women were in power. That's utterly un-knowable, and is a fairly daft thing to say. Nobody has said it in this thread. It's an argument you've raised just so you could beat it down.

Zulu

later10 wrote: »

Calling yourself an egalitarian is only a very vague description, and it can be helpful to use some more specific tags, such as and including feminist.

I'd disagree. Egalitarian isn't vague at all, and including a tags such as "feminist" could be percieved as contradictory.

"Feminism", unlike egalitarianism doesn't strive for equality, but rather the elitest goals of a single sex. Egalitarianism strives for equality; a balance between both sexes.

later12

Zulu wrote: »

Egalitarianism strives for equality; a balance between both sexes.

No,egalitarianism seeks equality between all people of whatever class, colour, creed, disability, sexual orientation and gender.

Within that single set you can quite reasonably have people who are specifically concerned with particular aspects of egalitarianism (e.g. feminism), and within the subsets you can quite easily have further subsets - there are a number of different branches of feminism, for example, taking in different views, or concentrating on different areas of theory: from feminism in the developing world, to to sexuality, to employment and labour law.

The treatment of women in society is just something that particularly bothers feminists,but it doesn't exclude other concerns that they may have. Are you concerned that gay rights lobbyists are not concerned about heterosexual couples' rights?

ixoy

I'd love to see more paternity leave introduced for fathers. It'd be nice for a mother to, for example, take the first six months and then the father to take the following six months. It'd allow both to bond with the child and enable the mum to return to her career if she so wished.

I'd be curious to see that, in the situation above, what percentage of men over women would voluntarily give up their career to mind the child if salary concerns or such were taken out of the equation. I know a number of career-minded women who became full time mothers because they wanted to rather than continue on in the work environment. They found it more rewarding.

Zulu

later10 wrote: »

No,egalitarianism seeks equality between all people of whatever class, colour, creed, disability, sexual orientation and gender.

Where did I err? I was discussing in terms of this conversation. My point stands:

"Feminism", unlike egalitarianism doesn't strive for equality, but rather the elitest goals of a single sex. Egalitarianism strives for equality; a balance between both sexes.

The treatment of women in society is just something that particularly bothers feminists

It also bothers people who aren't feminists.

Grolschevik

Zulu wrote: »

"Feminism", unlike egalitarianism doesn't strive for equality, but rather the elitest goals of a single sex.

However much you might believe it, that is not an accurate representation of the goals or philosophy of feminism.

later12

Zulu wrote: »

Where did I err? I was discussing in terms of this conversation. My point stands:

"Feminism", unlike egalitarianism doesn't strive for equality, but rather the elitest goals of a single sex. Egalitarianism strives for equality; a balance between both sexes.

Well now you're just re-quoting yourself. I did read the post. My point is that while egalitarianism does seek equality between the sexes, it is wrong to use it as a replacement term for feminism, because egalitarianism also seeks equality between the races, sexual orientation and various other personal markings, so to speak.

I would guess that the great majority of feminists are egalitarians. But feminist is just a more specific moniker.

Feminist may be to Egalitarian as man is to individual, as siamese is to cat, as AH is to boards.ie.

You didn't answer my question about the issue of homosexual rights. Do people who seek better conditions for LGBT people seek "elitist rights" in your view, or are fathers who want greater rights engaging in elitist aspirations?

Zulu

Grolschevik wrote: »

However much you might believe it, that is not an accurate representation of the goals or philosophy of feminism.

That's fine, as I said previously, that the perception I have of "feminist".
On that, can you expect anything less? As I understand it there are no definitive goals of feminism and it's a defence that's often utilised by moderate feminists to distance themselves from radical or ultra feminists.

later10 wrote: »

Well now you're just re-quoting yourself.

Indeed. That was my intention. My point still stands.

My point is that while egalitarianism does seek equality between the sexes,

Yes, it does.

it is wrong to use it as a replacement term for feminism,

Of course it's not a replacement for feminism - that's exactly my point. They do not equate.

Feminist may be to Egalitarian as man is to individual, as siamese is to cat, as AH is to boards.ie.

Well we'll have to disagree on that one. If you seek equal rights for all, you seek rights for all - not just rights for one elite section of society.

You didn't answer my question about the issue of homosexual rights. Do people who seek better conditions for LGBT people seek "elitist rights" in your view, or are fathers who want greater rights engaging in elitist aspirations?

If they have an elite agenda, of course - why would they be any different?

I fear you are missing my point entirely.

Grolschevik

Zulu wrote: »

That's fine, as I said previously, that the perception I have of "feminist".
On that, can you expect anything less? As I understand it there are no definitive goals of feminism and it's a defence that's often utilised by moderate feminists to distance themselves from radical or ultra feminists.

On that, Alison Jaggar’s Feminist Politics and Human Nature is a good place to start:

http://books.google.ie/books?hl=en&lr=&id=xVI6ZYDkDSYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=alison+jaggar+feminist+politics+and+human+nature&ots=nwhU7IKOPN&sig=5YBLCHubYJt71C6TpkpfZ4KeC9o&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=alison%20jaggar%20feminist%20politics%20and%20human%20nature&f=false


http://books.google.ie/books/about/Feminist_politics_and_human_nature.html?id=9-QpAAAAYAAJ

http://www.enotes.com/feminist-politics-human-nature-salem/feminist-politics-human-nature

The first link is particularly good, as you can read much of the introductory chapter.:)

later12

Zulu wrote: »

Well we'll have to disagree on that one. If you seek equal rights for all, you seek rights for all - not just rights for one elite section of society.

But how do you know feminists seek equal rights for just one section of society? Which feminists are you talking about here, exactly?

If I became a lobbyist for father's rights, perhaps someone would say "look at him there, seeking fair treatment for dem elitist men and fathers" despite the fact that I also have an interest in women, in travellers, in prisoners, in lots of different groups who are treated cruelly by society.

One doesn't just wear a feminist's cap all one's life. Do you get that?

Just to clarify, because there seemed to be some equivocation, do you think those pursuing gay rights are pursuing elitist goals?

Batsy

keano_afc wrote: »

Women should be paid the same as men if both are doing the same job

Not if men, on average, work longer than women, which is the case. Overall, men work not only more hours each year than women but, of course, in their entire lives as, up until recently in Britain, men retired 5 years after women. So it is right that men are, on average, paid more than women. They work longer so get paid more.

However, if you look at age groups you will see that it's not always the case that men are paid more than women. On average, women in their twenties are paid more than men in their twenties.

(especially in the world of tennis).

In tennis men should be paid more than women, due to the fact that men's matches consist of a maximum of five sets and women's matches conists of a maximum of just three.

I think it's wrong that Wimbledon pays women players the same as men players, even though men have to work harder and men's tennis is much more entertaining. Women players should be forced to play five sets like men if they want to be paid the same.

Batsy

Maternity leave, rights of fathers to children, pay and amount of clothes shops.

Men maybe should be given more paternity leave.

Also, I think it's wrong that, in divorce cases, it is usually the mothers who are given custody of the children, even in cases where the father would look after them better.

Thankfully, the British government is to bring out a law to stop courts keeping giving preferential treatment to mothers in divorce cases to make it more likely that fathers will get custody of the children. It's one of the many sensible things this Tory-led government is doing to make Britain a better place.

benway

Not everything can be quantified, much as the capitalist system tries.

... absolutely is relevant. My father consistently worked 12+ hour days to provide for us, but he missed out on developing a real relationship with his children, that's only come much later. But he's supposedly the beneficiary of a sexist system. I would say that he's more so a victim of an exploitative, dehumanising system - from where I see it my mother, with her lower earnings, got a better deal and a fuller life.

So, I think that paternity leave is a good idea, not only from the point of view of promoting income equality, but basic humanity. Problem is that it flies in the face of neoliberal "efficiencies", so I wouldn't hold my breath.

I don't buy this "second class citizens" line for a second, either. How is a lady of the manor, say, a second class citizen by comparison to a male serf? True, women (and men) were assigned particular roles in pre-industrial and early industrial society, which outlived their usefulness and broke down in the modern and late modern world. The organisation of society based exclusively on heterosexual family units, each headed by a man, is over, and good riddance. But I don't see that the expectation that the woman would cook, keep the house and raise the children is more oppressive than the expectation that young men should become warriors and defend against aggressors or raid and go to war against neighbours, as is still the case today in certain societies.

And nonchalance towards casual sexism against males again absolutely is relevant. To disregard it would show feminism not to be striving for equality, but prosecuting a battle of the sexes. Gender equality is a noble goal, tilting the balance of gender dominance is not. My suspicion is that feminism pursues the latter, which is why I do not identify as a feminist.

I'm not sure if you really think that is a mainstream feminist viewpoint.

I'm not sure either. I've heard these three arguments from an ex and another friend (UCD Womens' Studies grads both), no idea whether they're mainstream. This is why I'm asking whether anyone actually believes this stuff?

It's an argument you've raised just so you could beat it down.

No, it's not. It's a genuine question. Pretty presumptuous, right there. If I wanted to set up a straw womyn, I would've gone for Dworkin-style "all sex is rape" and its derivatives. Down with vajazzling.

Are you concerned that gay rights lobbyists are not concerned about heterosexual couples' rights?

At this stage, their myopia would be a slight concern. I'm all for single issue advocacy where the inequality is so egregious as to warrant it. But, as rights have been won and mainstream attitudes have become accepting, I think campaigners need to start looking at the bigger picture.

White heterosexual males may have started out as the enemy, but I think we've now hit the stage where many of them ... like me ... are sympathetic to womens' rights, but in the context of a broader egalitarian agenda.

My feeling is that feminism has lost sight of equality and has become more focused on identity politics. Academics are making lucrative careers "gendering" topics where gender is essentially irrelevant, and campaigners are getting lost on chasing down smaller and smaller issues, like vajazzling, alienating the mainstream, both male and female, in the process.

The main problem is that I see feminism as artificially divisive, setting women against men and undermining class solidarity. As I say, I think it's high time that we move on to a paradigm that unites across gender, race, creed, sexuality, class, and whatever else you care to mention, treating each person as a human being, first and foremost.

later12

benway wrote: »

But he's supposedly the beneficiary of a sexist system. I would say that he's more so a victim of an exploitative, dehumanising system - from where I see it my mother, with her lower earnings, got a better deal and a fuller life.

I'm sure she would much rathered that the structures were in place for her to have made that decision more clearly of her own volition, than your summary of how she feels about it. Even if your understanding of your mother's feelings are accurate, I'm not confident it would apply to all, or the majority of, women in that position.

I don't buy this "second class citizens" line for a second, either. How is a lady of the manor, say, a second class citizen by comparison to a male serf?

Why are you using totally inappropriate and disproportionate terms like that? You're adding yet another straw man to the dozens of them that have already been battered enough in this thread.

For one thing, a "lady of the manor" type scenario has no resonance at all with most women nor most feminists. For another thing, the point about feminism is not that womens' position is necessarily worse than men in every respect, but merely that feminists are concerned particularly about the treatment of women.

I mean, lots of disability activists understand that there are individuals in the developing world, both able bodied or otherwise, who are in much worse situations than the disabled Irish people that these activists seek to help. And there's nothing wrong with that - the disabled are just a group that these activists have an affinity to or for whom they own a concern.

It's the same for feminists. I'd say the top five most important people in my life are all women, and as someone who cares for them, I would hate to see them inhibited by their gender.

True, women (and men) were assigned particular roles in pre-industrial and early industrial society, which outlived their usefulness and broke down in the modern and late modern world.

Did they? Did they really break down? I think they are still a part of our social furniture quite honestly. We see it not so much in legislative issues, but in the social norms that affect how women and men interact with each other and with society. We see this everywhere from the heavily gender-centric roles assigned to children from birth, to popular expectations of motherhood from a woman, to the expectations that a boy will like war movies and rugby union, but that a girl who does so is a bit eccentric, maybe even too masculine

And nonchalance towards casual sexism against males again absolutely is relevant. To disregard it would show feminism not to be striving for equality, but prosecuting a battle of the sexes.

Two things here.

Firstly, there is no objective reason to suggest that feminists as individuals do not strive for equality or do not reject casual sexism against men.
Secondly, sexism against men does not have to come under the remit of feminism any more than skin colour racism has to come under the remit of travellers' rights. They can be different issues, but they can complement each other, and individuals who are involved in one movement may well participate in another.

But, as rights have been won and mainstream attitudes have become accepting, I think campaigners need to start looking at the bigger picture.

Ireland & the UK still treat homosexual couples differently to heterosexual couples, in spite of the great progress that has undeniably been made. But I am curious to know what you think should happen next? That campaigners should walk away from that progress and be glad of what they've got? That anything more is looking for elitism? That anytime they march for adoption rights or full marriage rights, they should also march under the banner of stamping out racial intolerance and fuller recognition of the Gurkhas?

Seriously, I'm interested to know how this would work in practice.

Zulu

later10 wrote: »

But how do you know feminists seek equal rights for just one section of society?

Feminism pursues mens issues & rights?Seriously??

Which feminists are you talking about here, exactly?

I've already addressed this twice now.

Just to clarify, because there seemed to be some equivocation,

By equivocation, you mean not the answer you wanted, is it?

do you think those pursuing gay rights are pursuing elitist goals?

I've been succinct enough.

Ok, I can see this conversation is going nowhere. You are refusing to acknowledge my points or even the answers I offer to your questions - which is you pejorative, but very trite from my perspective.

hatrickpatrick

Is this unnatural? I think it should be viewed as reasonable to want to promote equality between the sexes.

Why not call it "equalitism" then? I'm proud to call myself an equalitist. I believe in a gender blind society.

The problem with "Feminism" is that, as the name implies, it is concerned only with areas in which women are at a disadvantage, and not vice versa.

As an equalitist I object to double standards against women and discrimination against women at work, but I also object to the frankly outrageous terms men are given when it comes to issues such as divorce and child custody.

My issue with feminism is that most vocal feminists seem to hold this "equality until it sucks for me" attitude, which I for one find deplorable.

I'm in favour of equal rights for both genders and absolutely no privileges for either based solely on your gender. I don't thin that makes me a feminist, since the very name implies it only represents one gender's grievances.

EDIT:

Secondly, sexism against men does not have to come under the remit of feminism

It does if feminism wants to claim it is about equal rights full stop, and not just equal rights where men currently have the upper hand. OTherwise, it's a hypocritical movement.

later12

Zulu wrote: »

Feminist pursue mens issues & rights?Seriously??

Yes. Isn't that amazing! Some feminists are even men! Some have husbands, and fathers and sons. Some have boyfriends, some take public transport, some like marmite, some do not. Feminists are people who live in the same space as you do, and are quite capable of being concerned about more than one thing at a time.

Were you this shocked when you found out that disability activist Mary Davis was running for the Presidency? Who would have thought an interest in disability could have afforded her an interest in any other topic or movement.

Sometimes life really just bowls you over, doesn't it?

TheZohanS

Zulu wrote: »

Ok, I can see this conversation is going nowhere. You are refusing to acknowledge my points or even the answers I offer to your questions - which is you pejorative, but very trite from my perspective.

You shouldn't waste your time, he's playing the long game here. Obviously has too much time on his hands.

Would a real feminist post this:

later10 wrote: »

Only if they neglect to know their limits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjxY9rZwNGU

I saw a feminist once. The smell of want off of her.

I don't think so.

hatrickpatrick

later10 wrote: »

Yes. Isn't that amazing! Some feminists are even men! Some have husbands, and fathers and sons. Some have boyfriends, some take public transport, some like marmite, some do not. Feminists are people who live in the same space as you do, and are quite capable of being concerned about more than one thing at a time.

Were you this shocked when you found out that disability activist Mary Davis was running for the Presidency? Who would have thought an interest in disability could have afforded her an interest in any other topic or movement.

Sometimes life really just bowls you over, doesn't it?

Sort of wish I hadn't posted, came into this topic hoping to contribute to a debate and instead I see the usual condescending tone which in my experience characterizes ALL such debates.

If you want to be taken seriously, my advice is that you take others seriously too.

Bannasidhe

TheZohan wrote: »

You shouldn't waste your time, he's playing the long game here. Obviously has too much time on his hands.

Would a real feminist post this:



I don't think so.

I think that's really funny.

later12

TheZohan wrote: »

You shouldn't waste your time, he's playing the long game here. Obviously has too much time on his hands.

Again? I think I replied to this. Do you seriously think that was a considered, serious, or philosophical comment on women?

If I'm not mistaken it was posted in AH. I told you earlier, I have posted far worse in The Thunderdome. Have a look. I have posted far worse on my sisters' facebooks. The difference is that most people can tell when someone is being serious, and when someone is trying to be lighthearted about something.

If I wanted to wind people up on here, I'd hardly have agreed so much with reasonable posters like K9 and others who don't agree with what I'm saying. Does this make sense?

later12

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sort of wish I hadn't posted, came into this topic hoping to contribute to a debate and instead I see the usual condescending tone which in my experience characterizes ALL such debates.

If you want to be taken seriously, my advice is that you take others seriously too.

I am. Like I just said, there has been plenty of reasonable posters who don't agree with feminism and have laid out their arguments clearly and rationally; even though I don't agree with them, I think they've contributed to the discussion.

On the other hand, there is a bit of scrappiness creeping into the thread, which is a bit unfortunate, but I'm happy to debate reasonably with someone who is reasonable.

Scanlas The 2nd

jaja321 wrote: »

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

jaja321 wrote: »

Another reason there should be parental leave as opposed to maternity leave so that either the man or woman can take the leave or share it as they see fit. It is downright discrimination to hire a man over an equally qualified woman, purely based on the fact that she may go on to have children.

It would be 'downright disrimination' to hire a man over a woman if there wasn't such a thing as maternity leave. Since there is, hiring a man over a woman of a certain age (say 25 - 40) and all other things being equal is just common sense

Based on that logic, any job I apply for, an equally qualified man should be hired instead of me, purely based on the fact that I have a womb. It is discrimination. Parental leave is a possible solution to this.

No it's not purely because you have a womb, if I had a womb surgically inserted I wouldn't be discriminated against. You are discriminated against for the likelihood of you reducing profitability and/or increasing work load for others.