Male Feminists

benway

TheZohan wrote:

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

Figured that ... although he could be really stuck for a date tonight, so is sticking with the White Knight routine.

But seeing as we're at it, I wouldn't mind hearing what some of the actual feminists around here have to say.

later10 wrote: »

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

By shifting the focus away from identity politics. By framing these rights-claims as human or civil rights rather than LGBT rights or womens' rights. Subtle distinction, but an important one.

I'm not talking about abandoning gains, far from it, I'm talking about moving on to the next level - I suspect that the traditional single-issue campaigns are fast becoming subject to dwindling returns, if that's not the case already. While campaigners have been expending their energy on very specific issues, human rights discourse has been taking a hammering in the popular press, it's time for a fight back.

Scanlas The 2nd

later10 wrote: »

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?

Feminism is said to be about equality for women. But it clearly isn't. It's for the advancent of the interests of women. Equality in reality isn't the goal.

later12

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Feminism is said to be about equality for women. But it clearly isn't. It's for the advancent of the interests of women. Equality in reality isn't the goal.

It's not really so much the advancement of womens' interests (which sounds like an inevitably unsatisfied and eternal process) as a concern that women ought always be afforded appropriate rights and equality as would be expected by men (not necessarily as are currently enjoyed by men).

Equality is a wider issue that concerns at least two or more parties, and that's another issue that most feminists tend to be interested in. But certainly, from a feminist point of view, I would say your understanding of feminism is one I am reasonably happy and comfortable with, with the above modification.

Mary Robinson has called herself a feminist. Are you shocked when she speaks on environmental or mens' issues, for example?

hatrickpatrick

later10 wrote: »

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.

Eh...

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?

That's not reasonable debate, that's a hyperbolic barrage of strawmen.
Or should I say, strawpeople. :P

later12

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Eh...

Read the rest of the post.. the part about reasonable posters.

hatrickpatrick

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Feminism is said to be about equality for women. But it clearly isn't. It's for the advancent of the interests of women. Equality in reality isn't the goal.

Even if it was, the key is when you say "equality for women".
Read that as, getting rid of unfair disadvantages, which of course I'm completely in favour of.
Nothing, however, about giving up unfair advantages.

Find me a self styled feminist who objects to, for example, divorce and custody laws, and that is indeed someone who is a genuine equalitist.

Or how abut the fact that a sports presenter was fired for joking that women don't understand offside, when generalizations and downright bashing of men takes place daily on shows like Loose Women.

Again, if you fight against one but not the other, it makes you a bit of a hypocrite.

hatrickpatrick

later10 wrote: »

Read the rest of the post.. the part about reasonable posters.

Zulu was making a fair point in fairness. I'm going to single out the divorce issue here because it's only of the most shocking (and in my view scandalous) examples of misandry, but in all honesty do you generally see self styled feminists object to it?
In fact, usually when it's brought up, I find you can expect a defensive strawman about deadbeat dads to be thrown back at you without actually addressing the issue at hand.

I was once labelled a radical misogynist here for suggesting that the current institution of marriage as defined by the law, is something guys in general should boycott. Try arguing with that.

Zulu

later10 wrote: »

Yes. Isn't that amazing! ...

For the record, I made a typo which I've corrected. That said - thanks for making your intention clear, I'd like to say it was a pleasure, but it wasn't.

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Even if it was, the key is when you say "equality for women".
Read that as, getting rid of unfair disadvantages, which of course I'm completely in favour of.
Nothing, however, about giving up unfair advantages.

Find me a self styled feminist who objects to, for example, divorce and custody laws, and that is indeed someone who is a genuine equalitist.

Or how abut the fact that a sports presenter was fired for joking that women don't understand offside, when generalizations and downright bashing of men takes place daily on shows like Loose Women.

Again, if you fight against one but not the other, it makes you a bit of a hypocrite.

The problem with family law is that access is usually given based on who would have had the main care of the children during the relationship and that usually is the mother, so the father usually ends up getting access. So the dynamics of the relationship then follows through as regards custody and access, usually agreed dynamics.

If both parents are working full time and roughly the same hours, availing of childcare/minders, I think that basis goes out the window, and that's were courts usually favour mothers.

There's also the other side which is the amount of fathers who don't avail of any access or very little and the mother would love for the father to do more.

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Zulu was making a fair point in fairness. I'm going to single out the divorce issue here because it's only of the most shocking (and in my view scandalous) examples of misandry, but in all honesty do you generally see self styled feminists object to it?
In fact, usually when it's brought up, I find you can expect a defensive strawman about deadbeat dads to be thrown back at you without actually addressing the issue at hand.

I was once labelled a radical misogynist here for suggesting that the current institution of marriage as defined by the law, is something guys in general should boycott. Try arguing with that.

I got the strawman, though not a defensive one!

Again divorce is based on the main earning partner paying maintenance to the other spouse which again, usually to agreed dynamics during the relationship is the father.

later12

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm going to single out the divorce issue here because it's only of the most shocking (and in my view scandalous) examples of misandry, but in all honesty do you generally see self styled feminists object to it?

Well as I said in the OP, I self style myself as a feminist, and I object to what you've just described, and have said so on boards.ie. As a man, and someone who looks forward to being a father that's obviously something I am concerned about. Take a look at any feminist -Mary Davis, Mary Kenny, Mary Robinson, Michael D Higgins, Ivana Bacik, Nell McCafferty... and you will see an individual who has a broad palate of civil rights and egalitarian interests, whereby feminism is just one small subset of their overall worldview.

I was once labelled a radical misogynist here for suggesting that the current institution of marriage as defined by the law, is something guys in general should boycott. Try arguing with that.

I do argue that. I've often said that marriage should be a religious rite and civil partnership should be a human right, and that conventional marriage as we know it ought to be abolished altogether.

Scanlas The 2nd

later10 wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Feminism is said to be about equality for women. But it clearly isn't. It's for the advancent of the interests of women. Equality in reality isn't the goal.

It's not really so much the advancement of womens' interests (which sounds like an inevitably unsatisfied and eternal process) as a concern that women ought always be afforded appropriate rights and equality as would be expected by men (not necessarily as are currently enjoyed by men).

Equality is a wider issue that concerns at least two or more parties, and that's another issue that most feminists tend to be interested in. But certainly, from a feminist point of view, I would say your understanding of feminism is one I am reasonably happy and comfortable with, with the above modification.

Mary Robinson has called herself a feminist. Are you shocked when she speaks on environmental or mens' issues, for example?

I would like to point out I have no problem with women seeking to improve their rights and circumstances, that's what feminism is to me according to what I hear and read from feminists. Anything I've ever read in the name of feminism is about advancing women's rights which leads me to believe it isn't about equality. If I read an article in the name of feminism which explains how women need to do certain things to advance men's right in particular areas then I would think they really are interested in equality of the sexes. I haven't come across these feminist opinions yet though.

Scanlas The 2nd

later10 wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Feminism is said to be about equality for women. But it clearly isn't. It's for the advancent of the interests of women. Equality in reality isn't the goal.

It's not really so much the advancement of womens' interests (which sounds like an inevitably unsatisfied and eternal process) as a concern that women ought always be afforded appropriate rights and equality as would be expected by men (not necessarily as are currently enjoyed by men).

Equality is a wider issue that concerns at least two or more parties, and that's another issue that most feminists tend to be interested in. But certainly, from a feminist point of view, I would say your understanding of feminism is one I am reasonably happy and comfortable with, with the above modification.

Mary Robinson has called herself a feminist. Are you shocked when she speaks on environmental or mens' issues, for example?

I would like to point out I have no problem with women seeking to improve their rights and circumstances, that's what feminism is to me according to what I hear and read from feminists. Anything I've ever read in the name of feminism is about advancing women's rights which leads me to believe it isn't about equality. If I read an article in the name of feminism which explains how women need to do certain things to advance men's right in particular areas then I would think they really are interested in equality of the sexes. I haven't come across these feminist opinions yet though.

Scanlas The 2nd

later10 wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Feminism is said to be about equality for women. But it clearly isn't. It's for the advancent of the interests of women. Equality in reality isn't the goal.

It's not really so much the advancement of womens' interests (which sounds like an inevitably unsatisfied and eternal process) as a concern that women ought always be afforded appropriate rights and equality as would be expected by men (not necessarily as are currently enjoyed by men).

Equality is a wider issue that concerns at least two or more parties, and that's another issue that most feminists tend to be interested in. But certainly, from a feminist point of view, I would say your understanding of feminism is one I am reasonably happy and comfortable with, with the above modification.

Mary Robinson has called herself a feminist. Are you shocked when she speaks on environmental or mens' issues, for example?

I would like to point out I have no problem with women seeking to improve their rights and circumstances, that's what feminism is to me according to what I hear and read from feminists. Anything I've ever read in the name of feminism is about advancing women's rights which leads me to believe it isn't about equality. If I read an article in the name of feminism which explains how women need to do certain things to advance men's right in particular areas then I would think they really are interested in equality of the sexes. I haven't come across these feminist opinions yet though.

desertcircus

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Or how abut the fact that a sports presenter was fired for joking that women don't understand offside, when generalizations and downright bashing of men takes place daily on shows like Loose Women.

Richard Keys and Andy Gray were fired for loudly and vociferously declaring entirely seriously that a female linesman had made a match-altering error purely because she was a woman. They roundly abused her in their capacity as match analysts for no other reason than she was a woman. There was nothing joking about it, and they absolutely deserved to be fired. Show me a clip of Loose Women where a panellist pours genuine hatred on someone and says they're genetically incapable of doing their job because they have a Y chromosome and I'll absolutely support you in calling for them to be fired.

later12

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If I read an article in the name of feminism which explains how women need to do certain things to advance men's right in particular areas then I would think they really are interested in equality of the sexes. I haven't come across these feminist opinions yet though.

Ok... genuine question then.

Does it bother you when gay people talk about the right to adopt and have custody of children, but ignore fathers' custody rights in that context?

Because part of the problem here is that people have some beef with feminists for not being the everyman on civil rights, yet don't seem to expect the same of fathers, gay people, the disabled, battered husbands, rape victims, or pretty much any other of the sometimes marginalised groups that I can think of.

benway

I hear almost daily at work that men are disorganised, helpless, and generally inferior to women. Nobody bats an eyelid.

later10 wrote: »

a broad palate of civil rights and egalitarian interests, whereby feminism is just one small subset of their overall worldview.

I still smell T.R.O.L.L. here ... I've given you an answer to your serious question above. Wouldn't it be better to synthesise of civil rights and egalitarian interests within an inclusive rubric? All these identity-based campaigns are useful in their own way, but can be quite alienating to those who aren't part of the particular grouping, which defeats the purpose a little, I think.

I have difficulty endorsing any ism in general, but in particular one that exclusively promotes the interests of one section of society.

later12

desertcircus wrote: »

Richard Keys and Andy Gray were fired for loudly and vociferously declaring entirely seriously that a female linesman had made a match-altering error purely because she was a woman. They roundly abused her in their capacity as match analysts for no other reason than she was a woman. There was nothing joking about it, and they absolutely deserved to be fired. Show me a clip of Loose Women where a panellist pours genuine hatred on someone and says they're genetically incapable of doing their job because they have a Y chromosome and I'll absolutely support you in calling for them to be fired.

I agree, and even if that were even the case on that show... that would be a condemnation of the show's producers and presenters, certainly not of feminism nor women.

To say so would be the logical equivalent of saying that R. Keyes & A. Gray were damning to men as a whole, which is a broad and unacceptable generalisation.

Scanlas The 2nd

later10 wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If I read an article in the name of feminism which explains how women need to do certain things to advance men's right in particular areas then I would think they really are interested in equality of the sexes. I haven't come across these feminist opinions yet though.

Ok... genuine question then.

Does it bother you when gay people talk about the right to adopt and have custody of children, but ignore fathers' custody rights in that context?

Because part of the problem here is that people have some beef with feminists for not being the everyman on civil rights, yet don't seem to expect the same of fathers, gay people, the disabled, battered husbands, rape victims, or pretty much any other of the sometimes marginalised groups that I can think of.

If gay people claim that equality of homo and hetero sexuals is of utmost important but overlook situations where gay people get more rights than straight people then I'd say the exact same thing.

later12

benway wrote: »

I hear almost daily at work that men are disorganised, helpless, and generally inferior to women. Nobody bats an eyelid.

That's not the fault of feminism. If someone makes jokes about disabled people, that's nothing to do with feminism either.

benway wrote: »

I still smell T.R.O.L.L. here .

Lots of us are putting in a genuine effort into this thread. Don't waste your time replying if you think I'm trolling, just hit the report button.

TheZohanS

desertcircus wrote: »

Richard Keys and Andy Gray were fired for loudly and vociferously declaring entirely seriously that a female linesman had made a match-altering error purely because she was a woman. They roundly abused her in their capacity as match analysts for no other reason than she was a woman. There was nothing joking about it, and they absolutely deserved to be fired. Show me a clip of Loose Women where a panellist pours genuine hatred on someone and says they're genetically incapable of doing their job because they have a Y chromosome and I'll absolutely support you in calling for them to be fired.

Ah here, that's complete "horseshìt" as later10 would say.

Here's the clip of both Keys and Gray and another one of Loose Women.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KVq3Wu2B1M

Both are equally bad, take off the blinkers.

later12

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If gay people claim that equality of homo and hetero sexuals is of utmost important but overlook situations where gay people get more rights than straight people then I'd say the exact same thing.

Does this include fathers, who are generally men?

benway

later10 wrote: »

Lots of us are putting in a genuine effort into this thread. Don't waste your time replying if you think I'm trolling, just hit the report button.

Ok. Well, if you are, then you clearly have waaaaaay too much time on your hands.

So, my serious question is why we need to cling on to feminism, when a broader more inclusive approach could be more effective? As you have seen, lots of men won't support feminism, not through misogyny or anything like it, but because of feminism's adversarial approach, but would broadly support many "feminist" aims. Why not inclusive egalitarianism? Or is identity politics rather than equality the main thing?

later12

TheZohan wrote: »

Both are equally bad, take off the blinkers.

That's horseshit alright. Neither feminism nor women at large can be held responsible for what a group of middle aged women say on live TV.

Scanlas The 2nd

later10 wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If gay people claim that equality of homo and hetero sexuals is of utmost important but overlook situations where gay people get more rights than straight people then I'd say the exact same thing.

Does this include fathers, who are generally men?

Yes, if they claim equality is of utmost importance but somehow never ever do anything to increase the rights of women then they are equally hypocritical using the "equality" card to merely further there own interests.

TheZohanS

later10 wrote: »

That's horseshit alright. Neither feminism nor women at large can be held responsible for what a group of middle aged women say on live TV.

Seriously dude, after reading your previous comment on feminists in other threads I can't take your posts seriously on this thread anymore. You're having a laugh, now go and waste someone else's time.

later12

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Yes, if they claim equality is of utmost importance but somehow never ever do anything to increase the rights of women then they are equally hypocritical using the "equality" card to merely further there own interests.

You have a problem with feminists, partially because they don't take into account how women have greater rights than fathers in the course of a custody battle.
But on the other hand, you are as critical of fathers who do not take on the instances of mothers who have less rights in other circumstances (a woman is more likely to have to pause her career for maternity leave than a father, because of how the law is framed).

So you form the opinion, therefore, that fathers are acting selfishly and in a way that does not promote equality by not engaging in protest over a deficiency in mothers' rights?

I think that's a very strange outlook, but at least you're honest about it so fair enough.

Scanlas The 2nd

later10 wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Yes, if they claim equality is of utmost importance but somehow never ever do anything to increase the rights of women then they are equally hypocritical using the "equality" card to merely further there own interests.

You have a problem with feminists, partially because they don't take into account how women have greater rights than fathers in the course of a custody battle.
But on the other hand, you are as critical of fathers who do not take on the instances of mothers who have less rights in other circumstances (a woman is more likely to have to pause her career for maternity leave than a father, because of how the law is framed).

So you form the opinion, therefore, that fathers are acting selfishly and in a way that does not promote equality by not engaging in protest over a deficiency in mothers' rights?

I think that's a very strange outlook, but at least you're honest about it so fair enough.

I have no problem with any group seeking to eradicate unfair disadvantages for themselves, it is not their responsibility to campaign for other groups.Just don't like it being done in the name of equality as it it's not true when they don't seek to eradicate unfair advantages for themselves.

benway

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I have no problem with any group seeking to eradicate unfair disadvantages for themselves, it is not their responsibility to campaign for other groups.Just don't like it being done in the name of equality as it it's not true when they don't seek to eradicate unfair advantages for themselves.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/how-can-i-use-feminism-to-my-advantage,11020/

token101

Millicent wrote: »

I really do get it, actually. You presume because I have described myself with a single descriptor, that I cannot campaign for the rights of any group outside of my own gender. I have repeatedly said on this forum that I am for fathers' rights and for the rights of various other marginalised groups, but because I am for the rights of women as a feminist, I don't "get" equality? Don't presume to know me because of one single facet of my personality or perspective.

And how does making the rights of one group lessen another group's? How does that work exactly?

By supporting one interest group, who are seeking equal rights but already have equal rights, it means you want more than equality. Women already have equal rights. When equality was achieved, which it has decades ago, surely that made feminism redundant? Why do we need eleven people in a quango to tell us that these 'issues' are still important? Has anybody ever actually genuinely questioned the role of something like the Womens Council or is that allowed? Does that automatically make you a mysoginist? Look at these reps:

http://www.nwci.ie/about/executive.html

Eleven people. Notice the lack of men? Irish Women Lawyers Association? I'm assuming that's female lawyers, and not just lawyers who only represent women? Why is there an organisation for this? Can men join? If not, then it's sexist! Marraige equality? Marraiges with children aren't equal, women have more parental rights. More of the 'equality'. Women of North East Galway whose remit is to 'empower women through education and training'? Now I'd understand if they were based in Afghanistan, but isn't a bit ridiculous in a country where women consistently outperform men in education? Longford womens' link whose remit is to 'ensure women of Longford can reach their full potential in a safe and equal society'. Pavee point, who recently advertised looking for a administrator, who 'should be a member of the travelling community'. Bit off topic, but it goes to the overall end point that all these people fighting against 'discrimination' are either guilty of the same thing themselves or else are essentially fighting nothing. They should have ceased to exist years ago. And I'd be interested to know how many are riding the quango gravy train along the way.

And no, I don't know you, I don't care who you are really, it's none of my business, I'm basing comments on what you said. No need to start singing R-E-S-P-E-C-T just yet Somebody back along posted the difference between chauvinism and feminism. I'd say take a look. You'll find a lot of the stuff posted by you and others ticks all the boxes of chauvinism.

And FFS stop comparing womens rights to LGBT rights or 'marginalised groups'. There's no comparison.