Male Feminists

Millicent

token101 wrote: »

I have quoted you every time, and responded. How is that disregarding what you've said. You've responded each time too so that doesn't make an awful lot of sense.

Towards women! That's pretty much the entire point that's being made. The minute someone says, 'I'm for progressing women's rights'; that's a fairly enthusiastic devotion to a specific cause, another definition of chauvinism. That's not equality, which is supposedly the idea of feminism. You've not been able to give an instance, one that holds water at least, where women have less rights in 21st Century Ireland. Workers pay is set by an organisation, I have never heard of a specific case where it has been proven that a woman has paid less than a man.

That's not bias. Bias is a prejudice against others that colours your interactions with them. I have no prejudice against others.

And you haven't responded. You haven't discussed a few of my points when it suits you not to.

Here is an example of women being paid less than men: The CSO found that there is still a 6 per cent difference between the pay of full-time women and their male peers. The issue is a complex one but a difference exists nonetheless.

You have decided there is no difference between the genders in present-day Ireland and you have refused to consider any argument to say otherwise. You have decided that the cause of feminism is over and we're supposed to take that as gospel. You are not acknowledging the issues still facing women, such as pay disparity, social conditioning to prescribed gender roles, gendered crimes such as rape and sexual assault or domestic violence (which, although they also affect men, affect women on a far,far greater scale), glass ceiling issues in Ireland, lack of representation in politics, the part of the constitution which says that a woman's place in the home (which is coincidentally where the issue surrounding fathers' rights largely originates from), etc. etc.

What the hell is wrong with women thinking that maybe instead of complaining about these things that they will mobilise and try to change them? Are you really complaining because they don't take on men's issues when they still have so many of their own to deal with? Because that comes across as petulant, childish and displaying a very juvenile "what about me" attitude. When you start campaigning for women's issues and the balance of power swings more evenly between the genders in the future, then you may complain that feminists aren't doing enough for men's rights. Put until then, it smacks of a someone having a tantrum because the whole world isn't catering to them.

yawha

Christ. This is the biggest load of semantic, nit picking bollocks I have ever read. No, there aren't many feminist groups actively campaigning for fathers rights etc., but that doesn't mean they can't say they are for equality between the sexes, nor does it mean anyone can assert that they actively wish to discriminate against men, because that's absolutely baseless.

"Feminism" means a lot of things. There's no "TRUE FEMINISM", as Scanlas puts it. From what I can see, it's generally social justice rather than legal rights that most branches of feminism are about these days. And we have a long way to go there.

WindSock

I don't see Fathers Rights groups campaigning for womens rights in Uganda. Bunch of shams...

Millicent

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Who says it's a massive issue. Feminism seeks equal opportunities for women. So Feminists should not be happy where they have greater opportunities than men. They seek equal oppurtunities for women meaning they seek less oppurtunities for women and/or more oppurtunities for men to achieve the primary goal of equal oppurtunities. Having more oppurtunities is not equal oppurtunities.

I don't think I've ever come across a real feminist. I've come across people who seek to increase the oppurtunies of women, I don't know what you call that movement, but it sure as hell ain't feminism. Feminism seeks equal oppurtunies for women, not increasing oppurtunies for women.

How dare you? How dare you try to patronise me and tell me I am not a real feminist? That's commonly known as "mansplaining", just so you know.

This again boils down to the attitude that, despite a whole theology which works for the equal rights of women, it's unfair that feminists don't campaign for men's rights. Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds? If you're so concerned about those rights, get off your ass and do something about them and stop complaining that a group that isn't set up to deal with those issues isn't working to fix them. I mean, come on, how entitled can you get?

Millicent

token101 wrote: »

How about a female Minister for Equality in the UK?

Just to point out, Andy Gray got the sack after being on suspension for slagging off the lines-woman after footage emerged of him sexually harassing a co-worker.

yawha

WindSock wrote: »

I don't see Fathers Rights groups campaigning for womens rights in Uganda. Bunch of shams...

I guess the counter argument is that Father's Rights groups do what they say on the tin, they don't say they're for equality between the sexes.

It's a load of semantic horseshit really. There's nothing really wrong with saying father's rights groups are for equality between the sexes, even if they only campaign for rights which apply to men, and it's the same with feminism. You can be for more things than you actively campaign for.

The way some people go on, you'd swear they think every feminist is a hardcore lesbian separatist or something. It's bizarre.

Dudess

Yeah there seems very little work being done by men to address issues faced by men - it makes the "Why isn't there mich outrage about this?!" comments re, for example men being appallingly ridiculed in so many media, very ironic. There isn't much outrage because instead of mobilising and taking a stand, there's just whinging and blaming women for not doing something about it. It's hostile towards women and cultivates an "us and them" divide.

WindSock

Having 'hardcore' and 'lesbian' in the same sentence probably won't go down well

/ooer matron

Scanlas The 2nd

Millicent wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Who says it's a massive issue. Feminism seeks equal opportunities for women. So Feminists should not be happy where they have greater opportunities than men. They seek equal oppurtunities for women meaning they seek less oppurtunities for women and/or more oppurtunities for men to achieve the primary goal of equal oppurtunities. Having more oppurtunities is not equal oppurtunities.

I don't think I've ever come across a real feminist. I've come across people who seek to increase the oppurtunies of women, I don't know what you call that movement, but it sure as hell ain't feminism. Feminism seeks equal oppurtunies for women, not increasing oppurtunies for women.

How dare you? How dare you try to patronise me and tell me I am not a real feminist? That's commonly known as "mansplaining", just so you know.

This again boils down to the attitude that, despite a whole theology which works for the equal rights of women, it's unfair that feminists don't campaign for men's rights. Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds? If you're so concerned about those rights, get off your ass and do something about them and stop complaining that a group that isn't set up to deal with those issues isn't working to fix them. I mean, come on, how entitled can you get?

When exactly did I say it's unfair feminists don't campaign for men's rights. What I said was its hypocritical if the definition of feminism you provided me is correct.

If you aren't interested in men's rights then you aren't a feminist. It's very simple. I don't campaign for men's rights because I don't care enough to campaign, and I never claimed men's rights were of utmost importance to me. That's why I'm not a hypocryt. If you claim to be a feminist then men's rights should be very important as the central theme of feminism is obtaining equal rights for women. In order to have equal rights you need to be aware what rights both sides have to fix the problem. That might mean increasing men's or women's rights or a bit of both. Your goal as a "feminist" appears to be to increase women's rights which isn't feminism, unless feminism is not about equality of the sexes.

Millicent

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

When exactly did I say it's unfair feminists don't campaign for men's rights. What I said was its hypocritical if the definition of feminism you provided me is correct.

If you aren't interested in men's rights then you aren't a feminist. It's very simple. I don't campaign for men's rights because I don't care enough to campaign, and I never claimed men's rights were of utmost importance to me. That's why I'm not a hypocryt. If you claim to be a feminist then men's rights should be very important as the central theme of feminism is obtaining equal rights for women. In order to have equal rights you need to be aware what rights both sides have to fix the problem. That might mean increasing men's or women's rights or a bit of both. Your goal as a "feminist" appears to be to increase women's rights which isn't feminism, unless feminism is not about equality of the sexes.

Are you serious? You don't care enough to campaign for issues which affect your gender and feminists are the hypocrites? That's some bizarre logic.

Dudess

Like any term though, "feminist" should be allowed to evolve. Originally it was about equality - today it is often applicable to people who want to highlight when women experience **** because of their gender, AS WELL AS when any other group does.

Gummy Panda

WindSock wrote: »

Having 'hardcore' and 'lesbian' in the same sentence probably won't go down well

/ooer matron

This thread has now showed up on my search filters..

Kooli

Millicent and Dudess, just found this thread now and haven't read it all, just the last couple of pages, but just wanted to say well done for sticking around, I don't know if I'd have the patience. I think you've both been really patient, reasonable and (probably too) tolerant.

To have a bunch of men say that feminists should be campaigning for men's rights or they can't call themselves feminists frankly beggars belief.

Unbelievable levels of mansplaining going on in this thread and well done to both of you for not being silenced.

Hope this post doesn't come across as patronising, but I know it can often be sooooo much easier to just give up when the people who are arguing against you make it so clear they have no interest in trying to understand your point of view, and just want to prove you wrong that you can end up wondering what the point is?

But back on topic, most of the really smart, kind, skeptical and self-aware men I know are feminists, and they are wonderful!

K-9

Dudess wrote: »

Anger with women because of personal experiences. I have seen two guys on Boards, who are regularly bitching about this alleged conspiracy against men and doing so by being extremely confrontational with female posters, recently admit to bad experiences at the hands of women. It's grim that there are bitches out there who ruin men's lives, but it doesn't mean all feminists, including reasonable ones like Millicent, should pay.

I'm not saying I know for certain there is anger against women here, but I suspect it - and with good cause IMO. The hostility and snideness is palpable.

If there were women saying the equivalent stuff to men I would think the very same thing, genders reversed. Far, far less frequent on Boards though.

Sums up where I used to be, taking problems I had in family courts as meaning they favour women. Reading up on it and seeing experience from the "other side" made me see it isn't a gender issue at all, its your usual, run of the mill dysfunctional section of Government.

Family courts kind of remind me of these threads, men and women saying how good the other have, all not seeing the wood for the trees, with family courts it's children, with "equality" debates its equality.

Dudess

I avoided it for ages because some of it is really just appalling, but when I saw the attempts to paint Millicent as a man-hater ffs I felt compelled to post.

Personally I don't identify myself as a feminist - an egalitarian instead, but that in itself would deem me to have feminist leanings, because there is that name for it. If there were other "ists" for all the other causes I'd support, I'd be those too. A person isn't wholly defined by one set of beliefs they hold. And I agree a person doesn't have to call themselves anything to take a stand against unfair treatment - of anyone. But that does not justify complete ignorance and hostility towards reasonable feminists, nor hate-filled lumping them in with man-hating zealots, one of whom I have yet to meet.

And calling a woman a feminazi because she defends herself and other women is really just the bottom of the barrel. And reeks of projection.

K-9

Kooli wrote: »

Millicent and Dudess, just found this thread now and haven't read it all, just the last couple of pages, but just wanted to say well done for sticking around, I don't know if I'd have the patience. I think you've both been really patient, reasonable and (probably too) tolerant.

To have a bunch of men say that feminists should be campaigning for men's rights or they can't call themselves feminists frankly beggars belief.

Unbelievable levels of mansplaining going on in this thread and well done to both of you for not being silenced.

Hope this post doesn't come across as patronising, but I know it can often be sooooo much easier to just give up when the people who are arguing against you make it so clear they have no interest in trying to understand your point of view, and just want to prove you wrong that you can end up wondering what the point is?

But back on topic, most of the really smart, kind, skeptical and self-aware men I know are feminists, and they are wonderful!

I'd very often agree with Millicent and Dudess on many social issues, sure 3 oft derided members of the pinko, liberal, socialist, pc brigade, as you'll see on boards. 2 of the most egalitarian posters I've seen on Boards, and that includes Fathers Rights issues.

I despise extremism in any subject and I'd say they do too, going on their posts.

later12

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

When exactly did I say it's unfair feminists don't campaign for men's rights. What I said was its hypocritical if the definition of feminism you provided me is correct.

And as you seemed to agree earlier, you could apply this to practically any other group in society from disability action groups, to fathers' rights groups, to gay rights groups, to civil rights campaigners in places like the USA or Northern Ireland, to the Irish association for the Unemployed (why are those bastards arbitrarily limiting their concern to the Irish!!!!)

You could do that, in theory, but nobody ever seems to do so.

This issue of hypocrisy is the first time I've ever seen this suggestion in relation to any such social group, and to be quite honest I did think it was a good question when I first read it. Then I thought about it and decided it doesn't much logistical sense.

One cannot, in practice, campaign for everything at the same time. Nor can one avoid self-appointed tags, nor tags appointed by other people when one simply finds any single group's cause to be particularly appealing to them personally, or at any period in time.

What I am still trying to figure out,and maybe you can help explain to me, is why this question doesn't quite seem to apply to other movements in the way that has arisen in this thread? Are none of you interested in why the Irish movement for the unemployed is not interested in the Irish employee, let alone the British, French, Zulu or Uruguayan unemployed?

Dudess

The "equality" thing is a handy stick to beat feminists en masse with. There are so many variables within feminism and some folks would rather ignore that because it's inconvenient. I don't understand the logic of just deciding that anyone who identifies themselves as a feminist, nothing else known about them, is automatically deserving of derision.

It's not a rational or sound assessment.

WindSock

Maybe the reason feminism exists...

Is because of the irrational fear of feminists.

:eek:

Keanu.jpg

Morag

Kooli wrote: »

But back on topic, most of the really smart, kind, skeptical and self-aware men I know are feminists, and they are wonderful!

Feminist men make the best lovers

Morag

benway wrote: »

If I wanted to set up a straw womyn, I would've gone for Dworkin-style "all sex is rape" and its derivatives.

Funny you should say that, the notion that Dworkin said 'all sex is rape'
is a myth and a strawwomyn.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinnon.asp

MacKinnon never made the statement which has been attributed to her. (The quote she never gave has been variously rendered as "All sex is rape," "All men are rapists," and "All sex is sexual harassment.") Critics of MacKinnon's work argue she implies all men are rapists, but the quote given here was created by MacKinnon's opponents, not MacKinnon herself.

MacKinnon claims the first reference to her alleged belief that all sex is hostile surfaced in the October 1986 issue of Playboy. According to MacKinnon, the statement (which had previously been attached to feminist Andrea Dworkin) was made up by the pornography industry in an attempt to undermine her credibility. It became inextricably linked with MacKinnon's name after she began working with Dworkin in the early 1980s to write model anti-pornography laws.

Dworkin has also disavowed the quote as a false statement circulated by her opponents. She has denied saying that "all sex is rape" or "all men are rapists." When asked to explain her views on the topic, Dworkin replied: "Penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent. But I'm not saying that sex must be rape. What I think is that sex must not put women in a subordinate position. It must be reciprocal and not an act of aggression from a man looking only to satisfy himself. That's my point."

Johro

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Can't be arsed reading the tread, up for work in 7 hours.
I'm male. Wouldn't call myself a feminist. Don't like the word. I'm all for completely equal rights though.
Same as I'm all for equal rights for all races but I wouldn't call myself a blackist. It's just got weird connotations to me.
G'luck lads.

Well yeah, fair enough.

later12

Actually just to get back to the idea of male feminists for a minute, if some of the guys want to insist I am trolling fair enough, but how do you explain male feminists who I presume you don't accuse of taking the piss? I'm talking about men who wouldn't really stand out as White Knight candidates or "whipped pussy boys" like Garrett FitzGerald and Michael D Higgins, both self professed feminists.

Why do you think these men called themselves feminists? Do you believe that they ignored or brushed aside other aspects of their belief system for an elitist arrangement for women?

And to bring women back into it, how do you explain the civil rights endeavours of people like Mary Robinson and Nell McCafferty, who are feminists, but arguably both better known or equally known for their campaigns outside of feminism strictly speaking (human rights/ Northern Ireland conflict/ homosexual law reform/ climate justice & poverty... all quite egalitarian principled movements)?

Dudess

I wouldn't care whether a guy was feminist or not, as long as he didn't harbour irrational anger towards any group.

44leto

I would very much regard myself as a male feminist, women have a long way in this world in the fight for fairness, its getting better in the west, but the west is not the world.

Yes we can no longer beat them, rape them, kill them, pinch their arse, degrade them or abuse them as second class citizens, that is a very good thing and something we should be proud off. IMO there is still a bit to do even in the west, but its a work in progress. I for one support those efforts and hope the rest of the world catches up.

johnr1

I have yet to encounter a bigger trainwreck of a thread on boards.

The bad feeling from this type of pointless viciousness is harmful to the community that is AH.

I'm not a feminist as far as my understanding of the word goes.

I do believe in equality of opportunity for both sexes, and will generally fight discrimination against either sex.


But to berate an orginisation founded on fighting for women's equality for not fighting for men's equality is ludicrious. FFS, grow a pair of balls, and fight your own battles. Found a men's movement if you believe we are worse off in general, rather than blaming a women's movement for it.

Dudess

And while here in the West, women have it fair most of the time (even having an advantage over men on occasion, which is completely wrong too) globally, women have it worse. That's just a fact. To speak out against atrocities against women around the world of course doesn't require one to be a feminist, but surely as long as this continues, it serves to galvanise the women's movement.

But it's not a competition either - men experience appalling treatment in some societies too, even those societies where they are deemed superior to women. It's not as if all men are exempt from, for instance, the viciousness of the Taliban. Not because of their gender though - there's the difference.

K-9

later10 wrote: »

Actually just to get back to the idea of male feminists for a minute, if some of the guys want to insist I am trolling fair enough, but how do you explain male feminists who I presume you don't accuse of taking the piss? I'm talking about men who wouldn't really stand out as White Knight candidates or "whipped pussy boys" like Garrett FitzGerald and Michael D Higgins, both self professed feminists.

Why do you think these men called themselves feminists? Do you believe that they ignored or brushed aside other aspects of their belief system for an elitist arrangement for women?

And to bring women back into it, how do you explain the civil rights endeavours of people like Mary Robinson and Nell McCafferty, who are feminists, but arguably both better known or equally known for their campaigns outside of feminism strictly speaking (human rights/ Northern Ireland conflict/ homosexual law reform/ climate justice & poverty... all quite egalitarian principled movements)?

I don't think Garret was a feminist at all, just an ardent reformer of society. I'd be a major critic of him economically, but socially, spot on, and as it proved way ahead of his time. Divorce was introduced 8/9 years after he was gone.

I remember watching a BBC Question Time programme, must have been around 95 and the second divorce referendum, long retired at that stage. He was asked about divorce and he was very straight about it and got hissed by many at the start, but at the end, he got a round of applause.

Basically started saying "he was an ould romantic, marriage is for life, but society has to recognise reality as well". An ould Romantic but Romanticism will die if reality isn't recognised.

I compare him to Enda now nodding to the Oliver J. Flanagan wing of FG!

johnr1

Now that I think of it, I suppose it's not such a surprise that this war erupted. It's been brewing in skirmishes here and in TLL for a while now, but I suppose at least it's happening in a semi neutral space.

Seriously though, it's divisive sh1t, and really solves nothing, only widens gaps of misunderstanding. I found it hard to read without getting angry because of stuff said on both sides. I dont think either group would address the other in these terms face to face.

later12

K-9 wrote: »

I don't think Garret was a feminist at all, just an ardent reformer of society. I'd be a major critic of him economically, but socially, spot on, and as it proved way ahead of his time. Divorce was introduced 8/9 years after he was gone.

Couldn't agree more on Garret's legacy. I'm just describing him as a feminist because that's a title he used on himself... he certainly was a reformer of society from various different perspectives, and not just the condition of women.

I remember watching a BBC Question Time programme, must have been around 95 and the second divorce referendum, long retired at that stage. He was asked about divorce and he was very straight about it and got hissed by many at the start, but at the end, he got a round of applause.

Basically started saying "he was an ould romantic, marriage is for life, but society has to recognise reality as well". An ould Romantic but Romanticism will die if reality isn't recognised.

I compare him to Enda now nodding to the Oliver J. Flanagan wing of FG!

And unfortunately it isn't even just the Endas of the party, but the likes of L Creighton. I find some of her opinions on social reform so disappointingly regressive...compare her (at what 29? 30?) to Garret FitzGerald who in his old age was still talking about reform right up until his last appearance at the McGill summer school.

This is slightly off topic, but people often wax lyrical about the dead at the time of their death but I think it is indicative of the genuine respect there was for Garret FitzGerald that he as an individual participating in public life is actively and genuinely missed, when we look around at those who have survived him.