Male Feminists

K-9

Acid_Violet wrote: »

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.

That does happen, somebody posts an extreme opinion and nearly everybody focuses on that, rather than any middle ground. Happens with fathers rights debates as well, the extremist on both sides take over banging each others heads.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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

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?

It says Britain had nearly equal results. Wonder where Ireland comes in?

Millicent

benway wrote: »

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'

I can see that point, I genuinely can (and wonderfully expressed, I might add. ) However, feminism doesn't have to be a divisive topic or practice. A shift may be on the horizon, but I don't see it happening for a good few years yet.

A feminist perspective is just one small facet of my personality and doesn't define me. It is possible to be on the side of all human rights while also caring about the rights of one or more particular subsets.

suicide_circus

Millicent wrote: »

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

The nurture argument will of course debunk my statement because there are always exceptions to rule. Im just speaking about generally held strengths and weaknesses which did not appear overnight, examples well documented. To be clear, I am all for choices.

Millicent

sock puppet wrote: »

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.

So what point were you trying to make? Not sure I'm following your reasons for posting it.

Millicent

suicide_circus wrote: »

The nurture argument will of course debunk my statement because there are always exceptions to rule. Im just speaking about generally held strengths and weaknesses which did not appear overnight, examples well documented. To be clear, I am all for choices.

But then why push for the maintenance of those particular "strengths and weaknesses" if they are the result of nurturing and can be debunked as such?

Scanlas The 2nd

Millicent wrote: »

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?

Well yea, anyone who claims equality is so important should really be interested in all types of inequality. I suspect many feminists are really only interested in their own petty ego and feelings of inferiority and not really equality. If equality is most important to you campaign to lose rights in pursuit of equality too.

suicide_circus

Millicent wrote: »

But then why push for the maintenance of those particular "strengths and weaknesses" if they are the result of nurturing and can be debunked as such?

Im not pushing for anything. I'm just saying that these attributes which have been born out of nature and nurture over millennia may have intrinsic value and despite not being trendy or perceived to be liberal, should not be automatically thrown out with the bathwater

Morag

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Well yea, anyone who claims equality is so important should really be interested in all types of inequality. I suspect many feminists are really only interested in their own petty ego and feelings of inferiority and not really equality. If equality is most important to you campaign to lose rights in pursuit of equality too.

:rolleyes:

Most feminists are interested in all types of inequality, but I am not going to presume to tell other people how they should feel and how to campaign.
I will support them, I will listen to them, I will not diminish what they have to struggle with cos it's not something I personally struggle with.
I certainly won't demand they join me on all the issues I advocate for and campaign on the behalf of before I'd consider supporting them.

later12

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Well yea, anyone who claims equality is so important should really be interested in all types of inequality.

And perhaps most are.

What makes you think feminists are not interested in other political, legislative, economic and social issues?

There's no rule in the feminist rule book which says you must devote all your attention to this movement and not partake in other activities.

Bannasidhe

TheZohan wrote: »

Yes, a sammich would be good right now.

Make me one too while your about it - and a coffee too please. Milk in first, no sugar. Good man yourself.

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.

Possibly we are both missing each other's points. I am saying that the battle for equal rights for women is the prime focus of feminism, that does not mean that feminists do not fights against injustices such as racism, or are unaware and uninterested in the campaign for unmarried fathers. It means we have only so much energy and make a choice as to where we direct most of that energy while supporting those who campaign in other areas.

Now if I was to take John Waters as a typical exponent of Father's Rights I would assume misogyny is one of the driving forces behind the campaign - indeed in the various threads on this topic Feminists are often blamed for this legalised inequality despite it being a law enacted in 1964.

Now do should I see the campaign for unmarried father's rights as essentially anti-feminist as one of it's most vocal supporters is also an outspoken critic of feminism?

Or should we not say - ok we will focus on this aspect while you focus on that and we will support each other's efforts?

yawha

TheZohan wrote: »

Now there are of course exceptions within the Feminist movement, but they like Sharrow, are the exception as opposed to the rule.

[Citation Needed]

sock puppet

Millicent wrote: »

So what point were you trying to make? Not sure I'm following your reasons for posting it.

You said that girls outperformed boys which is quite clearly false at higher level.

finality

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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

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?

I feel like you're trying to be deliberately antagonistic. I AGREE with you. I completely agree that gender roles and social conditioning are bad things. Yes they are partially responsible for the career choices people make. I just don't think they're completely responsible. I believe we should all freely choose the career we want to pursue, without any 'encouraging' towards any specific area.

I don't believe there are any specific 'male' or 'female' jobs, I was clearly referring to the stereotypes. And the 'race theorists' point is just silly and irrelevant, I'm not by any means trying to use the 'different brains' argument to restrict anyone in any way. I'm all about choice and equal opportunities.


Here are some links:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200803/male-brain-vs-female-brain-i-why-do-men-try-figure-out-t-0

http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/nervous-system/men-women-different-brains1.htm

Scanlas The 2nd

later10 wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Well yea, anyone who claims equality is so important should really be interested in all types of inequality.

And perhaps most are.

What makes you think feminists are not interested in other political, legislative, economic and social issues?

There's no rule in the feminist rule book which says you must devote all your attention to this movement and not partake in other activities.

Why don't we hear about feminists campaigning to lose rights then? I've no problem with groups seeking to advance their interests, what I dislike is the sneakiness of doing it while hiding behind the "equality" card.

Scanlas The 2nd

later10 wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Well yea, anyone who claims equality is so important should really be interested in all types of inequality.

And perhaps most are.

What makes you think feminists are not interested in other political, legislative, economic and social issues?

There's no rule in the feminist rule book which says you must devote all your attention to this movement and not partake in other activities.

Why don't we hear about feminists campaigning to lose rights then? I've no problem with groups seeking to advance their interests, what I dislike is the sneakiness of doing it while hiding behind the "equality" card.

later12

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Why don't we hear about feminists campaigning to lose rights then?

What rights would they be suggesting they lose?

I'm sure you're not confusing feminists with mothers, on account that they are mainly women

R P McMurphy

K-9 wrote: »

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!

Ireland had a great opportunity to become a progressive society but true that stiffling conservatism gripped all subsequent administrations.

As for francis, he was an extremely interesting character. A pacifist, antimilitarist and feminist, he was murdered by firing squad despite everyone involved knowing his background. Perhaps because he witnessed and spoke out against murders committed during that week

K-9

sock puppet wrote: »

You said that girls outperformed boys which is quite clearly false at higher level.

That could be down to studies that found that men IQ wise, tend to have more representations on either extremes, women tend to have more at the average.

Bannasidhe

finality wrote: »

I feel like you're trying to be deliberately antagonistic. I AGREE with you. I completely agree that gender roles and social conditioning are bad things. Yes they are partially responsible for the career choices people make. I just don't think they're completely responsible. I believe we should all freely choose the career we want to pursue, without any 'encouraging' towards any specific area.

I don't believe there are any specific 'male' or 'female' jobs, I was clearly referring to the stereotypes. And the 'race theorists' point is just silly and irrelevant, I'm not by any means trying to use the 'different brains' argument to restrict anyone in any way. I'm all about choice and equal opportunities.


Here are some links:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200803/male-brain-vs-female-brain-i-why-do-men-try-figure-out-t-0

http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/nervous-system/men-women-different-brains1.htm

I'm not being antagonistic I am debating points.

You referred to and used the 'brains are different' argument - well some of that (e.g. ability to do maths) has been debunked by studies. My issue with that particular argument is that is often boils down to 'highly desirable' traits are 'male' and 'less desirable' traits are female and this is then used to underpin gender roles - women are nuturing and caring and good at cleaning so that's what they should do. Men are organised and strong so they should 'run' things while the women mind the children and sick.
These same theories were once applied to racial roles (the 'Saxon' mind is organised, good at maths etc etc while the 'Celtic' and African mind is good at the 'Arts' - therefore the Saxon should run things while the Celts/African did music, dance, plays, poetry, crafts etc).

Scanlas The 2nd

later10 wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Why don't we hear about feminists campaigning to lose rights then?

What rights would they be suggesting they lose?

I'm sure you're not confusing feminists with mothers, on account that they are mainly women

No I'm not. Women after becoming a parent and separating get more access to their children. I've yet to hear of feminists campaigning for equal insurance premiums. I personally think women should get more access to their children than men but not by as much as it currently is. But my metric for a better world is happiness, not some so called equality.

suicide_circus

Given the current state of affairs in Africa and to a much less extent in Ireland, you can see why the Saxon minds may have come to that conclusion.

Annasopra

later10 wrote: »

Is this unnatural? I think it should be viewed as reasonable to want to promote equality between the sexes. Assuming the meaning is the promotion of equality of women to men in employment, public administration, and personal life, how can feminism be something that is restricted to women? It's like suggesting you had to be black to approve of the civil rights movement.

I said at lunchtime today that I believe in feminism and the people I was talking with looked at me like I had two heads. Do the men of boards consider themselves feminists?

Yes. I do consider myself a feminist.

Johro

starbelgrade wrote: »

I think equality is a fairly straightforward thing. It gives equal status to both genders when it comes to jobs, voting, education etc etc.

I think the main problem lies with people trying to enforce "equality" on people who choose not to take it up. And women are the worst offenders in this regard - for example some career minded women look down on women who choose to be stay-at-home mums. Take a look at the Ladies Lounge & you'll see it's full of women ragging on women who choose to use their sexuality for self gain. Etc etc.

For me, equality is giving people the right to equal status but also giving people the freedom to choose whether or not they actually want it.

There are women out there like the ones you describe alright but I wouldn't necessarily see the Ladies Lounge as a microcosm of women in general, on any internet forum there will be people with strong opinions that they feel compelled to share with the world, and usually the ones who shout the loudest are the least moderate, sensible, informed.
My own girlfriend would call herself a feminist but she definitely would not look down on other women for whatever reason as she recognises that different things work for different people, be they male or female.

Dudess

I don't like a lot of feminists but there are plenty of moderate ones. To dismiss all feminists as fanatical man-haters, despite all the variables within that broad group, is just ignorance - and pretty aggressive. And to call a woman who gets defensive about hostile catcalls a feminist as an insult is just stupid.
As Later says, why is it just assumed any feminist is a hypocrite and only interested in equality for women?

I agree though, equality for all groups should be the priority.

benway

suicide_circus wrote: »

Given the current state of affairs in Africa and to a much less extent in Ireland, you can see why the Saxon minds may have come to that conclusion.

Saxon minds played a large part in bringing about both states of affairs. But don't let facts get in the way, old chap.

finality

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm not being antagonistic I am debating points.

You referred to and used the 'brains are different' argument - well some of that (e.g. ability to do maths) has been debunked by studies. My issue with that particular argument is that is often boils down to 'highly desirable' traits are 'male' and 'less desirable' traits are female and this is then used to underpin gender roles - women are nuturing and caring and good at cleaning so that's what they should do. Men are organised and strong so they should 'run' things while the women mind the children and sick.
These same theories were once applied to racial roles (the 'Saxon' mind is organised, good at maths etc etc while the 'Celtic' and African mind is good at the 'Arts' - therefore the Saxon should run things while the Celts/African did music, dance, plays, poetry, crafts etc).

Yes but that was in no way what I was suggesting. That kind of outlook wouldn't get me far at all. :P

suicide_circus

benway wrote: »

Saxon minds played a large part in bringing about both states of affairs. But don't let facts get in the way, old chap.

Oh I dont disagree but when do you think it will be time to stop blaming the colonialists and take ownership?
And dont call me old.

later12

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

No I'm not.

Er, yes you are.

You are using the terms women and mothers interchangeably, as though all feminists or all women go on to become mothers. That's a little ironic in itself.

Anyway, leaving that aside and getting back to the point, I don't particularly know why you're forming the opinion that feminists don't argue for father's rights or fairer insurance premia (prior to the ECJ ruling).

I am a feminist and the ECJ ruling on sex biased insurance premia delights me. I am a feminist and I would dearly support a change in the law which addresses father's rights. The fact that one sometimes or often doesn't do these things with a feminist's cap on is totally irrelevant.

As was mentioned earlier 'feminist' is only a small part of an individual's make up and belief system. It doesn't define everything one does, says, thinks, or believes in.

Bannasidhe

finality wrote: »

Yes but that was in no way what I was suggesting. That kind of outlook wouldn't get me far at all. :P

I apologise if I misinterpreted what you were saying.

efb

Im an egalitarianist. I believe in religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all.