Feminism and the emasculation of men

SYT2000

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I don't have a problem with men's rights activists just campaigning for men's rights, just with people complaining about issues men face yet doing nothing themselves, but eagerly blaming feminists/expecting feminists to do something about issues men face.

Why claim equality is your goal and not focus on huge areas of inequality such as prison sentencing?

If feminists are only interested in increasing women's rights then say so, don't bullsh1t people about equality.

Feminists would prefer to focus on non existent pay discrimination and campaign for more money when they actually get paid slightly better than men all things equal.

Bannasidhe

SYT2000 wrote: »

I haven't heard of them campaigning for equal prison sentences, exactly like I said in my post. Who said courts favour men every single time.

The fact of the matter is though the courts are incredibly biased against men.

Ya - the Courts were so biased against the men who were able to buy their way out of jail after raping someone. :rolleyes:


You are basing your argument on the fact that because you haven't heard there is nothing?

Have you looked?

Awaits complaint that damn feminists are refusing to do men's research for them....

hatrickpatrick

SYT2000 wrote: »

I haven't heard of them campaigning for equal prison sentences, exactly like I said in my post. Who said courts favour men every single time.

The fact of the matter is though the courts are incredibly biased against men.

Ivana Bacik has explicitly said that in a lot of cases. women shouldn't be given custodial prison sentences. She's even had the temerity to say that a lot of the time if a woman commits a crime, a man persuaded her or coerced her into doing it. Harriet Harmen of the UK has made extremely similar comments in the past. Both of these individuals describe themselves as feminists.

Bannasidhe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Ivana Bacik has explicitly said that in a lot of cases. women shouldn't be given custodial prison sentences. She's even had the temerity to say that a lot of the time if a woman commits a crime, a man persuaded her or coerced her into doing it. Harriet Harmen of the UK has made extremely similar comments in the past. Both of these individuals describe themselves as feminists.

Ivana Bacik is an eejit.

Shall I counter with John Waters who takes eejit to a whole other level???

hatrickpatrick

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

But it's not just the crackpot ideologies you object to (which I also object to) it's anything at all that could be deemed feminist - you seem to go out of your way to let everyone know you have a problem with it, because the word "feminist" is there. Very questionable.

"Questionable"? People are free to hold whatever views they want and air whatever opinions they want - the fact that she's a woman doesn't change that.
Your remarks on this are actually strangely sexist. You're implying that because Claire is a woman, she "should" hold certain beliefs and subscribe to certain ideologies. This, I would have thought, it blatantly sexist, not to mention ludicrous?

Oh hi, you're "brand new" to Boards I see. So you must have missed the post where I already addressed this and where I said I don't like fanaticism either but there are some views that could be termed as feminist, which are just basic cop-on, and one doesn't have to be a fanatic to subscribe to them.

As I said earlier, it's not enough. One cannot be a United Ireland advocate without making it clear that one disapproves of violent tactics, why should this be any different?

Note very carefully, disapprove is not the same as not approving, which is what you're implying.

No different to agreeing that fathers' rights are crap and men are regularly ridiculed in advertising.

They are indeed. And women are also often ridiculed in advertising. Both are pretty vile, but neither should be banned or censored (in my opinion anyway).

SYT2000

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ya - the Courts were so biased against the men who were able to buy their way out of jail after raping someone. :rolleyes:


You are basing your argument on the fact that because you haven't heard there is nothing?

Have you looked?

Awaits complaint that damn feminists are refusing to do men's research for them....

This an absolutely ridiculous post, you are focusing on individual cases.

The bias is determined on a large scale and proof is undeniable that women on average get much more lenient sentencing than men for the same crime. If a woman rapes a man in Ireland
she won't even have to buy her way out of prison because it's not even a crime.

hatrickpatrick

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ivana Bacik is an eejit.

Shall I counter with John Waters who takes eejit to a whole other level???

I was just illustrating the point that there are some people who self proclaim themselves as feminist and make the word look bad, and unlike say pacifistic nationalists, feminists like Femme Fatale don't (in my opinion) do enough to condemn these people.

hatrickpatrick

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ya - the Courts were so biased against the men who were able to buy their way out of jail after raping someone. :rolleyes:


You are basing your argument on the fact that because you haven't heard there is nothing?

Have you looked?

Awaits complaint that damn feminists are refusing to do men's research for them....

I cited two very high profile feminists who think it's right that women get off with easier sentences, and whatever you say about Bacik, Harmen was a senior government minister in the UK. You cannot simply say "she's an eejit" as if that negates the fact that there are feminists - high profile people in positions of power, no less - who publicly advocate direct discrimination against men.

Bannasidhe

SYT2000 wrote: »

This an absolutely ridiculous post, you are focusing on individual cases.

The bias is determined on a large scale and proof is undeniable that women on average get much more lenient sentencing than men for the same crime. If a woman rapes a man in Ireland
she won't even have to buy her way out of prison because it's not even a crime.

You seem strangely reluctant to answer my question about the level of research you have undertaken that leads you to state feminists are not campaigning for equal treatment under the law.

Why is that?

Bannasidhe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I cited two very high profile feminists who think it's right that women get off with easier sentences, and whatever you say about Bacik, Harmen was a senior government minister in the UK. You cannot simply say "she's an eejit" as if that negates the fact that there are feminists - high profile people in positions of power, no less - who publicly advocate direct discrimination against men.

Once again - each women speaks for herself and herself only.

There is no feminist party policy - it is a political and philosophical ideology encompassing a broad spectrum of personal opinion but with a general agreement that women and men are equal and should be treated as such.

What you are doing is akin to condemning The Enlightenment because Catherine The Great considered herself an Enlightened Monarch but failed to free the Serfs.

What are you doing to combat the likes of Waters?
Every time Father's Rights are mentioned do you make a point of distancing yourself from the extremists?

In other words - Do you practice what you preach?

Femme_Fatale

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I was just illustrating the point that there are some people who self proclaim themselves as feminist and make the word look bad, and unlike say pacifistic nationalists, feminists like Femme Fatale don't (in my opinion) do enough to condemn these people.

Herein lies the rub: I don't actually identify as a feminist. That doesn't mean I'm not going to agree with certain views that would be deemed feminist (I don't agree with them being deemed "feminist" as they are concerns for anyone, not just feminists/women) no different to how I'd agree with men's rights activist concerns or gay people's concerns.

Why the **** should I keep condemning the crazies in order to disassociate myself from them? It should go without saying that I'm disassociated from them. It just seems you and others on this thread want me to subscribe to the crazies. If a guy is interested in men's rights, I don't ask him to condemn Paul Elam. If a guy is interested in men's rights and is also hostile towards women, it's his hostility towards women that is the issue, not his interest in men's rights.

FFS.

SYT2000

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You seem strangely reluctant to answer my question about the level of research you have undertaken that leads you to state feminists are not campaigning for equal treatment under the law.

Why is that?

I am basing what I am saying from all the feminists literature, articles etc I have read up until this point in my life.

From what I have read and heard from feminists it seems to me feminist don't care about equality. It's a smokescreen.

Add to that that the propaganda which is often generated by feminists, it makes my view of feminism in general to be highly critical.

Propaganda we often hear from feminists would be "glass ceilings", "gender pay gap", " 1 in 4 women are raped" etc. These things have been conclusively discredited.

If there is one thing I hate it is propaganda.

hatrickpatrick

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Once again - each women speaks for herself and herself only.

There is no feminist party policy - it is a political and philosophical ideology encompassing a broad spectrum of personal opinion but with a general agreement that women and men are equal and should be treated as such.

This is a cop out which effectively attempts to make the ideology immune to criticism. Politics doesn't work like that I'm afraid. A Fianna Failer can't get out of the party's bad image by saying "I personally didn't support the cronyism" - that's what Sean Gallagher tried to do, and look where that got him!

What you are doing is akin to condemning The Enlightenment because Catherine The Great considered herself an Enlightened Monarch but failed to free the Serfs.

Actually it's not, it's more like condemning enlightened monarchs because they failed to free the serfs. I'd have no problem with that.

What are you doing to combat the likes of Waters?

I've condemned his BS, repeatedly, as have many others. Not sure if Waters is a great example though seeing as people generally don't take him seriously to begin with

Every time Father's Rights are mentioned do you make a point of distancing yourself from the extremists?

Examples? As I've said, for instance, I do make a point of telling MRA groups reporting misandrist Facebook pages in a sort of "tit for tat" censorship battle with the feminist groups there that they're misguided and shouldn't be fighting censorship with more censorship.

In other words - Do you practice what you preach?

Absolutely. If you look through my posting history from a few years ago you will find countless examples of me arguing in favour of nationalism but condemning dissident republicans, to take one example.

hatrickpatrick

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Herein lies the nub: I don't actually identify as a feminist. That doesn't mean I'm not going to agree with certain views that would be deemed feminist (I don't agree with them being deemed "feminist" as they are concerns for anyone, not just feminists/women) no different to how I'd agree with men's rights activist concerns or gay people's concerns.

And yet you attack Clairefontaine on the basis that she's a woman but criticizes feminism in a Boards thread?

Why the **** should I keep condemning the crazies in order to disassociate myself from them?

Because at the moment, they control feminism's public image to a large extent.

It should go without saying that I'm disassociated from them.

Not if you use a title that they have co-opted for their own ends.

It just seems you and others on this thread want me to subscribe to the crazies.

Absolutely not, I'm glad you don't. Good on you

If a guy is interested in men's rights, I don't ask him to condemn Paul Elam.

Curious, what specifically about Elam would you have us condemn?

If a guy is interested in men's rights and is also hostile towards women, it's his hostility towards women that is the issue, not his interest in men's rights.

What if he's interested in men's rights, hostile towards mainstream feminism, but absolutely *NOT* hostile towards women?

Bannasidhe

SYT2000 wrote: »

I am basing what I am saying from all the feminists literature, articles etc I have read up until this point in my life.

From what I have read and heard from feminists it seems to me feminist don't care about equality. It's a smokescreen.

Add to that that the propaganda which is often generated by feminists, it makes my view of feminism in general to be highly critical.

Propaganda we often hear from feminists would be "glass ceilings", "gender pay gap", " 1 in 4 women are raped" etc. These things have been conclusively discredited.

If there is one thing I hate it is propaganda.

How very vague.

Which articles, literature etc etc?

Dates? Authors? Country of origin?

What you are doing is the same as If I said all soccer supporters are hooligans, everything I have read about people who go to soccer matches leads me to believe it is brutal tribalism at it's worst and they have no interest in sport. They just use it as a cover for violence.

Truth is - I don't like soccer and if I were so inclined I could find heaps of sources to confirm my bias against it. But the truth is - I just think it's boring and I do not for a second think all soccer supporters are hooligans.

For someone who hates propaganda - you seem to have no issue with spreading it.

SYT2000

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How very vague.

Which articles, literature etc etc?

Dates? Authors? Country of origin?

What you are doing is the same as If I said all soccer supporters are hooligans, everything I have read about people who go to soccer matches leads me to believe it is brutal tribalism at it's worst and they have no interest in sport. They just use it as a cover for violence.

Truth is - I don't like soccer and if I were so inclined I could find heaps of sources to confirm my bias against it. But the truth is - I just think it's boring and I do not for a second think all soccer supporters are hooligans.

For someone who hates propaganda - you seem to have no issue with spreading it.

I didn't say all feminists aren't interested in equality, I'm sure some would love to see women getting sentences as severe as men's, but from the evidence I have seen these are in the minority.

What propaganda have I spread?

Bannasidhe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is a cop out which effectively attempts to make the ideology immune to criticism. Politics doesn't work like that I'm afraid. A Fianna Failer can't get out of the party's bad image by saying "I personally didn't support the cronyism" - that's what Sean Gallagher tried to do, and look where that got him!



Actually it's not, it's more like condemning enlightened monarchs because they failed to free the serfs. I'd have no problem with that.



I've condemned his BS, repeatedly, as have many others. Not sure if Waters is a great example though seeing as people generally don't take him seriously to begin with



Examples? As I've said, for instance, I do make a point of telling MRA groups reporting misandrist Facebook pages in a sort of "tit for tat" censorship battle with the feminist groups there that they're misguided and shouldn't be fighting censorship with more censorship.



Absolutely. If you look through my posting history from a few years ago you will find countless examples of me arguing in favour of nationalism but condemning dissident republicans, to take one example.

What part of Feminism is not a political party did you have trouble with?

We are not talking about Nationalism. I specifically asked you if every time Father's Rights are mentioned do you make a point of distancing yourself from the extremists?

Bannasidhe

SYT2000 wrote: »

I didn't say all feminists aren't interested in equality, I'm sure some would love to see women getting sentences as severe as men's, but from the evidence I have seen these are in the minority.

What propaganda have I spread?

What evidence exactly?

You repeatedly stated - and have as yet failed to provide one iota of actual evidence - that Feminists do not campaign for Equality under the Law.

That is propaganda.

Foxtrol

As I said earlier in the thread, I find it very confusing how posters can make statements along the lines of ‘all feminists shouldn’t be painted with the same brush as those extremes’ yet refuse to actively disassociate themselves from the these extremes. No poster has yet managed to explain the logic.

kunst nugget

Foxtrol wrote: »

As I said earlier in the thread, I find it very confusing how posters can make statements along the lines of ‘all feminists shouldn’t be painted with the same brush as those extremes’ yet refuse to actively disassociate themselves from the these extremes. No poster has yet managed to explain the logic.

If I say as a man, that I believe in a parity of rights for both men and women do I have to disassociate myself from the cranks that claim that feminism is a zionist conspiracy by telling people that they don't speak for me? I would have thought that it would be intuitively obvious that they were people on the fringe who are completely crazy and in that regard I don't feel the need to engage with them or clarify that they don't represent me.

Ronan Mullan is an odious toad but do I have purposely have to tell people he doesn't represent me just because he happens to share the same genitalia as me?

tigger123

Foxtrol wrote: »

As I said earlier in the thread, I find it very confusing how posters can make statements along the lines of ‘all feminists shouldn’t be painted with the same brush as those extremes’ yet refuse to actively disassociate themselves from the these extremes. No poster has yet managed to explain the logic.

How would this active dissociation manifest itself in a practical sense? Would it be part of someone's signature on their profile? Or would they have to list all the people they don't agree with during a debate on boards?

Foxtrol

kunst nugget wrote: »

If I say as a man, that I believe in a parity of rights for both men and women do I have to disassociate myself from the cranks that claim that feminism is a zionist conspiracy by telling people that they don't speak for me? I would have thought that it would be intuitively obvious that they were people on the fringe who are completely crazy and in that regard I don't feel the need to engage with them or clarify that they don't represent me.

Ronan Mullan is an odious toad but do I have purposely have to tell people he doesn't represent me just because he happens to share the same genitalia as me?

If there was a group gaining a lot of media attention campaigning with claims that ‘feminism is a zionist conspiracy’ there'd be plenty of disapproval from all quarters for it, while I find there’s little to none from feminists against others from their grouping who push censorship, PIV or repeated claims from the likes of Una Mullaly or Bacik. It wouldn’t be an issue if it was just the odd crackpot (like the examples used when pointing to men on the extremes) but with feminists there are also large, active campaigns which are met with silence from the rest.

Using the example that keeps being brought up of soccer hooligans, if West Ham fans rioted and the response from other West Ham fans was to say nothing or that ‘we have internal dialogue on these issues’ (a claim used earlier) then it’s much easier to paint them all with the same brush than if they came out with their strong disapproval. Silence doesn’t mean you approve but it also doesn’t mean you disapprove.

Bannasidhe

Foxtrol wrote: »

If there was a group gaining a lot of media attention campaigning with claims that ‘feminism is a zionist conspiracy’ there'd be plenty of disapproval from all quarters for it, while I find there’s little to none from feminists against others from their grouping who push censorship, PIV or repeated claims from the likes of Una Mullaly or Bacik. It wouldn’t be an issue if it was just the odd crackpot (like the examples used when pointing to men on the extremes) but with feminists there are also large, active campaigns which are met with silence from the rest.

Using the example that keeps being brought up of soccer hooligans, if West Ham fans rioted and the response from other West Ham fans was to say nothing or that ‘we have internal dialogue on these issues’ (a claim used earlier) then it’s much easier to paint them all with the same brush than if they came out with their strong disapproval. Silence doesn’t mean you approve but it also doesn’t mean you disapprove.

You have obviously never been present during a feminist debate on anything. Even the kind of feckin tea is debated and whatever choice anyone makes is challanged...

I don't even like tea...

Femme_Fatale

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

"Questionable"? People are free to hold whatever views they want and air whatever opinions they want - the fact that she's a woman doesn't change that.
Your remarks on this are actually strangely sexist. You're implying that because Claire is a woman, she "should" hold certain beliefs and subscribe to certain ideologies. This, I would have thought, it blatantly sexist, not to mention ludicrous?

If a woman has issues with the crazier aspects of feminism, I'd agree with her.
If a woman repeatedly condemns anything whatsoever that is deemed a feminist view, including one which benefits her, it is questionable. If a guy repeatedly condemned any men's rights views, you'd find it questionable too.
They can hold their opinions, and others can question them. "Free speech" works both ways.

As I said earlier, it's not enough. One cannot be a United Ireland advocate without making it clear that one disapproves of violent tactics, why should this be any different?

Sh1t analogy tbh (you're talking about people who won't condemn IRA atrocities, and then people who feel abortion should be available in this country/object to certain aspects of "lad culture" but do not have a problem with men; it's actually a pretty obnoxious analogy) but why are you so sure that those of us who have some views that would be deemed feminist (not that they are specifically feminist, e.g. abortion rights) aren't condemning of extremism? I mean, we've repeated over and over and again that we don't subscribe to the man-hating extremists (I despise them) yet you keep ignoring it, so all I conclude is: you like to think of any woman with any feminist views as a man-hater.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Because at the moment, they control feminism's public image to a large extent.

Well much of the public image is people choosing to view feminists all as man-haters. That still doesn't mean people are correct to lump those who share the rational views with the crazies. As said already, that's like lumping all muslims in with suicide bombers.

Not if you use a title that they have co-opted for their own ends.

But I clearly said I don't use that title, so you're obviously deliberately ignoring bits that don't suit you.

Curious, what specifically about Elam would you have us condemn?

****ing hell. If you know anything about his most notorious views, you're not "curious" at all.

What if he's interested in men's rights, hostile towards mainstream feminism, but absolutely *NOT* hostile towards women?

When you say "mainstream feminism", do you mean the nutty Una Mullally stuff? I assume you do (stupid as it is to call that "mainstream feminism") and if so, that's fine by me. I'm also hostile to it and I'd find it weird if a man wasn't hostile to it tbh, seeing as it's completely anti-men.

Foxtrol wrote: »

As I said earlier in the thread, I find it very confusing how posters can make statements along the lines of ‘all feminists shouldn’t be painted with the same brush as those extremes’ yet refuse to actively disassociate themselves from the these extremes. No poster has yet managed to explain the logic.

Don't be confused at all. Numerous people have explained how merely having some feminist views doesn't make you an extremist by association. I'm not sure how people haven't disassociated themselves or are required to disassociate themselves, seeing as it goes without saying? Oh yeh, it suits you better to keep insisting a woman who has the odd view that would be deemed feminist ideology (e.g. on abortion) is a fanatic by association.

Presuming you're a men's rights advocate, I don't therefore assume you're as bad as the Paul Elam/Return Of Kings types... p'haps use that analogy in relation to women who are perfectly rational but just have the odd view from the (very vast and varied) feminism cannon.

WilyCoyote

This thread really is about Andrea Dworkin versus Camille Paglia. The latter being my favourite lesbian and the former was a fucking nutter. A complete screwball who had bile coming from every orifice. Often hiding behind dungarees, on lifting her arm she looked as though she had Tina Turner's head attached to her axilla. A thoroughly obnoxious streak of humanity.

Femme_Fatale

WilyCoyote wrote: »

This thread really is about Andrea Dworkin versus Camille Paglia.

It is?

Personally I find both of them repugnant (Dworkin crazier).

hatrickpatrick

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What part of Feminism is not a political party did you have trouble with?

It's a political ideology, and it is criticised as a political ideology. You can't get out of that by personally cherry picking which aspects of that ideology you regard as valid and pretending the others don't exist within the ideology as a whole.

We are not talking about Nationalism. I specifically asked you if every time Father's Rights are mentioned do you make a point of distancing yourself from the extremists?

And I asked for some examples. Apart from those nutjobs who allegedly plotted to kidnap David Cameron's son a few years back (who were complete assholes, as I said at the time) I can't really think of any I'd regard as extremist - care to cite any? I'll happily give my views on any you do.

hatrickpatrick

kunst nugget wrote: »

If I say as a man, that I believe in a parity of rights for both men and women do I have to disassociate myself from the cranks that claim that feminism is a zionist conspiracy by telling people that they don't speak for me? I would have thought that it would be intuitively obvious that they were people on the fringe who are completely crazy and in that regard I don't feel the need to engage with them or clarify that they don't represent me.

Ronan Mullan is an odious toad but do I have purposely have to tell people he doesn't represent me just because he happens to share the same genitalia as me?

In the context of the MRM I find myself constantly having to assert that I'm not one of the far right psychos, why Gould feminism be regarded any differently? They seem content enough to paint MRAs as a hate group based on the actions of the minority...

strobe

Just out of curiosity Femme Fatale, why wouldn't you refer to yourself as a feminist?

clairefontaine

strobe wrote: »

Just out of curiosity Femme Fatale, why wouldn't you refer to yourself as a feminist?

Only 23% of women identify as feminists.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html