Male Feminists

later12

TheZohan wrote: »

What I am saying is that feminists are not looking for equality between the sexes, feminists are looking for rights for women, they don't care about men.

Horseshit.

Looking for equal rights for women does not mean one cannot simultaneously promote other causes independently of that.

Have you ever taken part in a protest, or a campaign of any kind? Lets take an example of a strike over pay.

How would you feel if someone said TheZohan doesn't care about workers rights in China, for look at him there, going on strike over his salary in Ireland.

That would be a pretty stupid thing to say, wouldn't it?

I consider myself a feminist. I am also a mild socialist, a man, a son, a bad cook and a believer in one hundred different causes from tax incentives for FDI to gay marriage to fathers' rights. We can believe in more than one thing at a time.

Bannasidhe

Millicent wrote: »

You know feminists don't operate with a hive mind, right?

Did you not get the memo transmitted via "mirror neurona"? We are femborg - resistance is futile.

benway

If it's any consolation, I got a lot of "when are you ever going to settle down" in the run up to my 30th ... couple of years down the line and people seem to have given up hope, though. Got my share of college also, but I guess that house-wife-car-kids should be the peak of my aspirations.

Personally, I would never identify as a feminist. I'm all for equality, and I used to think of myself as pro-feminist, but, having been in a four year relationship with a fully paid-up, doctrinaire feminist, I ended up forming the conclusion that feminism wasn't looking to create a perfect world where everyone was equal, but rather to maintain an unequal system, only transposing the gender-based pecking order.

Plus, I suspect that most guys who like to trumpet their feminism too loudly are basically IRL internet white knights ...

Morag

TheZohan wrote: »

Yes, did you actually read the article? It's acknowledging that men are looking for more rights and are in favour of paternity leave etc. It is not championing the rights of men.

That's one article out of the whole feminist.ie website.

I have, between emailing TDs and politcal parties about paternity leave and fathers rights and even trying twice to get an action/lobby group up and running.

finality

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Gender roles are pushed on children tho and those roles do have an influence. Go and look at the dress-up clothes aimed at boys and those aimed at girls. I recently walked past Mothercare and was horrified to see that the dress up costumes for boys were firefighters, superheros, police, doctors while girls had a choice between which Disney princess they wanted to be...

Have you looked at children's clothes lately? Girls clothes are not only sexualised (bras for toddlers - FFS!) but seem to be designed for never setting foot outside the door. Girls get sleeveless dresses and skimpy lightweight tops (9 times out of 10 in every possible shade of pink) while boys get clothes designed to allow them to actively play outdoors.

Or the genderisation of toys?

Children are not being allowed to make up their own minds - girls are being taught that they should all aspire to be princess ( by marrying a prince) while boys are being taught to have active, 'official' roles in wider society.

Yes, and I did say that I was against imposing gender roles on children. What are you trying to convince me of?

Millicent wrote: »

Are they? Are they really? By what science are women evolved towards care-giving? Imposing gender roles on children DOES lead to this sort of conditioning though.

I'll give you an example that worried me lately: my one year old niece being handled a doll and told to mind her baby.

Her older brother owns cars, books, age-appropriate building sets etc. etc. and is actively discouraged by his father from playing with "girls'" toys. Do you suppose he will see himself as the caregiver in future or will she? And which of them is more likely to tend towards a role in engineering? Just based on the lessons they have already been taught at one and four, I would say it is highly unlikely that he would ever choose to be a nurse.

I said I was against pushing people towards ANY particular career, and that I was against gender roles. You said that women should be encouraged to pursue typical 'male' careers - my point was that if someone is more interested in being a nurse they shouldn't be encouraged to be an engineer, they should be encouraged to choose whichever path will make them happy.

And the brains of women and men are different, we see that through the fact that more men have an aptitude for maths whereas a higher percentage of women are better at the likes of interpersonal reasoning. I'm not saying that applies to all women or to all men, just that a larger percentage of women will be more inclined towards the 'caring' roles I suppose. I'm sure that gender roles do play a role, I just don't believe that the differences in career choices are ONLY due to gender roles.

Sindri

benway wrote: »

basically IRL internet white knights ...

Dammit later10, he's onto us.

sock puppet

TheZohan wrote: »

I have never heard of any feminists campaigning for equal rights for mothers and fathers or equal insurance premiums when men were paying 2-3 higher premiums than their female counterparts.

Many women are set to benefit greatly from the EU gender discrimination ruling which will at the same time make many men across Europe poorer. Any opinion I've read on the ruling has been divided.

Millicent

TheZohan wrote: »

You've used the term equality incorrectly here, equality means that both sides are equal, not just women.

Yes, and one can achieve equality for their own particular group. Should I bitch that the NAACP doesn't care about equality because it is not campaigning for the rights of Asians, or workers, or white women? Or should I just use reasoning to understand that a group is more effective when it is focussed on a certain avenue and realise that it is not practical to have a scatter-gun approach to campaigning?

later12

Sindri wrote: »

Dammit later10, he's onto us.

We're sooo going to turn all these lesbians back onto the cock, sindri. :cool:

Or else become lesbians ourselves. Looks like a bit of sport.

R P McMurphy

This topic needs a mention of francis sheehy skeffington from cavan who was murdered during the Easter rising. Ireland's fist and best known male feminist

TheZohanS

later10 wrote: »

Horseshit.

Well that's a well thought out response now isn't it? I had hoped for better from a poster such as yourself.

Looking for equal rights for women does not mean one cannot simultaneously promote other causes independently of that.

Have you ever taken part in a protest, or a campaign of any kind? Lets take an example of a strike over pay.

How would you feel if someone said TheZohan doesn't care about workers rights in China, for look at him there, going on strike over his salary in Ireland.

That would be a pretty stupid thing to say, wouldn't it?

The point I raised was in response to this comment:

Feminism at its core is simply the promotion of equality between the sexes. It's come to mean something different due to more radical people adopting the term, but when it comes down to it that's what feminism means. In theory, every reasonable person is a feminist. It's almost become a dirty word at this stage, but it's not and shouldn't be seen as such.

My comment was that: No it's not. Feminism is about giving women rights equal to men where there are instances that their rights are not equal. Now there are of course exceptions within the Feminist movement, but they like Sharrow, are the exception as opposed to the rule.

Sharrow wrote: »

I have, between emailing TDs and politcal parties about paternity leave and fathers rights and even trying twice to get an action/lobby group up and running.

Excellent, fair play to you.

later12

R P McMurphy wrote: »

This topic needs a mention of francis sheehy skeffington from cavan who was murdered during the Easter rising. Ireland's fist and best known male feminist

True.

He was born a Skeffington, but both he and his wife took one another's names upon marriage. Incredibly singular and insightful thing to do in that overwhelmingly patriarchal society. Most men wouldn't even do that today for the ribbing they'd get.

Not his biggest achievement or anything, just illustrative of his convictions.

Bannasidhe

TheZohan wrote: »

You've used the term equality incorrectly here, equality means that both sides are equal, not just women.



Yes, did you actually read the article? It's acknowledging that men are looking for more rights and are in favour of paternity leave etc. It is not championing the rights of men.




That's one article out of the whole feminist.ie website.

Oh my gawd - the women's movement is not devoting enough energy to men's rights.
So you do want women to fight their own battles and yours as well? Should we also make you a sammich and get your slippers?

You do know that the 1964 legislation re:unmarried fathers was actually designed as a get out clause for men right? It literally left women holding the baby while men could walk away. Actually, it left women in Magdalene laundries being abused and used as slave labour while the children were put in industrial schools and the men walked away from any responsibility scot free.

I will support absolutely equal rights for unmarried fathers, but I will not lead the charge - I have my own battle to fight and one of those is to ensure that my granddaughter (my son is her unmarried father) knows that she can aspire to being more then a princess when she grows up.

By the by - does anyone else find it ironic that in a thread where the OP raised the issue of whether men could be feminists we now have men complaining that feminists are not doing enough for men in regard to getting equal rights?

later12

TheZohan wrote: »

Feminism is about giving women rights equal to men where there are instances that their rights are not equal.

Yes, but my 'horseshit' comment pertained to that part of the post where you said that feminists don't care about men. I'm a feminist, and men's issues (on account of my being a man) are something that i care about very deeply, perhaps moreso than feminism.

My point is that 'feminist' is a tag that is used to define only one aspect of one's overall belief system. It doesn't define an entire individual and all of his or her endeavours.

Pacifist Pigeon

These are people who put sex before their sex.

Millicent

finality wrote: »

I said I was against pushing people towards ANY particular career, and that I was against gender roles. You said that women should be encouraged to pursue typical 'male' careers - my point was that if someone is more interested in being a nurse they shouldn't be encouraged to be an engineer, they should be encouraged to choose whichever path will make them happy.

And the brains of women and men are different, we see that through the fact that more men have an aptitude for maths whereas a higher percentage of women are better at the likes of interpersonal reasoning. I'm not saying that applies to all women or to all men, just that a larger percentage of women will be more inclined towards the 'caring' roles I suppose. I'm sure that gender roles do play a role, I just don't believe that the differences in career choices are ONLY due to gender roles.

But you don't see the correlation between prescribed gender roles and the careers people end up in or are you being obtuse? By the time someone decides they want to be a nurse, that sort of conditioning has long since taken effect.

Your point about Maths skills are not borne out by experience, as girls are consistently outperforming boys on maths skills.

And on school subjects, there is still a definite difference between how and what girls are taught in school. For example, one study shows that girls-only classes spend more time on religion while boys spend more time on PE, history and geography.

Source 1, Source 2

Even if I were take your point that men's and women's brains are different and that some women are more predisposed to caring roles, that doesn't explain how the gap between men and women in caring roles is SO massive (82 per cent of grads in Health are women, while 74 per cent in Education are female).

Acid_Violet

seamus wrote: »

Because feminism only chases equal rights for women, rather than equal rights for both sexes.

Egalitarianism would be a better cause.

Whoah there boy, let's have a second think about that one. When feminism emerged as a concept and a movement equal rights for women and equal rights for both sexes were essentially the same thing. Why? No other reason than the balance was so swung in favour of men and against women that that was the only gender inequality really to resolve. If feminism were to continue in the same vein and spirit as that initiated by Miss Pankhurst and Miss Wollstonecraft, then it would be gender equality.

Egalitarianism is a better word, from the perspective of a dictionary definition, for what is this continuation of this movement. However, because it has become a taboo word, because the opponents of feminism have depicted separatist feminism as mainstream feminism cos it's easier to win an argument against extremists than reasonable agreeable people and because women who call themselves feminist are frequently met with the intentionally degrading retort of "lesbian", I think anyone who truly believes in gender equality, male or female, has the duty to reclaim this word and call themselves feminist in the name of true gender equality. And this means pushing for better treatment by employers for women and a family court system which isn't overwhelmingly biased against men.

Bannasidhe

finality wrote: »

Yes, and I did say that I was against imposing gender roles on children. What are you trying to convince me of?



I said I was against pushing people towards ANY particular career, and that I was against gender roles. You said that women should be encouraged to pursue typical 'male' careers - my point was that if someone is more interested in being a nurse they shouldn't be encouraged to be an engineer, they should be encouraged to choose whichever path will make them happy.

And the brains of women and men are different, we see that through the fact that more men have an aptitude for maths whereas a higher percentage of women are better at the likes of interpersonal reasoning. I'm not saying that applies to all women or to all men, just that a larger percentage of women will be more inclined towards the 'caring' roles I suppose. I'm sure that gender roles do play a role, I just don't believe that the differences in career choices are ONLY due to gender roles.

We need to remove any idea that there are 'male' jobs and 'female' jobs for a start.

As for men and women having different brains which, apparently, means men are at better at maths - let's just lay that ol chestnut to rest

Boys are not innately better at maths than girls, and any difference in test scores is due to nurture rather than nature, researchers suggested today.

According to new research published in the journal Science, the "gender gap" in maths, long perceived to exist between girls and boys, disappears in societies that treat both sexes equally. When girls have equal access to education and other opportunities they do just as well as boys in maths tests.

The research, led by Prof Paola Sapienza of Northwestern University in the US, investigated whether a global gender gap exists and whether it was the result of social engineering rather than intrinsic aptitude for the subject.

"The so-called gender gap in math skills seems to be at least partially correlated to environmental factors," Sapienza said. "The gap doesn't exist in countries in which men and women have access to similar resources and opportunities."

Researchers analysed data from more than 276,000 children in 40 countries who took the 2003 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa) - the internationally standardised test of maths, reading, science and problem-solving ability.

Globally, boys tend to outperform girls in maths (on average girls score 10.5 points lower than boys) but in more "gender equal societies" such as Iceland, Sweden and Norway, girls scored as well as boys or better.

For example, the maths gender gap almost disappeared in Sweden, while in Turkey girls scored 23 points below boys in maths.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/may/30/schools.uk1

You do know the same 'brains are different' argument was used by race theorists against those of Irish and African origin don't you?

c_man

I'm all for equal rights and all that but could never say I'm a supporter of feminism. I see lots of logical arguments written here about what it is but the overwhelming majority of feminists I've encountered IRL are horrible pieces of work whom I want nothing to do with.

It is sad that men's rights don't get as much attention though. 25% of Irish 15 year old boys are illiterate. No outcry, imagine if that were for girls.

finality

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh my gawd - the women's movement is not devoting enough energy to men's rights.
So you do want women to fight their own battles and yours as well? Should we also make you a sammich and get your slippers?

That's the kind of attitude that puts people off feminism. It's the "us and them" mentality. You're creating a divide between women and men here, "our battles and their battles". The problem with feminism in my eyes is that the focus is not on equal rights, it's on gaining rights for women. There is a subtle but significant difference. I fully support the concept of equal rights for everyone, but I hate the idea of the division that an ideology like feminism underlines. "More rights for women, men can fight their own battles". What we need more than anything is unity between men and women.

Sindri

TheZohan wrote: »

Well that's a well thought out response now isn't it? I had hoped for better from a poster such as yourself.



The point I raised was in response to this comment:



My comment was that: No it's not. Feminism is about giving women rights equal to men where there are instances that their rights are not equal. Now there are of course exceptions within the Feminist movement, but they like Sharrow, are the exception as opposed to the rule.



Excellent, fair play to you.

Don't agree with that. Of course feminism is going to be mainly concerned with female issues, that does not mean by default, a woman is not then concerned with the rights of men.

sock puppet

Millicent wrote: »

Your point about Maths skills are not borne out by experience, as girls are consistently outperforming boys on maths skills.

That would depend on how you define success. For instance last year far more boys achieved A grades than girls. The gap narrows then but more boys still got Bs and Cs than did girls.

suicide_circus

The problem with feminism is that 'equality' in this sense does not exist. Men and woman are not equal. People are not equal. Each gender tends to have its strengths and weaknesses. The agenda of imposing this ideal of equality on people, while well meaning, is ultimately counter productive. Of course people should have the right to follow any course they wish in life and not feel pressurised but completely rejecting the natural tendencies of the genders is unhelpful to us in the long term.

TheZohanS

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh my gawd - the women's movement is not devoting enough energy to men's rights.
So you do want women to fight their own battles and yours as well? Should we also make you a sammich and get your slippers?

Yes, a sammich would be good right now.

You do know that the 1964 legislation re:unmarried fathers was actually designed as a get out clause for men right? It literally left women holding the baby while men could walk away. Actually, it left women in Magdalene laundries being abused and used as slave labour while the children were put in industrial schools and the men walked away from any responsibility scot free.

I will support absolutely equal rights for unmarried fathers, but I will not lead the charge - I have my own battle to fight and one of those is to ensure that my granddaughter (my son is her unmarried father) knows that she can aspire to being more then a princess when she grows up.

By the by - does anyone else find it ironic that in a thread where the OP raised the issue of whether men could be feminists we now have men complaining that feminists are not doing enough for men in regard to getting equal rights?

You are misrepresenting the point I am making, if you read my post again I was addressing the fact that a poster said that the "core" to Feminism was equality between the sexes, it blatantly is not. It's about women's rights.

If I started a campaign looking for more jobs for men in childminding for example would you say I'm a great fellow championing the case of equal rights for men and women? You would not, what you would say is that I'm looking for equality for men in one area. You would not say that TheZohan's core value is equality for men and women's rights.

I hadn't seen this post before:

seamus wrote: »

Because feminism only chases equal rights for women, rather than equal rights for both sexes.

Egalitarianism would be a better cause.

seamus, yet again, hit the nail on the head...damn...could have saved myself about an hour of bloody posting if I'd spotted that before...

Millicent

sock puppet wrote: »

That would depend on how you define success. For instance last year far more boys achieved A grades than girls. The gap narrows then but more boys still got Bs and Cs than did girls.

That doesn't prove that boys have a more innate aptitude for maths though. The study above that Bannasidhe posted proves the point. I'm not trying to say that either gender is better, just that neither one has a natural capacity for anything because of their genitals.

Millicent

suicide_circus wrote: »

The problem with feminism is that 'equality' in this sense does not exist. Men and woman are not equal. People are not equal. Each gender tends to have its strengths and weaknesses. The agenda of imposing this ideal of equality on people, while well meaning, is ultimately counter productive. Of course people should have the right to follow any course they wish in life and not feel pressurised but completely rejecting the natural tendencies of the genders is unhelpful to us in the long term.

What are these inherent differences? I'd be happy with just a few examples that can't be countered with the nurture argument.

K-9

R P McMurphy wrote: »

This topic needs a mention of francis sheehy skeffington from cavan who was murdered during the Easter rising. Ireland's fist and best known male feminist

And if I remember correctly the Irish state was one of the first to give women equal voting rights. Something went wrong after that, probably a mix of the Catholic Church, DeV and a very socially conservative FG until the 70's anyway, until Garret got his hands on them, now back to the norm once Enda got his hands on them!

Millicent

K-9 wrote: »

And if I remember correctly the Irish state was one of the first to give women equal voting rights. Something went wrong after that, probably a mix of the Catholic Church, DeV and a very socially conservative FG until the 70's anyway, until Garret got his hands on them, now back to the norm once Enda got his hands on them!

Spot on. The bloody switching of the Free State's constitution to the current version sprouted a hell of a lot of problems for both genders, IMO.

benway

Millicent wrote: »

Yes, and one can achieve equality for their own particular group.

Not sure that's the case. You can advance the cause of your own particular group. But equality requires a concerted effort across society, taking in everyone.

Not meaning to get too involved here, or to provoke a sh!tstorm, but I think feminism has hit a brick wall. It can't be denied that massive strides have been made, and were necessary. But, it seems to me that we've hit the point where further progress will require a more broad-based approach. There's an inherent contradiction in attempting to end gender-based discrimination by way of a gender-based movement.

I personally much prefer an egalitarian, human-rights based paradigm, consistently applied to everyone, treating all people as human beings first and foremost, regardless of gender, race, class, creed, etc. I think it's high time for that conceptual shift - we need a movement that unites rather than divides, as feminism tends to do.

Just sayin'

sock puppet

Millicent wrote: »

That doesn't prove that boys have a more innate aptitude for maths though. The study above that Bannasidhe posted proves the point. I'm not trying to say that either gender is better, just that neither one has a natural capacity for anything because of their genitals.

I never suggested any reason for why boys do better than girls. You don't learn much by looking at a table of summary statistics.