Sexism you have personally experienced or have heard of? *READ POST 1*

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

His schtick was publicising an issue that I think is very important to men. Suicide and mental health are very serious men's issues. That's the message. Whether or not he he makes a few bob from doing it is neither here nor there. The focus for me isn't Breslin, it's the fact that there's a man publicising such an important men's issues.

-

Should be obvious why use relevant to men and men's rights, ligerdub. Maybe if I found a way to have a pop at women in the post, then you'd get it. 'they took our jerbs'.

iptba

iptba wrote: »

A few years ago, there was a man attending a London university who wanted a gender studies course that was less focused on women and feminism with more of a focus on men's issues. I will have to look up his name later, maybe Tom Sharpe?? Anyway he crowd-funded to take a legal case. I and many men (and probably some women too) donated.

Former student sues LSE over its 'gender bias' against men
TONY BONNICI
Monday 5 September 2011 12:50

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/former-student-sues-lse-over-its-gender-bias-against-men-6440112.html

Separately somebody wrote this:

College Women’s and Gender Studies Brainwahsing
The critical gendered lens
https://timpatten.me/2016/05/24/college-womens-and-gender-studies-brainwahsing/

sharper

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah I suppose. Given how much they have to say about it when a feminist campaign is successful, I thought there would be great fanfare when a male campaign is also widely publicised.

In your opinion the compaign is praiseworthy, not the in the opinion of others. Why does that mean you're now able to question whether others care about the problem?

The government has launched various campaigns and initiatives to address problems in the property market, most of those have been widely criticised as inadequate or poorly thought out. Does that mean people don't really care about housing since they didn't fall over themselves to heap praise because at least they tried something finally?

Both denigrating the course and it's content, then complaining that the graduates aren't doing enough for you, is amusing if nothing else.

The graduates are claiming to be in favour of equality in society. It's not unreasonable to hold them to the standard that they have set out for themselves.

If your next door neighbour comes around collecting money to improve something in his own back yard and then uses it to build something there you have little complaint. If your neighbour comes around collecting money for something to improve life for everyone in the area and then builds something in his own back yard for his own use then you have a reason for complaint.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't think it implies that specifically. Some things should probably be scrutinized alright. Whether or not they're also gaining something while doing something to advance men's rights is a very minor issue for me. It might be completely irrelevant. I definitely can't understand why people would zero in on it as the main thing they look at.



Scrutiny about the message and the goal and the ultimate impact is normal. Scrutiny of whether or not his heart is pure and unbesmirched by filthy profit or other gain, is completely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

No idea who Paul Elam is. I see he's a big player in men's rights but I don't know anything about him. What specifically do you mean? I'd say the same applies to him as I've outlined above. The message and it's impact are important. Whether he turns a profit for his work isn't important. Neither is how long his hair grows or whether he prefers cheese case or chocolate cake.

No idea who Erin Prizzey and Christina Hoff Sommers are. I dont know enough about the movements to make an informed opinion.

How can the bona fides be false? All I care about is whether the person has a positive impact on men and their health. If someone listens to Breslin and is encouraged to seek help, then it turns out he was only doing the work to sell his book, does the person he helped have to give back the help they received?

The hive mind question is rhetorical, right?

What are your answers to those questions you asked?

You profess an active interest in mens and womens rights, you debate your view on it extensively here (where many of the key figures are openly discussed) but you're not familiar with Paul Elam, Erin Pizzey or Christina Hoff Sommers?

Im afraid i struggle to believe that. Who exactly are the voices within the two movements that ypu would be familiar with?

El_Duderino 09

sharper wrote: »

In your opinion the compaign is praiseworthy, not the in the opinion of others. Why does that mean you're now able to question whether others care about the problem?

It depends on the reasons for finding the campaign praiseworthy or not. Whether or not the service is helpful/harmful would be one fair area to look at. Whether the one promoting it might also stand to gain money or publicity for their time, is just complaining for the sake of it.

I think it feeds the victim mentality that some people hold so

sharper wrote: »

The graduates are claiming to be in favour of equality in society. It's not unreasonable to hold them to the standard that they have set out for themselves.

Have the graduates said that? Where are you getting that from.

sharper

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Have the graduates said that? Where are you getting that from.

Ferminism as a movement claims to be in favour of equality and to be fighting for equality. Do you dispute this?

silverharp

here is a Christina piece that most will have seen and noteworthy because of the hostility from the panel , they actually used terms like "patriarchy"

Wibbs

maybe

For some reason the video won't embed Here's the direct link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV1m71WT9s0&t=

El_Duderino 09

sharper wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Have the graduates said that? Where are you getting that from.

Ferminism as a movement claims to be in favour of equality and to be fighting for equality. Do you dispute this?

Am I in court?

So, I asked about your claim that gender studies graduates... and instead of answering the question you ask me whether I disputed that ‘feminists’ claim to be fighting for equality.

Well, I’ll answer your question even if you didn’t answer mine. I’d say most people fighting for rights would say they’re fighting for equality so yes. They probably would make that claim. Normal caveats apply; hive minds, interpretation of equality etc.

Do you think they are fighting for equality? Do You rely on them to successfully fight for men’s rights?

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

here is a Christina piece that most will have seen and noteworthy because of the hostility from the panel , they actually used terms like "patriarchy"

Hoff Summers sounds sensible. Most of what she said sounds good. The post interview analysis is nauseating. American news is mostly rubbish theatre.

sharper

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Am I in court?

No you aren't, you're in a discussion forum.

The standards you apply to different participants are incredible. Feminism is a large, very well organised and very well resourced global movement going back many decades but you often refuse to levy or accept any ciriticism or even attribution of actions towards it.

People in this this thread are just random people commenting on issues yet you hold them all fully responsible for what all of them say or don't see or even what other people come in and say or don't say.

When you yourself are questioned you suddenly feel on trial despite passing judgement on whole swathes of people with little to back it up.

So, I asked about your claim that gender studies graduates... and instead of answering the question you ask me whether I disputed that ‘feminists’ claim to be fighting for equality.

It's impossible to have a discussion without establishing a common understanding. I wanted to understand your understanding of what feminism as a movement claims, otherwise why are you asking about what those graduates are claiming?

Seriously, what is the point of that question? Your followup suggests you knew what the answer was so why did you ask it and seemingly avoid the point that people are claiming one thing but acting differently?

El_Duderino 09

sharper wrote: »

No you aren't, you're in a discussion forum.

The standards you apply to different participants are incredible. Feminism is a large, very well organised and very well resourced global movement going back many decades but you often refuse to levy or accept any ciriticism or even attribution of actions towards it.

People in this this thread are just random people commenting on issues yet you hold them all fully responsible for what all of them say or don't see or even what other people come in and say or don't say.[/QUOTE]
Hold on. ‘Feminism’ is out there, far away. These threads in TGC are largely contributed to by the same group of posters. Is it do strange to hold those people to the things they actually said?

sharper wrote: »

When you yourself are questioned you suddenly feel on trial despite passing judgement on whole swathes of people with little to back it up.

So, I asked about your claim that gender studies graduates... and instead of answering the question you ask me whether I disputed that ‘feminists’ claim to be fighting for equality.

It's impossible to have a discussion without establishing a common understanding. I wanted to understand your understanding of what feminism as a movement claims, otherwise why are you asking about what those graduates are claiming?

Seriously, what is the point of that question? Your followup suggests you knew what the answer was so why did you ask it and seemingly avoid the point that people are claiming one thing but acting differently?

I asked (and again you didn’t answer) because I would pony out that you don’t actually think feminists would advocate for men’s rights, but you still act surprised when they don’t do it.

I asked a few people and nobody has answered this question: if you personally were to get involved in a gender issue, would it most likely be a primarily men’s issue or a women’s issue? Which issue would be closest to your heart personally?

sharper

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I asked (and again you didn’t answer) because I would pony out that you don’t actually think feminists would advocate for men’s rights, but you still act surprised when they don’t do it.

I think the feminists claim to advocate for men's rights and claim to be for equality but are actually a specal interest group for women. This is fine if they are what they say, I think there are definitely issues that uniquely affect both women and men that need attention. I do have an issue with being an advocate only for women but claiming to be for both.

One of the arguments made against the existence of men's rights groups is that they're unnecessary and inherently anti-feminist because feminism already exists to protect the right rights of both men and women. Being anti-feminism is also almost always conflated with being against equality.

El_Duderino 09

sharper wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I asked (and again you didn’t answer) because I would pony out that you don’t actually think feminists would advocate for men’s rights, but you still act surprised when they don’t do it.

I think the feminists claim to advocate for men's rights and claim to be for equality but are actually a specal interest group for women. This is fine if they are what they say, I think there are definitely issues that uniquely affect both women and men that need attention. I do have an issue with being an advocate only for women but claiming to be for both.

One of the arguments made against the existence of men's rights groups is that they're unnecessary and inherently anti-feminist because feminism already exists to protect the right rights of both men and women. Being anti-feminism is also almost always conflated with being against equality.

Ok. Could you answer this please?
I asked a few people and nobody has answered this question: if you personally were to get involved in a gender issue, would it most likely be a primarily men’s issue or a women’s issue? Which issue would be closest to your heart personally?

sharper

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. Could you answer this please?
I asked a few people and nobody has answered this question: if you personally were to get involved in a gender issue, would it most likely be a primarily men’s issue or a women’s issue? Which issue would be closest to your heart personally?

I don't feel any special connection with men as a group or women as a group, being "a man" is not part of my identity. Subdivisions can be useful for better understanding or better illuminating problems e.g. the way men and women experience challenges in mental health are very different to each other.

Like most people if I was getting involved it would be because I have some stake in it, either I am impacted by it or someone important to me personally is impacted by it. There are too many problems affecting too many people in too many places to ever get a handle on what to address otherwise.

py2006

sharper wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Being anti-feminism is also almost always conflated with being against equality.

You mean anti woman!?

Question them at all and you are cut off mid sentence and you are dismissed as a mysognist

El_Duderino 09

sharper wrote: »

I don't feel any special connection with men as a group or women as a group, being "a man" is not part of my identity. Subdivisions can be useful for better understanding or better illuminating problems e.g. the way men and women experience challenges in mental health are very different to each other.

Like most people if I was getting involved it would be because I have some stake in it, either I am impacted by it or someone important to me personally is impacted by it. There are too many problems affecting too many people in too many places to ever get a handle on what to address otherwise.

Ok. I understand why you’re not answering the question but could you give it a go? Seeing as this is a discussion forum n’all.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

if you personally were to get involved in a gender issue, would it most likely be a primarily men’s issue or a women’s issue? Which issue would be closest to your heart personally?

sharper

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. I understand why you’re not answering the question but could you give it a go? Seeing as this is a discussion forum n’all.

Why is the answer I gave not sufficient? I'm genuinely confused here.

El_Duderino 09

sharper wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. I understand why you’re not answering the question but could you give it a go? Seeing as this is a discussion forum n’all.

Why is the answer I gave not sufficient? I'm genuinely confused here.

Ah ok, that’s all you’re giving.

The point of the question is clear. I imagine most men would be more likely to get involved in an issue that would personally affect them or would be close to their heart. I’d wager that men are more likely to get involved in an issue that would primarily benefit men.

The same would likely apply up women. It’s seems obvious to me. I get why you can’t give a straight answer to the question because it would undermine your objection to women being more likely to back women’s causes rather than men’s causes.

BasicBetty

P_1 wrote: »

Ok so,

1 - Sweltering day so I decide to wear a vest (wifebeater) to work, apparently that looked 'unprofessional' yet female staff were swanning around wearing half nothing.

2 - Apparently just because I'm male I couldn't cash up quickly

3 - Apparently I didn't have a clue about fashion

you just referred to a vest as a 'wifebeater' ???

sharper

sharper wrote: »

I think the feminists claim to advocate for men's rights and claim to be for equality but are actually a specal interest group for women. This is fine if they are what they say, I think there are definitely issues that uniquely affect both women and men that need attention. I do have an issue with being an advocate only for women but claiming to be for both.

One of the arguments made against the existence of men's rights groups is that they're unnecessary and inherently anti-feminist because feminism already exists to protect the right rights of both men and women. Being anti-feminism is also almost always conflated with being against equality.

Agreed. Although I'd suggest that Men's rights are always going to be seen as being anti-feminist because it's not seeking rights for women. Even if we were to see a boom in egalitarian type groups, they would be anti-feminist because to create actual equality, females will have to be treated the same as males, which means losing some of the 'rights' they've either retained from the older patriarchy or the 'rights' they've gained in the last 30 years.

Feminism is a movement to generate more rights for females. We should never forget that marketing/advertising, & psychology play a huge role in how anything is promoted. Feminists claim that they are seeking equality, but it's a token gesture to garner respectability. Just as they make claims about seeking rights for transgender 'females', and other minorities, but receive condemnation from those same groups for discrimination. It's all spin.

It's the same with these Gender studies courses. They originally started as 'women studies' courses but decided to change the name of the courses to gain some respectability. (I haven't seen much to suggest that the content of the courses changed along with the name change) There's a token gesture towards promoting men's rights but ultimately they're promoting Feminist theory and encouraging people to believe the less scientific facts that feminists throw around. The vast majority of teachers for the courses are women, as are the vast majority of the students signing up for the courses, with the few men attending saying there is an environment of targeting the male gender almost exclusively. I've seen some articles talking about 'Gender studies' conferences where all the speakers are women. There's a definite bias there but feminism has social proof in education.

Gender Equality is another term thrown around a lot, but it's the same as gender studies. Many of the government, EU or UN initiatives that promote gender equality focus entirely on female rights and female problems. (like the UN SDG initiative for Gender equality has not a single reference to improve male rights. Not one.)

There's little to no real attempt at any actual gender equality. Gender equality is now just another word for feminism.

sharper

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I imagine most men would be more likely to get involved in an issue that would personally affect them or would be close to their heart. I’d wager that men are more likely to get involved in an issue that would primarily benefit men.

I don't know what kind of world you live in.

Someone close to me was diagnosed with and treated for breast cancer. That makes the issue "close to my heart".

Women have fathers, brothers, sons, husbands, partners and friends. That's a whole lot of issues close to their hearts as well.

Only when idealogy,division and tribalism become central to your thinking does it ever make sense to prioritise issues that way.

silverharp

gender studies is completely without merit for one very obvious reason, little or no attention given to biological makeup. garbage in garbage out. As for feminists directly , far to unwilling to give men credit for their role in society. A while back i twittered a well known media feminist after she tweeted something like "thank god for modern medicine". I twittered back that she should be thankful to the men who innovated and created all the technology behind medicine ( i knew it would wind them up) and predictably got a bunch of abuse and some cherry picked examples of female contributions to medicine.

newport2

Stop feeding it.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. I understand why you’re not answering the question but could you give it a go? Seeing as this is a discussion forum n’all.

But they did answer the question.

They just didn't give you a black and white answer because I'd imagine they dont see it as a black and white question.

You say you understand why they're not answering. Ok, why are they not answering in your view?

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah ok, that’s all you’re giving.

The point of the question is clear. I imagine most men would be more likely to get involved in an issue that would personally affect them or would be close to their heart. I’d wager that men are more likely to get involved in an issue that would primarily benefit men.

The same would likely apply up women. It’s seems obvious to me. I get why you can’t give a straight answer to the question because it would undermine your objection to women being more likely to back women’s causes rather than men’s causes.

The bolded bit above is important

Thats your theory. You still need to provide evidence.

As a preemptive counterpoint i give you the lack of mens studies courses and the efforts of people like, oh i dunno, Gandhi maybe to better things for non gender defined groups (you could pick a long list of men (and women) who have shaped our world here)

newport2

newport2 wrote: »

Stop feeding it.

I'm not sure that's the answer. From what I've seen of male rights, while there are movements around, there isn't the awareness in men that feminism receives from women. Feminism has gained momentum and support in all areas of society, whereas male rights are relegated to background noise, or "anti-feminism'/anti-female (as if they're the same thing).

TBH I suspect that feminism has gained such influence in government policies, education etc, because we have tried to ignore it. To not feed it. But without input from men and women who support males rights and/or actual equality, we are allowing Feminism or rather feminist theory applied by politicians free reign.

El_Duderino 09

sharper wrote:

Someone close to me was diagnosed with and treated for breast cancer. That makes the issue "close to my heart".

That would definitely be part of the consideration.

sharper wrote:

Women have fathers, brothers, sons, husbands, partners and friends. That's a whole lot of issues close to their hearts as well.

Yeah but people have limited time to advocate for social change and the majority of people don't get involved in activism at all. So the point was to wonder which gender related issue you would most like to get involved in. Are you saying breast cancer is probably the issue you'd back, if you were to back an issue?

sharper wrote:

Only when idealogy,division and tribalism become central to your thinking does it ever make sense to prioritise issues that way.

But a minute ago you also said you would be likely to prioritise an issue which affected you personally. Now that's just tribalism. I think you're tripping yourself up while dancing around the issue.

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote:

You say you understand why they're not answering. Ok, why are they not answering in your view?

Because I'd imagine most people who volunteer to get involved in any issue do so for personal reasons like being personally affected. So that narrows the scope somewhat. Men's issues will more likely grab the attention of men, women's issues will more likely grab the attention of women.

They're trying not to answer the question because it would undermine their point about why gender studies graduates go on to advocate for women's issues (a point which was made without providing any evidence btw).

I know which issues I would get involved in if I were to get involved with a gender related issue. That is to say, I know which gender issues I think would most likely get me to off the couch and doing something about them. Don't you have any idea what issues you would be most likely to get active in? After all the talk in these forums, I would have thought the locals would at least have a few issues they see as priorities.

tritium wrote:

Thats your theory. You still need to provide evidence.

It's a discussion forum not a science journal. I need to provide an argument and so do you if you want to take part.

sharper

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

But a minute ago you also said you would be likely to prioritise an issue which affected you personally. Now that's just tribalism. I think you're tripping yourself up while dancing around the issue.

I said I'd be more likely to get involved in an issue that affects me personally or somebody that I cared about not that I would only be involved in an issue that affects me personally.

You're the one arguing that the only possible reason people would get involved in an issue is tribal assocation based on idealogical concerns.

I have no idea why you consider my response "dancing around the issue". Very few people could tell you sight unseen they would support something purely because it affects either men or women.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Because I'd imagine most people who volunteer to get involved in any issue do so for personal reasons like being personally affected. So that narrows the scope somewhat. Men's issues will more likely grab the attention of men, women's issues will more likely grab the attention of women.

They're trying not to answer the question because it would undermine their point about why gender studies graduates go on to advocate for women's issues (a point which was made without providing any evidence btw).

I know which issues I would get involved in if I were to get involved with a gender related issue. That is to say, I know which gender issues I think would most likely get me to off the couch and doing something about them. Don't you have any idea what issues you would be most likely to get active in? After all the talk in these forums, I would have thought the locals would at least have a few issues they see as priorities.


It's a discussion forum not a science journal. I need to provide an argument and so do you if you want to take part.

Ah seriously, youre just peddling your own ideology now. People answer you but to your mind they haven't because its not the 'right' answer. Ignore the fact that most people don't just spend their days worrying about single issues.

Btw im still waiting for a response to my question to you earlier....

tritium wrote: »

You profess an active interest in mens and womens rights, you debate your view on it extensively here (where many of the key figures are openly discussed) but you're not familiar with Paul Elam, Erin Pizzey or Christina Hoff Sommers?

Im afraid i struggle to believe that. Who exactly are the voices within the two movements that ypu would be familiar with?

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote:

I'm not sure that's the answer. From what I've seen of male rights, while there are movements around, there isn't the awareness in men that feminism receives from women. Feminism has gained momentum and support in all areas of society, whereas male rights are relegated to background noise, or "anti-feminism'/anti-female (as if they're the same thing).

TBH I suspect that feminism has gained such influence in government policies, education etc, because we have tried to ignore it. To not feed it. But without input from men and women who support males rights and/or actual equality, we are allowing Feminism or rather feminist theory applied by politicians free reign.

Surely you can see that you're missing the point. Feminists are focused on women's issues, men's rights activists are focused on feminism.

Men's rights could gain momentum but they would need to keep their eyes on the prize rather than just wanting to point out all the ways that feminism is flawed.

The recent example results in the UK where boys outscored girls for the first time in a long time. That issue for attention and I'd say a lot of people didn't know that boys had been falling behind girls in education. They didn't turn it into bashing feminism which I'm sure helped get the message out there that boys need help in education.

Maybe that's just the articles I read about the topic. It was national news in the UK.

Zulu

No

sharper wrote: »

I have no idea why you ...

Because (s)he's only interested in a rise, and not a conversation or debate. You'll note how the goalposts continually change, and how standards are vastly different for you than for them when forming the argument, and the veiled insults and insinuations.

In reality people don't simply advocate and action those matters that affect them. Where that the case most charities wouldn't exist; where that the case, Irish people would only be concerned by issues existing in Ireland or the western world, but we know this isn't the case. There are countless examples of people advocating and fighting for causes that do not impact directly on them - people can have a driving force other than selfishness.

...but never mind all that, thats not the point! Wait for it... wait for the bluff and bluster; the changing of the goal posts; the misrepresentation of what's been posted; the rephrasing out of context. Wait for the veiled insults; wait for the "wow is me, everyone is picking on me" cry.

Wait for the same tired & inane bait posts...

El_Duderino 09

sharper wrote: »

I said I'd be more likely to get involved in an issue that affects me personally or somebody that I cared about not that I would only be involved in an issue that affects me personally.

You're the one arguing that the only possible reason people would get involved in an issue is tribal assocation based on idealogical concerns.

I have no idea why you consider my response "dancing around the issue". Very few people could tell you sight unseen they would support something purely because it affects either men or women.

First of all I went to the bother of making sure I didn’t say ‘only possible reason people would get involved in an issue is tribal assocation based on idealogical concerns’. Because that’s not what I think

Secondly, you said ‘ I'd be more likely to get involved in an issue that affects me personally or somebody that I cared about not that I would only be involved in an issue that affects me personally’.

You care about men and women but the issues that affect you personally are likely to be men’s issues. Likewise a woman would care about men and women but the issues that affect her personally are likely to be women’s issues.

All other things being equal (which they might or might not be) That will naturally tend to channel people towards activism for their own gender’s issues.

What am I missing here?

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Surely you can see that you're missing the point. Feminists are focused on women's issues, men's rights activists are focused on feminism.

Men's rights could gain momentum but they would need to keep their eyes on the prize rather than just wanting to point out all the ways that feminism is flawed.

I have to disagree here.

Can anyone really be described as a "men's rights activist" if they do not participate in activism for men's rights?

If someone puts on a men's rights event or creates a documentary about the men's right movement and feminist groups actively try to shut down their events or ban their documentary then doesn't that naturally put them in conflict with feminism?

Take the gender thing out of the equation for a moment. Let's say a new burger restaurant opens in the city. Everyday when they open up there is a small squad of vegans who come into the restaurant and try to stop them from selling burgers. Sometimes successfully, sometimes not. So the burger restaurant owner complains A LOT about vegans. Are you really gonna say to the guy "why are you focusing on vegans so much, why don't you just focus on selling burgers"?

You are completely ignoring the reality of the relationship between MRAs and Feminists. One of the main aspects of that relationship is Feminists organizing to have MRA events shut down.

You have Group A constantly trying to shut down Group B and thus not allowing them to promote their Talking Points. Then you are going to Group B and saying "why don't you focus on your Talking Points instead of complaining about Group A".

That's before we even get to considering that the flaws in "Feminist Theory" may directly contribute to the issues that MRAs are looking to resolve.

Bringing that back to Gender Studies courses. I have to say that I do not have high confidence that an MRA would be welcomed in such courses. I have even less confidence that Gender Studies courses will have any focus on MRA talking points.

silverharp

its very simple, men want fair rules and a meritocracy, feminists want unearned benefits and want men held back so they can compete. Normal women I'd hope would be middle of the road as they will be shaping society that they want to raise their kids in.

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You care about men and women but the issues that affect you personally are likely to be men’s issues. Likewise a woman would care about men and women but the issues that affect her personally are likely to be women’s issues.

All other things being equal (which they might or might not be) That will naturally tend to channel people towards activism for their own gender’s issues.

What am I missing here?

You are missing the point that this whole conversation got kicked off over Gender Studies classes and why men don't participate.

Your argument is that people will tend towards activism for their own gender's issues.

Most of the people coming out of gender studies courses are activists for women's issue.

However, if the course content is 50% men's issues and 50% women's issues then it follows that 50% of the curriculum is basically being ignored by graduates. So maybe the courses don't focus on Men so much? (this is a rhetorical question by the way, I know you have trouble understanding that)

That leads us (quite naturally, I think) to the conclusion that Gender Studies courses have a VERY strong bias towards women's issues. Even brief research into these courses shows that "Feminist Theory" and "Intersectionality" are very influential factors and this gives a strong impression that men's issues are likely to be either ignored or seen as not currently important.

The foundation of your point here seemed to be that if men won't enroll in Gender Studies classes then it shouldn't be a surprise that men's issues are not a focus for society.

The counter to that is that Gender Studies courses seem like they will not have men's issues as part of the curriculum and if they do then they will be looked at through the "Feminist Lens" and with "Intersectionality" in mind.

You could argue, I suppose, that if men started enrolling in Gender Studies courses in large numbers then the courses would have to change their content to cater to men.

So the pitch to potential male MRA students would be, as I see it, "we aren't focusing on your issues right now but if enough of you sign up then we might change the curriculum to accommodate you but please don't try to show your MRA documentary on campus because we will be there to shut it down".

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

Ah seriously, youre just peddling your own ideology now. People answer you but to your mind they haven't because its not the 'right' answer. Ignore the fact that most people don't just spend their days worrying about single issues.

Btw im still waiting for a response to my question to you earlier....

tritium wrote: »

You profess an active interest in mens and womens rights, you debate your view on it extensively here (where many of the key figures are openly discussed) but you're not familiar with Paul Elam, Erin Pizzey or Christina Hoff Sommers?

Im afraid i struggle to believe that. Who exactly are the voices within the two movements that ypu would be familiar with?

[/quote]

I really would have thought that posters would have a few issues that they would prioritise over the rest. Given the amount of talk, I would really have thought there would be some priorities for individual posters. I know the issues I would be most likely to see as priorities. Do you seriously not have any idea what your top issues are?

I didn’t see that question but I’ll happily address it now.

I don’t know who those people are. I discuss these issues but you might or might not have noticed that I never use those peoples names because I have never heard of them. Simple as that.

Even without knowing who those people are, the standard applies to them (the cause their advocating for and the outcome).

And someone mentioned tribalism earlier. I might be coming around to seeing why they’d think like that. Believe it or not, I don’t spend time on YouTube looking for gender wars generals to follow.

Now, I answered your list of questions a few pages back and I asked you to give your own answers to the same list of questions. Would you do that please?

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don’t know who those people are. I discuss these issues but you might or might not have noticed that I never use those peoples names because I have never heard of them. Simple as that.

Even without knowing who those people are, the standard applies to them (the cause their advocating for and the outcome).

To be honest, if you don't know who these people are then you are woefully unequipped to participate in the conversation at anything other than surface level.

It shows, quite frankly.

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Surely you can see that you're missing the point. Feminists are focused on women's issues, men's rights activists are focused on feminism.

Men's rights could gain momentum but they would need to keep their eyes on the prize rather than just wanting to point out all the ways that feminism is flawed.

I have to disagree here.

Can anyone really be described as a "men's rights activist" if they do not participate in activism for men's rights?

If someone puts on a men's rights event or creates a documentary about the men's right movement and feminist groups actively try to shut down their events or ban their documentary then doesn't that naturally put them in conflict with feminism?

Take the gender thing out of the equation for a moment. Let's say a new burger restaurant opens in the city. Everyday when they open up there is a small squad of vegans who come into the restaurant and try to stop them from selling burgers. Sometimes successfully, sometimes not. So the burger restaurant owner complains A LOT about vegans. Are you really gonna say to the guy "why are you focusing on vegans so much, why don't you just focus on selling burgers"?

You are completely ignoring the reality of the relationship between MRAs and Feminists. One of the main aspects of that relationship is Feminists organizing to have MRA events shut down.

You have Group A constantly trying to shut down Group B and thus not allowing them to promote their Talking Points. Then you are going to Group B and saying "why don't you focus on your Talking Points instead of complaining about Group A".

That's before we even get to considering that the flaws in "Feminist Theory" may directly contribute to the issues that MRAs are looking to resolve.

Bringing that back to Gender Studies courses. I have to say that I do not have high confidence that an MRA would be welcomed in such courses. I have even less confidence that Gender Studies courses will have any focus on MRA talking points.

Ah surely you can see that getting your own message out there is the goal. The example I mentioned earlier of the exam results in the uk was really well done. No controversy as far as I saw and it didn’t mention feminism.

There will be times when MRA and feminists will clash. They’re likely to be contesting when lobbying government for funds for campaigns etc. But almost all the time ought to be spent getting the MRA message out.

The burger restaurant example is worth exploring. The owner could challenge the people/individual group that pickets their restaurant, or they could get on Facebook and call vegans a bunch of azzholes. And tell them their soya mild is killing the environment because it’s bring flown from South America.

The second option is likely to cause a lot more noise and light but ultimately not solve the issue.

I’d be surprised if my one with an extreme ideology wouldn’t experience difficulties if they try to apply their ideology to the course. The article said that the women on the course mentioned were particularly protective of the men in discussions and seminars. That’s all the information I have to go on TBH.

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote: »

To be honest, if you don't know who these people are then you are woefully unequipped to participate in the conversation at anything other than surface level.

It shows, quite frankly.

I can see why so many posters think that men are under constant attack if they spend their time looking for gender wars guff on the internet.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

its very simple, men want fair rules and a meritocracy, feminists want unearned benefits and want men held back so they can compete. Normal women I'd hope would be middle of the road as they will be shaping society that they want to raise their kids in.

That’s very simple alright. Veeeerrry simple.

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I can see why so many posters think that men are under constant attack if they spend their time looking for gender wars guff on the internet.

How can you have a serious discussion about something without having even looked up the basics?

How can you become knowledgeable about an ongoing debate without reading up on both sides?

I think people might feel under attack because they see people who can't even be bothered to do basic research talking about a subject and then it's like talking to brick wall trying to have a discussion with them.

If MRAs are criticized by people who don't understand the first thing about the movement then they will feel the criticism is unfair. That seems reasonable.

You say "feminists are focused on women's issues, men's rights activists are focused on feminism."

But when someone drops 3 of the most prominent names in the movement you basically say "oh I don't know who those people are".

In conclusion, you know enough to know that MRAs are "focused on Feminism" but you don't know enough to recognize 3 of the main people leading the MRA discussion.

Unbelievable stuff.

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote: »

You are missing the point that this whole conversation got kicked off over Gender Studies classes and why men don't participate.

Your argument is that people will tend towards activism for their own gender's issues.

Yes

Saruhashi wrote: »

Most of the people coming out of gender studies courses are activists for women's issues

Yes. Because most of them are women.

Saruhashi wrote: »

However, if the course content is 50% men's issues and 50% women's issues then it follows that 50% of the curriculum is basically being ignored by graduates. So maybe the courses don't focus on Men so much? (this is a rhetorical question by the way, I know you have trouble understanding that)

No need to be snarky. Most people use less than 50% of their uni modules. An engineer/Doctor will study a whole range of aspects of engineering/medicine but will only go into the area which appeals to them most. The knowledge and skills from the other aspects of the course might well still be in use.

Saruhashi wrote: »

That leads us (quite naturally, I think) to the conclusion that Gender Studies courses have a VERY strong bias towards women's issues. Even brief research into these courses shows that "Feminist Theory" and "Intersectionality" are very influential factors and this gives a strong impression that men's issues are likely to be either ignored or seen as not currently important.

I don’t know the details of any uni course apart from the ones I actually took. You might have knowledge that I don’t, which is fine, or you might be making an assumption they suits your argument. Do you have intimate knowledge of the course contents?

Saruhashi wrote: »

The foundation of your point here seemed to be that if men won't enroll in Gender Studies classes then it shouldn't be a surprise that men's issues are not a focus for society.

You could argue, I suppose, that if men started enrolling in Gender Studies courses in large numbers then the courses would have to change their content to cater to men.

I’m delighted you brought that up because that’s actually not the point I was making. It might be true though that men attending in greater numbers would change the course contents. But my point is simply that if the graduates are nearly all women, then most of the graduates will likely get involved in women’s issues over men’s issues.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah seriously, youre just peddling your own ideology now. People answer you but to your mind they haven't because its not the 'right' answer. Ignore the fact that most people don't just spend their days worrying about single issues.

Btw im still waiting for a response to my question to you earlier....

I really would have thought that posters would have a few issues that they would prioritise over the rest. Given the amount of talk, I would really have thought there would be some priorities for individual posters. I know the issues I would be most likely to see as priorities. Do you seriously not have any idea what your top issues are?

I didn’t see that question but I’ll happily address it now.

I don’t know who those people are. I discuss these issues but you might or might not have noticed that I never use those peoples names because I have never heard of them. Simple as that.

Even without knowing who those people are, the standard applies to them (the cause their advocating for and the outcome).

And someone mentioned tribalism earlier. I might be coming around to seeing why they’d think like that. Believe it or not, I don’t spend time on YouTube looking for gender wars generals to follow.

Now, I answered your list of questions a few pages back and I asked you to give your own answers to the same list of questions. Would you do that please?[/quote]

Well, you didn't actually answer it you just sort if dodged it. No matter happy to answer them...

tritium wrote: »

Thats an interesting view on the 'purity test'. It implies that mens rights commentators should be taken at their bona fides by men who care about these issues rather than being open to questioning or challenge. It raises a few uncomfortable questions unfortunately that id appreciate your view on.

-should we be just grateful that ' that there's another voice advocating for an important men's rights issue' and not subject it to scrutiny?
- would you suggest we apply the same test to other mens rights advocates, for example Paul Elam?
- do you believe the feminist movement is more flawed in this regard given how sections of it have ostracized womens rights advocates and self declared feminists such as Erin Pizzey and Christina Hoff Sommers? ('Purity test?')
-if the bona fides later prove to be false are those who went along without question blameless down the line?
-do you believe mens rights should be a consistent hive mind on things like that or is debate healthy?

No, we shouldn't just be grateful for another voice imho. Society is not a hive mind and we should call out unethical or objectionable aspects. Thats not to say we can't agree with some of the message while being mindful of the messenger. Bressie was i think the example given- i like others am a bit sceptical of Bressie. Its good that the issue is getting coverage but that doesn't mean he gets a pass. As an extreme analogy think of mother Theresa. Plenty of praise and visibility for the issues she raised but also considerable scrutiny of the woman herself. The important thing is actually to separate the message and messanger - i could for example point to posters on another forum who almost specialise in ad hominem to discredit valid issues (guilt bybassociation)

Feminism isnt a hive mind either, but its disturbing nonetheless how unwilling many feminists, especially in academic circles, appear to be to criticise the messenger. Andrea Dworkin, Janice Raymond, just two good examples of feminist thinkers who still get a lot of gas in spite of having very negative and objectionable impacts. Likewise many feminists have been labelled anti feminist for not having an approved ideology and openly ostracized.
Similarly you could point to the likes of the Koss study as discredited nonsense still peddled unquestioningly as fact.

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I can see why so many posters think that men are under constant attack if they spend their time looking for gender wars guff on the internet.

How can you have a serious discussion about something without having even looked up the basics?

How can you become knowledgeable about an ongoing debate without reading up on both sides?

I think people might feel under attack because they see people who can't even be bothered to do basic research talking about a subject and then it's like talking to brick wall trying to have a discussion with them.

If MRAs are criticized by people who don't understand the first thing about the movement then they will feel the criticism is unfair. That seems reasonable.

You say "feminists are focused on women's issues, men's rights activists are focused on feminism."

But when someone drops 3 of the most prominent names in the movement you basically say "oh I don't know who those people are".

In conclusion, you know enough to know that MRAs are "focused on Feminism" but you don't know enough to recognize 3 of the main people leading the MRA discussion.

Unbelievable stuff.

I don’t need to know anything about the generals in the gender wars on either side to take an interest in the issues that are important to me on my real life.

It really is beginning to make sense why so many posters feel under attack in principle even if not actually experiencing any actual arrack.

Most of my experience of this stuff comes from these threads. The experience i have fathered us they the primary focus of these threads about men’s rights, is actually feminism and how dreadfully feminism is.

I’m Interested in men’s and women’s rights. Not the twitter battles and cable news guff that goes around it.

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

Well, you didn't actually answer it you just sort if dodged it. No matter happy to answer them...

tritium wrote: »

Thats an interesting view on the 'purity test'. It implies that mens rights commentators should be taken at their bona fides by men who care about these issues rather than being open to questioning or challenge. It raises a few uncomfortable questions unfortunately that id appreciate your view on.

-should we be just grateful that ' that there's another voice advocating for an important men's rights issue' and not subject it to scrutiny?
- would you suggest we apply the same test to other mens rights advocates, for example Paul Elam?
- do you believe the feminist movement is more flawed in this regard given how sections of it have ostracized womens rights advocates and self declared feminists such as Erin Pizzey and Christina Hoff Sommers? ('Purity test?')
-if the bona fides later prove to be false are those who went along without question blameless down the line?
-do you believe mens rights should be a consistent hive mind on things like that or is debate healthy?

No, we shouldn't just be grateful for another voice imho. Society is not a hive mind and we should call out unethical or objectionable aspects. Thats not to say we can't agree with some of the message while being mindful of the messenger. Bressie was i think the example given- i like others am a bit sceptical of Bressie. Its good that the issue is getting coverage but that doesn't mean he gets a pass. As an extreme analogy think of mother Theresa. Plenty of praise and visibility for the issues she raised but also considerable scrutiny of the woman herself. The important thing is actually to separate the message and messanger - i could for example point to posters on another forum who almost specialise in ad hominem to discredit valid issues (guilt bybassociation)

Feminism isnt a hive mind either, but its disturbing nonetheless how unwilling many feminists, especially in academic circles, appear to be to criticise the messenger. Andrea Dworkin, Janice Raymond, just two good examples of feminist thinkers who still get a lot of gas in spite of having very negative and objectionable impacts. Likewise many feminists have been labelled anti feminist for not having an approved ideology and openly ostracized.
Similarly you could point to the likes of the Koss study as discredited nonsense still peddled unquestioningly as fact.

Well I did answer o. As far as I can. I don’t know the characters you asked me about but I did give a standard that applied to them the same as anyone else.
Thanks for answering these questions.
I largely agree. Mother Teresa and Breslin. Yeah they both deserve scrutiny. I think you’ll find it difficult to find a lot of genuine complaints about Breslin if you frame it like that. He made a profit while promoting awareness of men’s mental health. That was the height of objection raised. That’s just bellyaching as far as I can see.

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don’t know the details of any uni course apart from the ones I actually took. You might have knowledge that I don’t, which is fine, or you might be making an assumption they suits your argument. Do you have intimate knowledge of the course contents?

Yes I do because instead of getting involved in a discussion I am woefully unprepared for I had a look to see what gender studies courses are available in Ireland.

Here is the Centre for Gender and Women's Studies at Trinity College Dublin.
https://www.tcd.ie/cgws/

Here is their Twitter page -
https://twitter.com/cgws_tcd

Centre for Global Women's Studies at NUI Galway - http://www.nuigalway.ie/womens_studies/

Here is their Twitter page - https://twitter.com/GlobalWS_NUIG?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nuigalway.ie%2Fwomens_studies%2F

Here is a list of Gender Studies departments at Irish colleges and universities if you are interested - https://www.gender-studies.org/en/ie/


Now, if the question is why don't men go into Gender Studies courses and programs then I think we might be able to get an idea by looking at the links.

I'm not going to say that these courses and departments are "anti-male" but I think it's not unfair to say that many of these courses and departments are going to be about women and for women.

So that sufficiently explains the lack of men taking gender studies.

Here is a module descriptor for the module "Gender and Society in Ireland since 1867" offered at DCU. https://www.dcu.ie/sites/default/files/humanities_and_social_sciences/mahh-gender-and-society-descriptor.pdf

Notice the following:

This module examines shifting gender roles in Ireland through the lens of
individual women’s lives.

The module will engage with the manner in which the ideology of separate
spheres determined constructions of gender roles in Ireland after 1922 making
it very difficult for women to exist outside the dominant paradigm of
domesticity. Moreover, the post-colonial state authored a new narrative of
national identity based on Catholic sexual morality. In this context the burden
of sexual responsibility was placed on women; the module will examine the
treatment of women who were deemed to have transgressed the narrow
definition of sexual morality which prevailed for much of the twentieth century.

learning Outcome - Compare the position and treatment of women in Ireland with that of women in other European countries in the period.

Learning Outcome - Reflect on the changing nature of women’s lives in twentieth century Ireland. Engage with the secondary sources in the area of gender and women’s history with particular focus on late nineteenth-century and twentieth-century Ireland. Identify relevant primary sources for the study of the history of women in twentieth-century Ireland.


Here lads, I just can't figure out why more men aren't getting into these courses! Don't they realize courses like this could really help them further their careers and really pay off the investment they are making in further education?

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don’t need to know anything about the generals in the gender wars on either side to take an interest in the issues that are important to me on my real life.

It really is beginning to make sense why so many posters feel under attack in principle even if not actually experiencing any actual arrack.

Most of my experience of this stuff comes from these threads. The experience i have fathered us they the primary focus of these threads about men’s rights, is actually feminism and how dreadfully feminism is.

I’m Interested in men’s and women’s rights. Not the twitter battles and cable news guff that goes around it.

So really what you are saying is you don't want to get into a conversation about the relationship between MRAs and Feminists on a larger scale but just want to talk about what matters to you and your real life?

When someone bothers to look into why men don't seem to be heavily involved in Gender Studies and subsequent activism for men's issues it doesn't really matter to you what the conclusion is because you are really just interested in individual personal experiences?

Surely, from an MRA perspective, if MRAs are trying to get anything done about men's issues and Feminist Theory, Intersectionality and Feminist Activists themselves are a major roadblock to that then they will perceive Feminism as dreadful.

If I want to drive down a road from Point A to Point B and I can't because of a fallen tree blocking the road then it seems utterly unfair to me that you would be there saying "I don't know why you keep going on about this tree, just drive your car from A to B" over and over again.

When I try to explain that I can't get from A to B because a tree is blocking my path you keep saying "well, trees and roads and driving aren't really important to my life so I don't know why you are so worried about this tree".

I think here it's even worse than that because YOU won't even look at the road. Someone says "you know I measured the width of the road and the tree and the car and this car can't drive round that tree without falling of the road". Your reply is to utterly shamelessly, and without any inclination of embarrassment,
say "well I don't know about any of that I'm not interested in measuring things".

I can't ignore the tree though can I? I want to get something done and there is a thing blocking me. I can't get rid of the thing though because there is someone who instead of saying "yeah, maybe we should see about this tree" keeps hammering the point home that I am "feeling under attack" from trees and that I am just too obsessed with trees for my own good.

And who's this coming along to try and move the tree? It's the "generals in the gender wars". I shouldn't pay attention to them though. Shouldn't even learn their names or listen to what they have to say. Nah. Just drive from A to B. Forget the tree. Why do you keep mentioning tress? I don't see the need to move trees, personally. Can't you just ignore this "let's clear the road" crowd and drive from A to B?

There comes a point where I have to realize that you are just never going to get it.

People who are trying to do activism for men's rights are often blocked by Feminist groups. This puts them in conflict with one another.

Anyone discussing men's rights who can't at least acknowledge this conflict is not really doing much for the discussion, in my opinion.

"You should care about men's issues"
I do but these feminist groups are doing a lot to block MRA groups
"I don't know why you feel under attack"
Well, feminist groups are blocking progress on the issues I am interested in.
"I don't know why you keep bringing up feminists"

I think we are done here to be honest.

silverharp

Saruhashi wrote: »

"You should care about men's issues"
I do but these feminist groups are doing a lot to block MRA groups
"I don't know why you feel under attack"
Well, feminist groups are blocking progress on the issues I am interested in.
"I don't know why you keep bringing up feminists"

I think we are done here to be honest.

lol