Feminism and the emasculation of men

hatrickpatrick

lufties wrote: »

What do you mean by that Pat?

Nothing, it's a Lord of the Rings joke

lufties

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Nothing, it's a Lord of the Rings joke

Oh right, haven't seen that.

The One Doctor

lufties wrote: »

What do you mean by that Pat?

I think it means that he is calling you out as as someone who is stirring things up for the sake of it. From reading your posts in this thread, your position is untenable and deliberately provocative and you knew it from the start.

hatrickpatrick

lufties wrote: »

Oh right, haven't seen that.

:eek::eek::eek:
I demand that you depart this land immediately and watch or read it. In fact, I call upon the mods to issue a temporary ban, which will be lifted as soon as you can score say 75% on a Lord of the Rings quiz

hatrickpatrick

The One Doctor wrote: »

I think it means that he is calling you out as as someone who is stirring things up for the sake of it. From reading your posts in this thread, your position is untenable and deliberately provocative and you knew it from the start.

Actually it wasn't, I'm not targeting anyone in particular I just love a good excuse to paraphrase Boromir

Bannasidhe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But it's not just some fringe minority thing. The campaign against offensive Facebook pages was a massive international thing, for instance. You can't simply ignore it or sweep it aside - it is embedded in the current, 21st century meaning of the word "feminist" for better or worse.

As I said earlier, not all republicans support dissident violence, but a sizable enough portion do that I prefer to use the word "nationalist" to describe myself. When it comes to gender equality, I favour "egalitarian" - emphasizing that my beliefs are all about gender equality, but not all the extra stuff Feminism has absorbed in recent years.

It is?

Perhaps you could send me a copy of the memo from Fem HQ?

I would posit that it is 'embedded' by people who have some conflicts of interest with feminism rather than the view of the majority of feminists as you claim it is.

hatrickpatrick

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It is?

Perhaps you could send me a copy of the memo from Fem HQ?

I would posit that it is 'embedded' by people who have some conflicts of interest with feminism rather than the view of the majority of feminists as you claim it is.

It's embedded in it from an outsider's perspective. For the people who get their information from the news, for instance - and you can't deny that a lot of people get their information from newspapers or news programs on TV or radio.

You can ignore this problem if you want, but it's only going to get worse IMO - as I said, I know women in my own circle of friends who specifically cite campaigns calling for "banning" and "censoring" of "offensive" stuff as a reason they're not fond of the label "feminism".

You can dismiss this if you want. But I find it highly offensive when people say "Not a feminist? Ah, so you don't believe in equality then." I do believe in equality, but I don't in any way believe in any of the other BS that's been going around recently.

What do you think of my republican analogy? If I told people I was a republican as opposed to a nationalist, I guarantee a lot of people would assume that means I support armed revolution - no matter how unfair that would be, that's the reality of perception.

Bannasidhe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of women out there perfectly willing to take advantage of this biased law, WHILE screaming about equality in *other* areas of life. This is very clearly ridiculous.

You mean the law that was enacted in 1964 long before the existence of Feminism?

I campaign for the rights of unmarried fathers. I think the law in question was ****e when it was enacted and ****e now but for the opposite reasons. At the time it allowed men a get out of being a daddy card and put all the responsibility on the mother. Did government do that for the benefit of women? Did the uck! They did that so it would be easier to stick the mother away in a laundry and take away her child. Were men kicking up a fuss about this? Some did - but the vast majority just got on with their lives free of any stigma or shame - that was reserved for the 'fallen' women.

Now, the same law is depriving men of legal rights and responsibilities regarding their children - a law written by men nearly 50 years ago - how the hell is that the fault of Feminism????

I know a huge amount of feminists who are actively campaigning against the inequalities of the Guardianship of Children Act 1964 because it is wrong. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

Now no doubt you will say 'prove it' - in that case - you made the claim women are taking 'advantage' - the onus is on you to prove that. Do keep in mind that family court judges have to abide by the LAW - and men wrote the law.

Links234

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's embedded in it from an outsider's perspective. For the people who get their information from the news, for instance - and you can't deny that a lot of people get their information from newspapers or news programs on TV or radio.

From my perspective, the biggest issue for feminists in Ireland is one of reproductive rights and healthcare, but maybe that's just me?

newport2

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Now, the same law is depriving men of legal rights and responsibilities regarding their children - a law written by men nearly 50 years ago - how the hell is that the fault of Feminism????

I know a huge amount of feminists who are actively campaigning against the inequalities of the Guardianship of Children Act 1964 because it is wrong. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

Now no doubt you will say 'prove it' - in that case - you made the claim women are taking 'advantage' - the onus is on you to prove that. Do keep in mind that family court judges have to abide by the LAW - and men wrote the law.

I agree mainly with what you say, but I don't see the point of repeatedly emphasising:

"men wrote the law"
"a law written by men nearly 50 years ago"

So what if men wrote it? Does that make it right? Is that the fault of men today?

That makes as much sense as telling a girl who gets bullied that it was girls who bullied her. Either an irrelevent point to make or meant to imply that somehow the blame is shared because someone of the same gender had a hand in it.

Bannasidhe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's embedded in it from an outsider's perspective. For the people who get their information from the news, for instance - and you can't deny that a lot of people get their information from newspapers or news programs on TV or radio.

You can ignore this problem if you want, but it's only going to get worse IMO - as I said, I know women in my own circle of friends who specifically cite campaigns calling for "banning" and "censoring" of "offensive" stuff as a reason they're not fond of the label "feminism".

You can dismiss this if you want. But I find it highly offensive when people say "Not a feminist? Ah, so you don't believe in equality then." I do believe in equality, but I don't in any way believe in any of the other BS that's been going around recently.

What do you think of my republican analogy? If I told people I was a republican as opposed to a nationalist, I guarantee a lot of people would assume that means I support armed revolution - no matter how unfair that would be, that's the reality of perception.

I am a middle aged women who came out in the late 1970s in Ireland - do you honestly think I give a flying monkey about how people who base their opinions on what they read in newpapers or see on the TV perceive things?

Should I accept something because it says so in a tabloid?

I don't think so.

I would consider 'nationalist' just as loaded a term as republican. Nationalism sparked a whole world war after all. Nationalist also tends to mean the same thing across the globe whereas 'republican' has different meanings in different countries. Now if you mean 'Irish Republican' than yes, that has para-military connotations but that is now being challenged by people who actually believe in the idea of a true Irish Republic in terms of governance regardless of how many counties it contains.

There was a time when the tricolour was seen as being tainted due to is use by paramilitaries. That did not make it 'their' flag - it meant an extreme group was being allowed to co-opt our flag. We took it back - ironically via an Englishman. Jack's Army proudly waved/wore/ate/drank the Tricolour and reclaimed it from the extremists.

Likewise the extremists do not own feminism except in the minds of those whose agenda it suits.

Links234

newport2 wrote: »

I agree mainly with what you say, but I don't see the point of repeatedly emphasising:

"men wrote the law"
"a law written by men nearly 50 years ago"

So what if men wrote it? Does that make it right? Is that the fault of men today?

That makes as much sense as telling a girl who gets bullied that it was girls who bullied her. Either an irrelevent point to make or meant to imply that somehow the blame is shared because someone of the same gender had a hand in it.

The point is that it's somehow paradoxically blamed on feminists, when that is anything but the case. It's a point that needs emphasising, because so many of the men folks tend to blame women folks for their unequal standing in family law, when it was other men folks who are to blame.

Bannasidhe

newport2 wrote: »

I agree mainly with what you say, but I don't see the point of repeatedly emphasising:

"men wrote the law"
"a law written by men nearly 50 years ago"

So what if men wrote it? Does that make it right? Is that the fault of men today?

That makes as much sense as telling a girl who gets bullied that it was girls who bullied her. Either an irrelevent point to make or meant to imply that somehow the blame is shared because someone of the same gender had a hand in it.

No it is not the fault of men today - where did I say it was???

My point was - feminists are being blamed for the current situation when they had absolutely nothing to do with the legislation that has these inequalities enshrined on our legal system.

Blame the politicians who have yet to change the law - it is up to them. But it suits some people's agenda to say 'ohhhh, bloody feminists won't let men have access to their children' - no - the LAW won't let them. Feminists did not write that law.

Got it yet?

Legs.Eleven

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You mean the law that was enacted in 1964 long before the existence of Feminism?

I campaign for the rights of unmarried fathers. I think the law in question was ****e when it was enacted and ****e now but for the opposite reasons. At the time it allowed men a get out of being a daddy card and put all the responsibility on the mother. Did government do that for the benefit of women? Did the uck! They did that so it would be easier to stick the mother away in a laundry and take away her child. Were men kicking up a fuss about this? Some did - but the vast majority just got on with their lives free of any stigma or shame - that was reserved for the 'fallen' women.

Now, the same law is depriving men of legal rights and responsibilities regarding their children - a law written by men nearly 50 years ago - how the hell is that the fault of Feminism????

I know a huge amount of feminists who are actively campaigning against the inequalities of the Guardianship of Children Act 1964 because it is wrong. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

Now no doubt you will say 'prove it' - in that case - you made the claim women are taking 'advantage' - the onus is on you to prove that. Do keep in mind that family court judges have to abide by the LAW - and men wrote the law.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you debate. Take note OP!

newport2

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No it is not the fault of men today - where did I say it was???

Where did I say you did? I asked if it was the fault of men today. That's a question, not a statement.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My point was - feminists are being blamed for the current situation when they had absolutely nothing to do with the legislation that has these inequalities enshrined on our legal system.

Fair enough.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Got it yet?

I've got it thankyou.

Bannasidhe

newport2 wrote: »

Where did I say you did? I asked if it was the fault of men today. That's a question, not a statement.



Fair enough.



I've got it thankyou.

Apologies for the strident tone.

I am weary of making this same point over and over again.

hatrickpatrick

Links234 wrote: »

From my perspective, the biggest issue for feminists in Ireland is one of reproductive rights and healthcare, but maybe that's just me?

I have no issue of course with either of those goals. Just as I have no issue with the republican goal of a United Ireland, but shun the label due to its association with violent uprising.

I don't think we're ever going to agree on this, to be honest. You don't seem to accept my argument that the barrage of headlines such as "Feminists campaign against X Facebook page" or "Feminists call for ban on X" or "Feminists condemn X for selling Y" make the movement look bad from a free speech perspective. That's ok, we must simply accept our disagreement I fear, because I don't think anything either of us says here will persuade the other to budge

Bannasidhe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I have no issue of course with either of those goals. Just as I have no issue with the republican goal of a United Ireland, but shun the label due to its association with violent uprising.

I don't think we're ever going to agree on this, to be honest. You don't seem to accept my argument that the barrage of headlines such as "Feminists campaign against X Facebook page" or "Feminists call for ban on X" or "Feminists condemn X for selling Y" make the movement look bad from a free speech perspective. That's ok, we must simply accept our disagreement I fear, because I don't think anything either of us says here will persuade the other to budge

Do all those headlines which say 'soccer fans riot' mean people perceive all soccer fans as hooligans or that there exists an extreme minority?

Newspaper headlines are designed to sell newspapers and in order to so so they will sensationalise/spin - they are certainly no basis for forming an opinion on anything.

Obliq

Emasculate: 1. (usually as adjective emasculated) deprive (a man) of his male role or identity
2. make (someone or something) weaker or less effective

According to the Oxford English.

Now, I'm having a big problem seeing what feminism has to do with either depriving any man of their male role or identity or making them weaker/less effective.

There is clearly a feeling among (edit: some men -sorry all!) men that their male role or identity is now less clear cut than when the male was seen as a standard issue breadwinner, in charge of all the power tools and the head of the household, but I can't see how the balancing of these factors in modern relationships is making men any less, well...masculine.

In my relationship, I consider my man to be the MOST manly man around, BECAUSE he has no difficulty with a kick ass feminist like myself. He cheerfully wrings his hands when the plumbing breaks or a shelf needs to be accurately and neatly screwed to a wall, as he is more of a hit-it-with-a-hammer-till-it-works and a if-it-isn't-sawed-up-with-a-chainsaw-forget-it kind of guy. He also doesn't mind me buying him presents, if they're useful.

I'm describing this only because emasculation is a total non-issue for him, or for my two sons who are growing up with the example of men being attracted to opinionated strong women - as did I.

I'd really like to hear from some men about what "emasculation" actually means to them, leaving aside feminism for the red-herring it is in relation to a man's role or identity.

robindch

Links234 wrote: »

Equality isn't a zero sum game [...]

Along with trust, this seems to be one of the main differences between liberal types and conservative types -- conservatives seeming to have an emotional belief that most or all of life's transactions are zero-sum. Liberal types, on the other hand, tend to believe and operate as if transactions don't have to be zero-sum. I've mentioned this to a few zero-summers, but none of them seem to understand the concept, or at least pretend not to understand it.

One of the odder expressions of this zero-sum attitude was a comment by one highly conservative woman who mentioned to me one time that she was very concerned in the run up to the birth of her second child -- how on earth could she divide the enormous love she felt for her first child, with the second? That comment is incomprehensible, unless one believes that "love" is something doled out by nature in zero-sum quantities.

hatrickpatrick

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am a middle aged women who came out in the late 1970s in Ireland - do you honestly think I give a flying monkey about how people who base their opinions on what they read in newpapers or see on the TV perceive things?

Well then, unfortunately, you are excluding a very large portion of society from your consideration.

Should I accept something because it says so in a tabloid?

I don't think so.

When did I say you should?

I would consider 'nationalist' just as loaded a term as republican. Nationalism sparked a whole world war after all. Nationalist also tends to mean the same thing across the globe whereas 'republican' has different meanings in different countries. Now if you mean 'Irish Republican' than yes, that has para-military connotations but that is now being challenged by people who actually believe in the idea of a true Irish Republic in terms of governance regardless of how many counties it contains.

Ok that's a reasonable point, let me amend my previous statements to say "Irish Republican" and "Irish Nationalist". Now do you agree that my decision to shun the word republican doesn't mean I don't support a republic, but merely means I don't want to associate myself with the common, everyday interpretation of the word? I could stubbornly stick to my guns about it (unfortunate pun there, sorry 'bout that ) but that wouldn't change the fact that by using that word, I've already painted a picture in the court of public opinion.

There was a time when the tricolour was seen as being tainted due to is use by paramilitaries. That did not make it 'their' flag - it meant an extreme group was being allowed to co-opt our flag. We took it back - ironically via an Englishman. Jack's Army proudly waved/wore/ate/drank the Tricolour and reclaimed it from the extremists.

Agreed.

Likewise the extremists do not own feminism except in the minds of those whose agenda it suits.

Fair enough, but I fear you're underestimating just how widespread the anti free speech movement really is. Scarcely a week goes past now without some headline appearing, or editorial written by a self styled feminist, calling for internet censorship of some kind.
Look at the default anti-porn filters being introduced in the UK, and being heralded by feminists all over the country - as I say, it may not reflect everyone's views but it certainly doesn't look good.

Alf Veedersane

Obliq wrote: »

Now, I'm having a big problem seeing what feminism has to do with either depriving any man of their male role or identity or making them weaker/less effective.

Agree on this.

Any man whose identity as a man is defined by how he views himself relative to a particular woman, or women in general, needs to have a word with himself.

Bannasidhe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well then, unfortunately, you are excluding a very large portion of society from your consideration.



When did I say you should?



Ok that's a reasonable point, let me amend my previous statements to say "Irish Republican" and "Irish Nationalist". Now do you agree that my decision to shun the word republican doesn't mean I don't support a republic, but merely means I don't want to associate myself with the common, everyday interpretation of the word? I could stubbornly stick to my guns about it (unfortunate pun there, sorry 'bout that ) but that wouldn't change the fact that by using that word, I've already painted a picture in the court of public opinion.



Agreed.



Fair enough, but I fear you're underestimating just how widespread the anti free speech movement really is. Scarcely a week goes past now without some headline appearing, or editorial written by a self styled feminist, calling for internet censorship of some kind.
Look at the default anti-porn filters being introduced in the UK, and being heralded by feminists all over the country - as I say, it may not reflect everyone's views but it certainly doesn't look good.

I think you take far too much notice of headlines. They are designed to sell newspapers on a daily/weekly basis in a cut-throat industry and the best way to do this is good old *shock Horror Probe*. Do you think a headline which says 'Feminists want Equality' will grab attention? Those who understand Feminism will just say 'Well DOH! while those who wish to have their pre-conceived prejudices confirmed will salivate and rush to the comments section to vent. Headlines are aimed at Outraged of Ballycomplain. Believe them at your peril.

I read at least 5 newspapers everyday from the Irish Indo to the Washington Post and I am genuinely not seeing this outbreak you speak off.

As for public opinion - yeah right. I was really going to pay attention to what Irish public opinion had to say about Lesbians in 1980...

Links234

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Look at the default anti-porn filters being introduced in the UK, and being heralded by feminists all over the country - as I say, it may not reflect everyone's views but it certainly doesn't look good.

Filters being brought in by conservative David Cameron, and such internet censorship has been heavily criticized by feminists as well as many other groups, because sites on domestic violence, sexual health and LGBT issues have been blocked too. Far, far from being hailed by feminists, it's seen as a serious danger.

*Ahem*

biko

Having less alphas doesn't have to be a bad thing.

Among a troop of savanna baboons in Kenya, a terrible outbreak of tuberculosis selectively killed off the biggest, nastiest and most despotic males, setting the stage for a social and behavioral transformation unlike any seen in this notoriously truculent primate.

Left behind in the troop, designated the Forest Troop, were the 50 percent of males that had been too subordinate to try dump brawling, as well as all the females and their young. With that change in demographics came a cultural swing toward pacifism, a relaxing of the usually parlous baboon hierarchy, and a willingness to use affection and mutual grooming rather than threats, swipes and bites to foster a patriotic spirit.

Remarkably, the Forest Troop has maintained its genial style over two decades, even though the male survivors of the epidemic have since died or disappeared and been replaced by males from the outside.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/science/no-time-for-bullies-baboons-retool-their-culture.html

tigger123

biko wrote: »

Having less alphas doesn't have to be a bad thing.

Among a troop of savanna baboons in Kenya, a terrible outbreak of tuberculosis selectively killed off the biggest, nastiest and most despotic males, setting the stage for a social and behavioral transformation unlike any seen in this notoriously truculent primate.

Left behind in the troop, designated the Forest Troop, were the 50 percent of males that had been too subordinate to try dump brawling, as well as all the females and their young. With that change in demographics came a cultural swing toward pacifism, a relaxing of the usually parlous baboon hierarchy, and a willingness to use affection and mutual grooming rather than threats, swipes and bites to foster a patriotic spirit.

Remarkably, the Forest Troop has maintained its genial style over two decades, even though the male survivors of the epidemic have since died or disappeared and been replaced by males from the outside.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/science/no-time-for-bullies-baboons-retool-their-culture.html

It was probably a feminist that introduced the disease.

Bannasidhe

tigger123 wrote: »

It was probably a feminist that introduced the disease.

Sigourney Weaver was in a film about it. It was called 'Monkeys in the Fog'.


:pac:

hatrickpatrick

Links234 wrote: »

Filters being brought in by conservative David Cameron, and such internet censorship has been heavily criticized by feminists as well as many other groups, because sites on domestic violence, sexual health and LGBT issues have been blocked too. Far, far from being hailed by feminists, it's seen as a serious danger.

*Ahem*

Ok, so according to those feminists it's a bad thing merely because of its unintended side effects? :rolleyes:

What about the calls to ban lads mags then?

robindch

biko wrote: »

Among a troop of savanna baboons in Kenya, a terrible outbreak of tuberculosis selectively killed off the biggest, nastiest and most despotic males, setting the stage for a social and behavioral transformation unlike any seen in this notoriously truculent primate.

Documented at length in Robert Sapolsky's moving, thoughtful, and very funny, book, A Primate's Memoir, which I recommend unhesitatingly.

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/25807/295943.jpg

jimgoose

biko wrote: »

Having less alphas doesn't have to be a bad thing....

...unless you're an Alpha! :pac: