Feminism and the emasculation of men

K-9

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.

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.

/Sound of hammer hitting nail.

The thing is it's so bloody obvious it shouldn't need to be said.

Foxtrol

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

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.

I disagree, no poster has explained how the general public is supposed to decipher between what is mainstream feminist views and those held by the outliers, especially in cases of large scale campaigns.

If high profile feminists/feminist groups don’t come out in the media against censorship campaigns, like those against blurred lines and hunky dory, then how is the general public supposed to know that this isn’t a mainstream feminist standpoint? If the likes of Bacik are used as figureheads/spokespeople in mainstream feminist campaigns, how are people supposed to differentiate their views in these situations from their more extreme ones when the voices of other feminists stay quiet?

clairefontaine

Foxtrol wrote: »

I disagree, no poster has explained how the general public is supposed to decipher between what is mainstream feminist views and those held by the outliers, especially in cases of large scale campaigns.

If high profile feminists/feminist groups don’t come out in the media against censorship campaigns, like those against blurred lines and hunky dory, then how is the general public supposed to know that this isn’t a mainstream feminist standpoint? If the likes of Bacik are used as figureheads/spokespeople in mainstream feminist campaigns, how are people supposed to differentiate their views in these situations from their more extreme ones when the voices of other feminists stay quiet?

It's fairly obvious to me. The extreme ones are extreme because "I said so."

Lyaiera

Foxtrol wrote: »

I disagree, no poster has explained how the general public is supposed to decipher between what is mainstream feminist views and those held by the outliers, especially in cases of large scale campaigns.

If high profile feminists/feminist groups don’t come out in the media against censorship campaigns, like those against blurred lines and hunky dory, then how is the general public supposed to know that this isn’t a mainstream feminist standpoint? If the likes of Bacik are used as figureheads/spokespeople in mainstream feminist campaigns, how are people supposed to differentiate their views in these situations from their more extreme ones when the voices of other feminists stay quiet?

What? Can't you tell yourself? Use the same mental functions I use to see who is a loony and who isn't. There's lots of feminists I agree with and lots I don't. I don't then just say, "Feminism is stupid" because I disagree with some.

There are political parties with official structures and a hierarchy and even then I can still see whose opinion I do and don't like. If I can do this for an actual organised party it's even easier with a unorganised group.

Pug160

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

As do a lot of women. Hardly means a lack of self respect. It's pretty normal to want to make people of the opposite sex fancy you as much as possible.

Btw, I like tattoos on men, but there is no way I'd expect a guy to get a tattoo just because I like them.

Weird stuff being said on this thread. Very very weird, projecting stuff.

I'm talking about the sort of people who get tattoos or create a certain style with the sole purpose of attracting the opposite sex or impressing others. So in other words, someone who may not even particularly like tattoos or be that keen on a certain dress sense or waxing, but will change anyway because they think it will make them more handsome or attractive to a higher number of people. That is a lack of self respect. Normal is working out in the gym, taking care of your skin, watching your diet; generally doing things that you yourself like and want to do. I was talking about people who cross that line of self respect into being a cynical phony. I don't know how many people are like that - it could be a small percentage - but I know they exist.

Obliq

Foxtrol wrote: »

If high profile feminists/feminist groups don’t come out in the media against censorship campaigns, like those against blurred lines and hunky dory, then how is the general public supposed to know that this isn’t a mainstream feminist standpoint? If the likes of Bacik are used as figureheads/spokespeople in mainstream feminist campaigns, how are people supposed to differentiate their views in these situations from their more extreme ones when the voices of other feminists stay quiet?

Well similarly, I would like to see some "high profile" men come out in the media against the likes of Iona and John Waters in setting the scale for men's rights -those more reasonable than the black/white thinking portrayed by the "feminazis are running the show/murdering abortionistas/traditional families/anti gay" brigade. How are people supposed to differentiate their views from those extremes? I personally don't imagine that every MRA I see up here espouses their views, but I don't see you having to differentiate yourselves in every post, because for the most part, the feminists you're speaking to take it as a given that those are extreme views.

RDM_83 again

lufties wrote: »

Ok so you don't agree with my agrument, that's fine. Honestly I'm not the best at translating my thoughts to words. The link below relates to what I'm putting forward. You might dismiss it as a silly ad but to me it represents a lot. Can you imagine if it was 'wife for sale', it would never happen. Men are just supposed to suck up this type of shyte and get on with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjNcFwXh5XI

I am not disagreeing with all your points by any means, but I don't believe that feminism has actually causes the issues mentioned about in your OP e.g the emasculation of men you talk about these issues aren't caused by feminists, they are probably caused by changes in the labour market, lazy advertisers and social change unrelated to feminism.

Where Feminism fall down is that if it claims to be a movement for equality, the vast majority of groups within it seem to ignore issues that harmful to just one gender. Its fair enough if feminism is about "supporting womans rights" but personally if I cared equally about issues relating to both genders I would call myself an Egalitarian because the vast majority of feminist actions relate to woman related issues these issues will always have a wider social impact but the issue will be approached with a "feminist gaze" (see what I did there )

RDM_83 again

To make it clearer I think this is an inaccurate representation of what current 4th wave feminism is about

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Equality.



equality

noun

the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.

While this is accurate

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Issues that affect women specifically

Neither of these is a "bad" thing but in the first case its just inaccurate. Its fine to mention that X,Y, and Z don't represent me and E and F have campaigned for true equality, but if the majority of campaigns, the vast majority of column inches and the visible protests are by X,Y and Z it makes sense to differentiate yourself if you support E and F by using a different label e.g "Egalitarian"

GalwayGuy2

Hmmm, I think the whole dissociation thing comes from the fact that many feminist groups will rally behind perceived misogyny, but will ignore, or actively, defend perceived misogyny coming from feminists, or out right misandric comments.

Meh, I don't think any feminist individual should start their point by adding a disclaimer, but groups active in the media should. If only a little.

Obliq

RDM_83 again wrote: »

To make it clearer I think this is an inaccurate representation of what current 4th wave feminism is about

What the F**K is the 4th wave of feminism? And what has that got to do with being a feminist? FFS, that's very similar to saying that while you think being anti-racist is intended to promote a egalitarian society in which people do not face discrimination on the basis of their race, however defined, in fact if you don't listen to NWA you clearly aren't giving an accurate representation of anti racist.

Legs.Eleven

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Neither of these is a "bad" thing but in the first case its just inaccurate. Its fine to mention that X,Y, and Z don't represent me and E and F have campaigned for true equality, but if the majority of campaigns, the vast majority of column inches and the visible protests are by X,Y and Z it makes sense to differentiate yourself if you support E and F by using a different label e.g "Egalitarian"

I see what you're saying alright and I would consider myself the above but it gets personal when you are a woman yourself living a country where they're not equal. Men in this country are by far the more advantaged gender here. Let's say Egalitarian by night, Feminist by day? They're only labels after all and I haven't signed up to any party or association to make it official.

Wompa1

It's becoming more socially accepted that men can be the stay at home dads. Sign me up!!

Femme_Fatale

strobe wrote: »

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

Because I'm not just concerned with issues that affect women - I have an interest in issues that affect any group. That doesn't mean I can't agree with certain feminist views (views that one doesn't have to be a feminist to espouse, so I don't agree with them being called "feminist views" but that's what they get referred to as, rightly or wrongly).
IMO feminism is just about issues that affect women (sometimes these issues have an effect on other people besides women too, but are still issues that affect women) and that's fine by me - men's rights activism is only concerned with issues that affect men (and have a knock-on effect on other people too) which is cool IMO.
I agree it's a misnomer to say feminism is just about equality, but I don't think all feminists use that line anymore. And there are people with a similar outlook to me who call themselves feminists, as well as being various other "ists". I don't agree with that take, but I still agree with their views - so that's why I object to when all feminists get lumped together.

Foxtrol wrote: »

If the likes of Bacik are used as figureheads/spokespeople in mainstream feminist campaigns, how are people supposed to differentiate their views in these situations from their more extreme ones when the voices of other feminists stay quiet?

True, but those who shout loudest and all that. Dig a bit deeper. I know not all men's rights activists are John Watersy, as I have had dealings with two, who are very active in the area, and you couldn't meet two more level-headed people. I don't expect them to get onto the media and drown out John Waters though. Not sure what that would achieve. Media organisations will opt for the John Waters and the Ivana Baciks of this world anyway, and you get invited on-air/to be interviewed - you don't put yourself forward for same.

BTW, anyone who views "PIV is rape" as a kind of thinking that's anything other than deranged lunacy... is deluding themselves/wants "PIV is rape" to be mainstream thinking in order to get outraged.

hatrickpatrick

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

I see what you're saying alright and I would consider myself the above but it gets personal when you are a woman yourself living a country where they're not equal. Men in this country are by far the more advantaged gender here. Let's say Egalitarian by night, Feminist by day? They're only labels after all and I haven't signed up to any party or association to make it official.

In your opinion. Boys are discriminated against in cases of underage sex. Fathers are discriminated against, particularly unmarried ones. Men are widely discriminated against in court, both in family court and in sentencing discrepancies. Men and boys are discriminated agains in domestic violence campaigns. I could go on, but much of it has already been said.

Some is us don't accept that women have it worse - some of us believe that men and women are disadvantaged in different areas of life, but that neither should get more attention than the other and that stamping out one group's disadvantages should be of equal, not greater or lesser, importance than stamping out the disadvantages of the other.

We will not identify as feminists excuse we don't believe a movement which focuses on one side of the coin and dismisses the other side, as you have just done by alleging that men are more advantaged - depending on one's perspective and one's views on which areas of life are important, this simply isn't true.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I don't even like tea...

Woah woah, stop the thread. What :mad:


:pac:

Bannasidhe

bluewolf wrote: »

Woah woah, stop the thread. What :mad:


:pac:

It's true.

It was one of the few things that didn't make me sick when I was getting chemo. Wasn't a 'fan' before - hate it now.

Legs.Eleven

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In your opinion. Boys are discriminated against in cases of underage sex. Fathers are discriminated against, particularly unmarried ones. Men are widely discriminated against in court, both in family court and in sentencing discrepancies. Men and boys are discriminated agains in domestic violence campaigns. I could go on, but much of it has already been said.

Some is us don't accept that women have it worse - some of us believe that men and women are disadvantaged in different areas of life, but that neither should get more attention than the other and that stamping out one group's disadvantages should be of equal, not greater or lesser, importance than stamping out the disadvantages of the other.

We will not identify as feminists excuse we don't believe a movement which focuses on one side of the coin and dismisses the other side, as you have just done by alleging that men are more advantaged - depending on one's perspective and one's views on which areas of life are important, this simply isn't true.

Imo and the opinion of almost every woman AND man I've spoken to. Newsflash: there are countries in the world where women are not equal (although you'll probably deny that too, yeah?) and Spain is one of them although not to the same degree as the middle East, African countries and South America, obviously. Whether you accept it or not doesn't make it any less true. Sorry.

Again, I don't dismiss the other side. Repeating it over and over again won't make it any more true. I go on protests for everything and anything I believe in.

Discussion is a waste of time when people don't listen.

hatrickpatrick

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Imo and the opinion of almost every woman AND man I've spoken to.

Well right now, you're speaking to several who don't agree.

Newsflash: there are countries in the world where women are not equal (although you'll probably deny that too, yeah?) and Spain is one of them although not to the same degree as the middle East, African countries and South America, obviously. Whether you accept it or not doesn't make it any less true. Sorry.

In your post, you EXPLICITLY said "in this country". I was replying l that statement that in THIS COUNTRY I don't agree. You can't subsequently try and change your original point to make my response look incomplete! I have never disputed that in other countries women are not equal and that men don't have most of the unfair examples. The examples incites relate to Ireland because that's what you referenced in your post.

Again, I don't dismiss the other side. Repeating it over and over again won't make it any more true. I go on protests for everything and anything I believe in.

You do by stating that the other side has it worse, *fact*, and then fail to back that up with any examples at all and expect us all to accept it as gospel.

Discussion is a waste of time when people don't listen.

Yes, yes it is. :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's true.

It was one of the few things that didn't make me sick when I was getting chemo. Wasn't a 'fan' before - hate it now.

Well. Okay then, carry on...:pac:

Foxtrol

Lyaiera wrote: »

What? Can't you tell yourself? Use the same mental functions I use to see who is a loony and who isn't. There's lots of feminists I agree with and lots I don't. I don't then just say, "Feminism is stupid" because I disagree with some.

There are political parties with official structures and a hierarchy and even then I can still see whose opinion I do and don't like. If I can do this for an actual organised party it's even easier with a unorganised group.

Of these politicians you like/don’t like, if their party had a mandate and they make no comment on it do you presume they are for or against the issue?

If a party came out with an anti-gay rights campaign and your normally very vocal politician and the rest of their party refused to comment or disagree with it, I think it’s only natural that until they clarify their position the expectation would be that they are more likely to support/be neutral to the situation than strongly disagree, as if they felt that way they would make their voice heard like they do on many other issues.

The campaign to ban Blurred Lines has succeeded in around 20 colleges in the UK and more in the US, it’s a concerted effort amongst a large number of feminists which I haven’t seen one feminist stand up in the media against. I don’t think there’s any expectation for feminists to come out against every blog/article the looneys write but when an entire movement of normally very vocal individuals are totally silent, even when it comes to large campaigns gaining media traction, it strikes me that they are at best neutral to them as it cant be a total coincidence.

Bannasidhe

Foxtrol wrote: »

Of these politicians you like/don’t like, if their party had a mandate and they make no comment on it do you presume they are for or against the issue?

If a party came out with an anti-gay rights campaign and your normally very vocal politician and the rest of their party refused to comment or disagree with it, I think it’s only natural that until they clarify their position the expectation would be that they are more likely to support/be neutral to the situation than strongly disagree, as if they felt that way they would make their voice heard like they do on many other issues.

The campaign to ban Blurred Lines has succeeded in around 20 colleges in the UK and more in the US, it’s a concerted effort amongst a large number of feminists which I haven’t seen one feminist stand up in the media against. I don’t think there’s any expectation for feminists to come out against every blog/article the looneys write but when an entire movement of normally very vocal individuals are totally silent, even when it comes to large campaigns gaining media traction, it strikes me that they are at best neutral to them as it cant be a total coincidence.

Feminism is not a political party.

It is a broad spectrum political philosophy.

Have you actually looked for feminists speaking out against it?

Millions of people identify as feminist in the UK and US - do you seriously expect us to believe not one of those millions disagreed with this campaign? Not one???

That should be in the Guinness Book of Records if it's true....

Nodin

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's true.

It was one of the few things that didn't make me sick when I was getting chemo. Wasn't a 'fan' before - hate it now.

...I've nothing against you people, but do you have to flaunt it all the time?

Femme_Fatale

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Feminism is not a political party.

It is a broad spectrum political philosophy.

Have you actually looked for feminists speaking out against it?

Millions of people identify as feminist in the UK and US - do you seriously expect us to believe not one of those millions disagreed with this campaign? Not one???

That should be in the Guinness Book of Records if it's true....

It will be ignored.
Because acknowledgment of it means not being able to say all feminists = man-haters by association/feminism is to blame for all issues men face due to being men.

Can you imagine if women here posted that men's rights activists are all misogynists by association because a tiny minority of them are, and are the most vocal so they drown out the reasonable majority?!

Legs.Eleven

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well right now, you're speaking to several who don't agree.



In your post, you EXPLICITLY said "in this country". I was replying l that statement that in THIS COUNTRY I don't agree. You can't subsequently try and change your original point to make my response look incomplete! I have never disputed that in other countries women are not equal and that men don't have most of the unfair examples. The examples incites relate to Ireland because that's what you referenced in your post.



You do by stating that the other side has it worse, *fact*, and then fail to back that up with any examples at all and expect us all to accept it as gospel.



Yes, yes it is. :rolleyes:

I was referring to the country I've lived and worked in for approaching 5 years: Spain. Not once did I refer to Ireland as I haven't lived there for 10 years. I explicitly stated that I was talking about Spain. "This country" is where I am sitting right now having a coffee: Spain.

hatrickpatrick

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

It will be ignored.
Because acknowledgment of it means not being able to say all feminists = man-haters by association/feminism is to blame for all issues men face due to being men.

This might seem strange to you, but I have absolutely no desire to accuse all feminists of anything at all. What would I gain from it? Also nobody is claiming feminism is the cause of men's issues, merely that it ignores them while pretending to be about equality.

Can you imagine if women here posted that men's rights activists are all misogynists by association because a tiny minority of them are, and are the most vocal so they drown out the reasonable majority?!

This happens ALL THE TIME. And I dispute that the most vocal MRAs are misogynists - those who claim they are absolutely refuse to provide any citations to back it up.

Hell, I made a comment about Blurred Lines in the comment section of an Irish times article about feminism a few months back and was faced with a barrage of feminists telling me that the song should in fact be banned because it's misogynistic.

hatrickpatrick

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

I was referring to the country I've lived and worked in for approaching 5 years: Spain. Not once did I refer to Ireland as I haven't lived there for 10 years. I explicitly stated that I was talking about Spain. "This country" is where I am sitting right now having a coffee: Spain.

Ok, my mistake. How then do women have it worse in Spain?
And furthermore would you then agree with my statement that Irish guys are discriminated against, in many cases in the actual law of the land? And would you agree that feminists never seem to say much about it?

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Ok, my mistake. How then do women have it worse in Spain?
And furthermore would you then agree with my statement that Irish guys are discriminated against, in many cases in the actual law of the land? And would you agree that feminists never seem to say much about it?

Why don't men say much about it unless they're using it as a stick to beat those evil feminists with? Of course it's an issue, and one many of us would love to see resolved.

hatrickpatrick

bluewolf wrote: »

Why don't men say much about it unless they're using it as a stick to beat those evil feminists with?

Where are you getting that from? Most guys I know find it appalling, it's been written about extensively.

Of course it's an issue, and one many of us would love to see resolved.

But not enough to put out ad campaigns about it like those which define abusive teenage relationships as exclusively "male abuser / female victim"? :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe

bluewolf wrote: »

Why don't men say much about it unless they're using it as a stick to beat those evil feminists with? Of course it's an issue, and one many of us would love to see resolved.

They are also strangely reluctant to discuss the fact that these discriminatory laws were written and enacted by men in the first place.

Men enacted laws which unfairly penalise men in certain situations and the bad feminists are not doing enough to combat these laws....:rolleyes:

Legs.Eleven

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Ok, my mistake. How then do women have it worse in Spain?
And furthermore would you then agree with my statement that Irish guys are discriminated against, in many cases in the actual law of the land? And would you agree that feminists never seem to say much about it?

You're gagging for a fight, aren't you? I won't oblige. If you're not arsed reading posts and shouting people down in a sarcastic manner while getting your facts wrong in the process, you're hardly showing yourself as someone open to listening. You think you're right and that won't change. I can give you a long list of examples but something tells me I'd be wadting my time. I'm still a man-hating feminist who only cares about feminist issues, no matter how often I've stated the contrary. I couldn't be arsed. I'm not going to be made out to be something I'm not by some stranger on the internet. Read posts and Listen instead of shouting people down. Open your mind just an inch and stop tarring everyone with the same brush.