Male Feminists

Scanlas The 2nd

later10 wrote: »

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.

I've nothing against feminism or women only seeking to advance women's rights. I just dislike when people do it while pretending equality is of utmost importance.

I'm not using women and men interchangeably. Women have more access to their children if they choose to have children. That is true for mothers and non mothers.

later12

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Women have more access to their children if they choose to have children. That is true for all women.

No it isn't. It's true for a lot of separated and divorced mothers, indeed, but not all.

And you still aren't answering the question as to why you appear to believe that feminists are inactive on other matters of protecting others' rights, or promoting equality elsewhere?

Nell McCafferty is a famous Irish feminist. Have you never heard her speaking out on other matters that affect human rights or civil rights? You appear to be suggesting that a feminist gets out of bed in the morning and only wears one cap all day (that of the feminist) and thinks about nothing else or protests about nothing else. I don't understand why you think this way.

donfers

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'

this and seamus' post on the first page are all that needs to be said

nommm

No. There's nothing wrong with believing in equal rights for women and it really puzzles me when people have that attitude.

Scanlas The 2nd

later10 wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Women have more access to their children if they choose to have children. That is true for all women.

No it isn't. It's true for a lot of separated and divorced mothers, indeed, but not all.

And you still aren't answering the question as to why you appear to believe that feminists are inactive on other matters of protecting others' rights, or promoting equality elsewhere?

Nell McCafferty is a famous Irish feminist. Have you never heard her speaking out on other matters that affect human rights or civil rights? You appear to be suggesting that a feminist gets out of bed in the morning and only wears one cap all day (that of the feminist) and thinks about nothing else or protests about nothing else. I don't understand why you think this way.

Because I never hear of feminists campaign for less rights in the name of equality for women. I'm sure you can find feminists who are actually interested in equality, but if they weren't so rare I think we would have heard of
Feminists campaigning for less rights.

later12

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Because I never hear of feminists campaign for less rights in the name of equality for women.

Well I don't know what you're expecting. News flashes of pronounced feminists agitating for father's rights? Do you think that's realistic? Most people don't call themselves feminists every time they appear in front of a tv camera or a radio mic. Nor do feminists wear a uniform, not have any identifying features. Your position on this makes absolutely no sense.

I mean it's a bit like suggesting that people who agitate for fathers' rights don't care about mother's rights. It is just absurd.

Scanlas The 2nd

later10 wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Because I never hear of feminists campaign for less rights in the name of equality for women.

Well I don't know what you're expecting. News flashes of pronounced feminists agitating for father's rights? Do you think that's realistic? Most people don't call themselves feminists every time they appear in front of a tv camera or a radio mic. Nor do feminists wear a uniform, not have any identifying features. Your position on this makes absolutely no sense.

I mean it's a bit like suggesting that people who agitate for fathers' rights don't care about mother's rights. It is just absurd.

You don't understand.

Anyone who claims equality is so important should campaign for less rights if it brings about equality. I don't see that happening. If you or anyone can show me numerous examples where it is happening I won't regard most feminists as frauds. I'm willing to change my mind, I see "equality" as a gambit used to advance one's own interests for which I have no problem.

I don't expect to see feminists campaigning for fathers rights because they are liars. Well at least the one's who claim equality is so important which to the best of my knowledge is crucial to feminism.

If men claim that equality is of utmost importance but neve campaign for women's rights then they are hypocrites using "equality" as a gambit to advance their own interests.

Bannasidhe

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

You don't understand.

Anyone who claims equality is so important should campaign for less rights if it brings about equality. I don't see that happening. If you or anyone can show me numerous examples where it is happening I won't regard most feminists as frauds. I'm willing to change my mind, I see "equality" as a gambit used to advance one's own interests for which I have no problem.

I don't expect to see feminists campaigning for fathers rights because they are liars. Well at least the one's who claim equality is so important which to the best of my knowledge is crucial to feminism.

What exactly do you mean by less rights?

Do you mean that for women to have equal rights to men means men must have less rights?

If so, no. It means they have the same rights.

That is equality.

benway

suicide_circus wrote: »

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.

Not necessarily blaming them, just pointing out that the patronising hegemonic myth of the wild, passionate, feckless other, and the white man's burden of taming and civilizing him*, rather than being a scientific or rational appraisal, was a tool of oppression in and of itself. Maybe it's even wormed its way into our self-image.

Oh, and there I was thinking I'd gone off topic.

* Naturally, "she" doesn't really come into colonial hegemonic myths.

later12

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Anyone who claims equality is so important should campaign for less rights if it brings about equality.

For goodness sake, I cannot ask this any more times:

How do you know, or why do you believe, that feminists do not do this when and if they campaign on other issues? Feminism is not the only thing that a feminist is capable of speaking on. How can you not be getting this?

I don't see that happening. If you or anyone can show me numerous examples where it is happening I won't regard most feminists as frauds.

I don't have "the list of feminists". Look at anyone who identifies themselves as a feminist, and you will see they have opinions on everything from the economy to civil rights to what bloody breakfast cereal they prefer.

I don't expect to see feminists campaigning for fathers rights because they are liars.

Oh, what a well thought out argument. i'm afraid I must stop arguing with you now, because you've clearly won this. Congratulations Einstein.

Why don't you run off to the LGBT forum and tell them all there that they don't care about heterosexual people's rights.

K-9

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I've nothing against feminism or women only seeking to advance women's rights. I just dislike when people do it while pretending equality is of utmost importance.

I'm not using women and men interchangeably. Women have more access to their children if they choose to have children. That is true for mothers and non mothers.

Unfortunately women tend to have more access because when relationships break up that is default situation usually presented to a judge and judges tend to go with the status quo. You said yourself you think women should have more of the caring role with children, if you analyse that, attitudes like that are part of the problem. You have a child with a woman and then separate, the judge will go with the norms from the relationship, the one that you agreed with.

Put it this way, I'd say if paternity leave paid of 2 months was introduced tomorrow, it wouldn't get universal acceptance for various political and social reasons.

Even in Sweden, they had to make it mandatory to eventually get societal acceptance of it. A lot of liberals and also right wing posters would oppose the state intervening like that. I'd be a social democrat, so the state sometimes has to intervene and make things mandatory to change attitudes. Others wouldn't agree, even many fathers rights advocates!

Scanlas The 2nd

later10 wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Anyone who claims equality is so important should campaign for less rights if it brings about equality.

For goodness sake, I cannot ask this any more times:

How do you know, or why do you believe, that feminists do not do this when and if they campaign on other issues? Feminism is not the only thing that a feminist is capable of speaking on. How can you not be getting this?

I don't see that happening. If you or anyone can show me numerous examples where it is happening I won't regard most feminists as frauds.

I don't have "the list of feminists". Look at anyone who identifies themselves as a feminist, and you will see they have opinions on everything from the economy to civil rights to what bloody breakfast cereal they prefer.

I don't expect to see feminists campaigning for fathers rights because they are liars.

Oh, what a well thought out argument. i'm afraid I must stop arguing with you now, because you've clearly won this. Congratulations Einstein.

Why don't you run off to the LGBT forum and tell them all there that they don't care about heterosexual people's rights.

Maybe feminists do campaign for less rights for women, I can only go on my experience and that hasn't even once been the case.

I reiterate the fact that I think women should campaign for more rights and are under no obligation to campaign for others' rights, but if they say equality is so important to them without campaigning for less rights or the rights of others I call billsh1t. I don't particularly care about the rights of men or women in the 1st world, i care about me, my family, and those around me I can empathise with.

DarkJager

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I reiterate the fact that I think women should campaign for more rights and are under no obligation to campaign for others' rights, but if they say equality is so important to them without campaigning for less rights or the rights of others I call billsh1t. I don't particularly care about the rights of men or women in the 1st world, i care about me, my family, and those around me I can empathise with.

Nail on the head right there. Whatever about the larger societal picture, if you **** with or insult any female close to me or related to me, the main thing you should be worrying about is a few letters short of feminist, and you won't figure it out till it hits you in the ****ing face.

Deus Ex Machina

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?

Did it hurt when you cut your balls off?

token101

Millicent wrote: »

So it's women's responsibility to campaign for the rights of men, is what you are effectively saying?

You don't really get this whole equality thing at all! If feminism is all about equality, then they would not need to be campaigning for men. It would be equal. But it isn't, it's about equality when it suits.

later12

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

Did it hurt when you cut your balls off?

Haven't you noticed there is a gentle in gentleman? :cool:

kowloon

seamus wrote: »

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

Egalitarianism would be a better cause.

This.

I just don't do gender politics. There's no reason to bring gender into the vast majority of issues. Quotas only breed contempt and make the problem worse.

Sindri

later10 wrote: »

Haven't you noticed there is a gentle in gentleman? :cool:

That stands for emasculation in the authentic sense of the word.

Bannasidhe

token101 wrote: »

You don't really get this whole equality thing at all! If feminism is all about equality, then they would not need to be campaigning for men. It would be equal. But it isn't, it's about equality when it suits.

I have read the highlighted sentence many many times (time I will never get back) and I still have no idea what it is meant to mean.


It really is very simple.

Feminism is about campaigning for equality for women.
Feminism is about campaigning for equality between men and women.

just like

LGBT Rights is about campaigning for equality for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and people who are transgender.
LGBT Rights is about campaigning for equality between lesbians, gays, bisexuals and people who are transgender and heterosexuals.

just like

The Civils Rights Movement in the US was about campaigning for equal rights for African-Americans.
The Civil Rights Movement in NI was about campaigning for equal rights between Catholics and Protestants.

People supported each other and one movement encouraged the creation of others.

The US civil rights movement encouraged the formation of the women's liberation movements with activists such as Angela Davis working with both.
Women's Liberation encouraged Gay Liberation with activists such as Joan Nestle working with all three.

US Civil rights encouraged the Civil Rights movement in NI which fed the women's liberation movement. Activists such as Bernadette Devlin worked in both camps.

Women who had been part of the civil rights movement in NI became a very vocal part of women's lib movement in the 26 counties - women such as Nell McCafferty and Marie Mulholland worked on both sides of the border.

Many who 'cut their teeth' in the women's lib movement played a huge role in the Gay Liberation movement such as Mary Robinson, who worked with Gay activists such as David Norris for human rights globally.

No-one is saying women or LGBT people should have more rights then anyone else. We want the same rights. We recognise that this works both ways so I doubt is many feminists would be against equal parental rights for fathers.

Yes, there are a few separatest extremests (tho a lot less then there were in the 80s) but they are a tiny minority.

TheZohanS

later10 wrote: »

Are they serious? Cutlery?

Why not just award her a fan assisted oven to fuck?

I'd say the feminists are having a spa attack.

later10 wrote: »

Only if they neglect to know their limits.

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

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

later10 wrote: »

Not anyone I know of.

If they are "big shots" they probably don't need to send their wives out working.

Cue feminist backlash, but you know what I mean.

Well trolled later10, well trolled indeed. You had me going there for a while.

Bannasidhe

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

Did it hurt when you cut your balls off?

Well I think we should have a round of applause. It took a whole 226 posts before the ol feminism means castrating men assertion to be made.
Well done us. Time was that would have been the 2nd post.
WE'RE MAKING PROGRESS!!!!

SillyMcCarthy

In my own personnel view a male feminist is a qu.... oops, an odd fella!

Bannasidhe

SillyMcCarthy wrote: »

In my own personnel view a male feminist is a qu.... oops, an odd fella!

But then you are a self confessed Silly Mac so we will pay you no heed.

whatsamsn

SillyMcCarthy wrote: »

In my own personnel view a male feminist is a qu.... oops, an odd fella!

Being honest,
I actually would assume a guy was if he said he was a male feminist.

Annasopra

SillyMcCarthy wrote: »

In my own personnel view a male feminist is a qu.... oops, an odd fella!

Yes there lots of male feminists who are gay - there's also lot's of straight male feminists

Bannasidhe

whatsamsn wrote: »

Being honest,
I actually would assume a guy was if he said he was a male feminist.

Really - what would you think a white person who is anti-racist is?

Bannasidhe

mango salsa wrote: »

Yes there lots of male feminists who are gay - there's also lot's of straight male feminists

I know for a fact some of those big guys swinging swords around in Game of Thrones call themselves feminists and they are far more radical about it then I am.

There are also Gaymen who are misogynistic and Lesbians who are anti-men - thankfully not as many as there used to be...

later12

TheZohan wrote: »

Well trolled later10, well trolled indeed. You had me going there for a while.

Heh. If you think that's bad, you should see what I post in the thunderdome. Probably even today. Much worse than that stuff.

The difference is that these things are clearly jokes. In fact I mentioned that I made sexist jokes in this very thread on at least one occasion. If you think I'm going to put this much effort into contributing to a thread like this one today, just for a laugh, I'm genuinely surprised.

SillyMcCarthy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Really - what would you think a white person who is anti-racist is?

Luis Suárez???

later12

SillyMcCarthy wrote: »

In my own personnel view a male feminist is a qu.... oops, an odd fella!

In fairness, I think that's a big part of the problem. Why should it be seen as gay to be concerned about the treatment of women? I really don't understand that. Why should gay guys be more concerned about womens' rights than those of us who are straight