Feminism and the emasculation of men

tritium

PucaMama wrote: »

People are not idiots for disagreeing with me and i never said they were. I said originally what harm its only a song. In my opinion there is a time and a place for songs like that. Not playing a song is hardly censorship.

Trying to actively have the playing of a song banned however........

Well, what would you call that?

upforit101

clairefontaine wrote: »

They'd have sexual assault charges and restraining orders on them, possibly incarceration for disturbing the peace too.

And the Police did nothing .

The police reportedly told the media they were unable to intervene because “they are women."

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/horror-mob-of-topless-pro-abort-feminists-attacks-rosary-praying-men-defend

Lyaiera

I hate this censorship rubbish. "Oh they're censoring that! How dare they! Freedom of Speech!" etc. Censorship, if any of you are familiar with the history of it is about freedom from state censorship, not about private groups seeking to influence other private groups.

clairefontaine

Lyaiera wrote: »

I hate this censorship rubbish. "Oh they're censoring that! How dare they! Freedom of Speech!" etc. Censorship, if any of you are familiar with the history of it is about freedom from state censorship, not about private groups seeking to influence other private groups.

Yes but if it's on state run campuses, radio or tv, then it is a violation of free speech when a song gets banned.

PopePalpatine

Yeah...something tells me you're not getting the full story from "lifesitenews".

Sleepy

KyussBishop wrote: »

The whole problem with 'feminism', is people have mutually contradictory definitions of what it means, which means any (even slight/mild) disagreement over feminism in a debate, can turn into a shítstorm.

Some people (like me) view 'feminism' as being defined as seeking equal/egalitarian treatment for women and men (all genders/orientations/etc.), but many people view 'feminism' as being defined by the 'idiot' branches of feminism, who (in attitudes) lay on a spectrum of 'mild-overly-PC-nonsense' all the way over to 'outright misandry'.

So when people generalize about 'feminists', they are automatically wrong about their generalization, because 1: Generalizations are always wrong anyway, and 2: Different types of feminists hold mutually-exclusive views.

I'd agree with everything here other than the bit I've bolded. Feminism, by it's origins and name seeks equal treatment for women.

If in doubt, assume that 'feminist' means: Egalitarianism. If you're talking about feminists who are overly PC or misandrist, don't even bother calling them feminists, just diffrentiate them based on their actions/views, identifying them as people supporting 'positive-discrimination against men' or 'misandrists' - not 'feminists'.

An egalitarian doesn't just look to the interest of one section of society. I'd agree that I generally understand "feminist" to mean those seeking equality for women (even if I fundamentally agree with some of their proposals e.g. quotas) and would consider the lunatics / misandrists to be more deserving of tags like "feminazi".

I think the word 'feminist' really shouldn't be allowed to be hijacked by the more extreme types, who are very un-egalitarian in their views - it becomes impossible to debate the entire topic if you let them lay claim to the word 'feminist'.
I think the best way to consider/define the word, is to consider it synonymous with egalitarianism.

I'd argue that the best way for those interested in equal rights for women is to either start a major campaign to disassociate themselves from the radfem eejits and fight for the right to the label "feminist" or abandon it to them and join the sane elements of the MRA groups (because god knows they have their share of nutjobs too) that are genuinely interested in equal rights to form an egalitarian movement.

From a return on effort POV, I suspect the latter would be more effective as rather than fighting over a name that has been rendered pretty much meaningless through the diametrically opposed views of many of those that group themselves under the banner of feminism (even among the moderates such questions as to whether porn is empowering or demeaning to women can be hotly debated), the new movement could focus on, first and foremost, campaigning for a gender neutral legal system. Only when men and women have equal rights, responsibilities and treatment in all areas of the state should we be focusing our efforts on tackling deeply rooted societal views of gender roles.

There's simply no point in attempting to address salary differences, representation on boards/in government etc. until the systems are in place to allow the gender roles society has developed to be changed e.g. women will always be at a disadvantage in the employment market when men don't have the same paternity leave entitlements or custodial parental responsibilities as women do.

It seems only rational to me that society will be easier to change when the framework is in place for them to do so. Trying to change attitudes while the systems discourage people from adopting changes is putting the cart before the horse imo. (e.g. when only women are entitled to paid parental leave at the time of birth, arguing that this leave shouldn't impact on their career prospects is redundant: however you legislate for it, the simplest way for an employer to avoid the risk of the cost/disruption of this leave is to hire candidates that don't expose them to it: i.e. men or non-parenting women beyond their childbearing years; a similar argument can be made regarding the disruption to ones work caused by being a parent: with women making up the vast majority of custodial parents (or single parent families) they are the higher risk category for an employer. Can you really expect to get results from any attempt to tackle these issues without addressing the gender-bias towards parental rights and responsibilities that exists in our legal system? I don't think so tbh.

Maybe I'm being overly-simplistic. I've certainly been accused of it in the past but as a trained systems analyst, I tend to look at most things as systems.

In my experience most of those that argue against the idea of an "Egalitarian" movement seem do so from an emotive position rather than a logical one: it tends to be an emotional (or professional) attachment to the label "feminist" and/or the sisterly bond felt with others in that movement.

One final thought that occured to me after reading this thread: every women that opts to pursue a degree in Gender or Feminist Studies is indirectly contributing to the gender pay gap* by making herself less valuable to future employers than the man in the same BA course who's opted to study French, Maths or Economics instead. Similarly, imo, any woman who has children with a man that isn't prepared to support her in her career by taking on the role of primary care-giver loses the right to complain such: if you want to be treated as an equal in a relationship, don't enter one with someone who doesn't see you as such.


*accepting that such a pay gap exists at a macro level in no way implies that I accept it exists due to sexism. It's simply the result of many individual choices that are guided by the legal and societal frameworks we live in.

GalwayGuy2

Originally Posted by Lyaiera View Post
I hate this censorship rubbish. "Oh they're censoring that! How dare they! Freedom of Speech!" etc. Censorship, if any of you are familiar with the history of it is about freedom from state censorship, not about private groups seeking to influence other private groups.

Hmmm, censorship from private groups can be just as damaging.

Corkfeen

lufties wrote: »

Bunch of ****ing aggressive looneys. I guarantee the men wouldn't get away with that kind of abuse/intimidation.

Good to see that you were quick to object to that very same poster labelling feminists as fat,ugly women with daddy issues. He definitely has no agenda going on........

clairefontaine

PucaMama wrote: »

People are not idiots for disagreeing with me and i never said they were. I said originally what harm its only a song. In my opinion there is a time and a place for songs like that. Not playing a song is hardly censorship.

Well then, why ban it?

Not playing a song... yes that is censorship.

Lyaiera

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yes but if it's on state run campuses, radio or tv, then it is a violation of free speech when a song gets banned.

They're not state run.

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Hmmm, censorship from private groups can be just as damaging.

Are you saying everyone should be given an equal platform, no matter how reprehensible their views are?

GalwayGuy2

Are you saying everyone should be given an equal platform, no matter how reprehensible their views are?

Nope.

But I may take a leaflet from the left side of things and say censorship is more than just the state stopping people from watching something, but also includes the use of shaming people.

But, i'd rather not. Most of the left and right are idiots.

lufties

Corkfeen wrote: »

Good to see that you were quick to object to that very same poster labelling feminists as fat,ugly women with daddy issues. He definitely has no agenda going on........

Play the ball, not the man/woman.

PucaMama

tritium wrote: »

Trying to actively have the playing of a song banned however........

Well, what would you call that?

Id call it trying to stop the playing of a song that's a bit vulgar at times. A cafe for example or a restaurant or wherever else is an inappropriate place for that song.

tritium

Links234 wrote: »

Saying "Well what about these feminists who are against abortion?!" is pure triple distilled whataboutery.

And if you're pointing to the fact that feminism is not a hive mind as a way of dismissing genuine goals, are you saying that there is no such thing as any feminist goal unless there is 100% agreement from every feminist? That's a pretty untenable position. Sounds to me like you just want to pick and choose what you consider feminism, because you're pointing towards radicals like Janice Raymond, someone who opposses sex workers rights among other things, as an example of how nasty feminism is, while hand-waving away what is certainly one of the universal goals of feminism. It's like you're trying to make some kind of reverse-"no true scottsman" fallacy where only the nasty elements of feminism are real feminism.

Tell you what, why don't you decide which side of this particular fence you want to flip flop onto and stay there for five minutes. Now, since you've decided to reference me without context, let me put some in:

1. Janice Raymond, hateful as she is, can hardly be considered an extremist given the reach of her work and the broad level of backslapping she gets within the feminist community- if she is an extremist then she has a pretty wide circle of similarly minded friends.

2. Context is everything- theJanice Raymond example was given in the context of a rebuttal of a point about Paul Elam. It would be nice if you could be bothered to include that context...

3. Tell me so what the universal goals of feminism are? Most posters who've made a stab at it here pitch in a context of equality in some way shape or form. Abortion of course is much more difficult to shoe horn into that context. You could of course for it into personal freedoms. But at that point it crosses over into a hell of a lot more isms and ologies than just feminism. Now ill grant you there is an aspect of feminism that would see abortion as a fundamental right, but has been pointed out they're not exclusive in this view. On the other hand I don't know of (and I'm sure someone will correct me here) of any feminist group campaigning for retention of the glass ceiling for example

Btw you really have misunderstood the meaning of the word whataboutery. If you say something is an absolute fact and I demonstrate that it is less than absolute then it's not a case of whataboutery, its a case of you being wrong!

KyussBishop

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd agree with everything here other than the bit I've bolded. Feminism, by it's origins and name seeks equal treatment for women.

Think about it: That's exactly the same thing as equal treatment for men and all other genders/orientations too.

If women gain better treatment, and another gender doesn't have equally good treatment, women and that other gender/orientation are not treated equally - seeking equality for women, automatically means seeking equality for all orientations/genders.

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd argue that the best way for those interested in equal rights for women is to either start a major campaign to disassociate themselves from the radfem eejits and fight for the right to the label "feminist" or abandon it to them and join the sane elements of the MRA groups (because god knows they have their share of nutjobs too) that are genuinely interested in equal rights to form an egalitarian movement.

From a return on effort POV, I suspect the latter would be more effective as rather than fighting over a name that has been rendered pretty much meaningless through the diametrically opposed views of many of those that group themselves under the banner of feminism (even among the moderates such questions as to whether porn is empowering or demeaning to women can be hotly debated), the new movement could focus on, first and foremost, campaigning for a gender neutral legal system. Only when men and women have equal rights, responsibilities and treatment in all areas of the state should we be focusing our efforts on tackling deeply rooted societal views of gender roles.
...

To be honest, for any person capable of even minimal critical thought, all of the necessary changes are pretty easy to figure out - including how to implement them.

The problem is: The institutions and people blocking the reforms.

Feminist issue are such a great distraction from more important issues, and are a perfect way to sow division among a population in a 'divide and conquer' fashion.


To provide equality for women in the workplace, you need to resolve economic inequality itself, to provide much more equal opportunities for everybody - contrary to the usual myths, it is not true that "anyone can achieve any role/thing if they work hard enough", there are real inequalities in place to stop this, which need to be resolved first.

A lot of feminist issues are really just issues with economics and the way our society/country is managed economically, and with the class of people who hold onto the lions share of economic/political/social power:
It's piss easy for them to sow division among the population (such as over feminist issues), to distract from their own (often undemocratic) power.


Intersectionality is an interesting concept, for looking at how pretty much all societal divides can be related, and how they can be more about a class of powerful people blocking reform, over issues that keep peoples attention distracted from them (the more powerful class) - not because they care about those issues, but just because they are useful as a distraction.

Corkfeen

lufties wrote: »

Play the ball, not the man/woman.

Okay, I shall use the example of the pro-life movement. I do not agree with the pro life movement,I know people who are pro life. However I'll happily admit that groups such as Youth Defence are a fringe element and not representative of all Pro Life people and just a minority. The poster is plucking videos and articles out that suit him. Just like him,you sold the view that feminists viewing consensual intercourse as a mainstream view when it is nothing of the sort.

clairefontaine

KyussBishop wrote: »

Think about it: That's exactly the same thing as equal treatment for men and all other genders/orientations too.

If women gain better treatment, and another gender doesn't have equally good treatment, women and that other gender/orientation are not treated equally - seeking equality for women, automatically means seeking equality for all orientations/genders.


To be honest, for any person capable of even minimal critical thought, all of the necessary changes are pretty easy to figure out - including how to implement them.

The problem is: The institutions and people blocking the reforms.

Feminist issue are such a great distraction from more important issues, and are a perfect way to sow division among a population in a 'divide and conquer' fashion.


To provide equality for women in the workplace, you need to resolve economic inequality itself, to provide much more equal opportunities for everybody - contrary to the usual myths, it is not true that "anyone can achieve any role/thing if they work hard enough", there are real inequalities in place to stop this, which need to be resolved first.

A lot of feminist issues are really just issues with economics and the way our society/country is managed economically, and with the class of people who hold onto the lions share of economic/political/social power:
It's piss easy for them to sow division among the population (such as over feminist issues), to distract from their own (often undemocratic) power.


Intersectionality is an interesting concept, for looking at how pretty much all societal divides can be related, and how they can be more about a class of powerful people blocking reform, over issues that keep peoples attention distracted from them (the more powerful class) - not because they care about those issues, but just because they are useful as a distraction.

Feminism was also a way to increase supply of labor so that the employer had more weight and power and could pay people less.

hatrickpatrick

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's quite simple.

If you believe people have an absolute right to free speech then no matter how radical a statement anyone who identifies as feminist makes you, logically, should also believe they have the right to make that statement without threats of censorship - even if ironically they are calling for censorship. That is their right.

Absolutely, 100%.

But post after post you have criticised others who identify as feminist for upholding that right you claim to hold so dear and of not being vigorous enough in combating the radical statements - short of censorship - what do you expect us to do exactly?

I'm not asking for censorship at all, it'd just be good to see more feminists actually publishing articles and so on saying "even if it's offensive, it shouldn't be banned". When a very vocal sub group calls for something, the silence of the rest is obviously going to look like at best indifference, at worst endorsement.

No body asked you to like/support/approve of feminism

Those who claim that if I don't support feminism I'm either insecure or a sexist, are indeed asking me to approve of it or be labelled a sexist, which I'm not. That's the crux of this whole argument.

but don't use a freedom of speech argument while at the same time complaining that a radical fringe is exercising that right as justification for your position.

Again you're completely misinterpreting my argument. I've explained it ad nauseum and I'm not really bothered explaining it once again.

lufties

Corkfeen wrote: »

Okay, I shall use the example of the pro-life movement. I do not agree with the pro life movement,I know people who are pro life. However I'll happily admit that groups such as Youth Defence are a fringe element and not representative of all Pro Life people and just a minority. The poster is plucking videos and articles out that suit him. Just like him,you sold the view that feminists viewing consensual intercourse as a mainstream view when it is nothing of the sort.

Ok, but do you agree if men were abusing women, verbally and spitting etc, there would be uproar and never tolerated.

these 'fringe' groups who apparently don't hold views of the mainstream then protest under a guise of feminism to release bile and venom against men.

Bottom line, they fight for their supposed equality in these protests doing as they please but wouldn't tolerate men behaving in the same fashion. A bit hypocritical IMO.

KyussBishop

clairefontaine wrote: »

Feminism was also a way to increase supply of labor so that the employer had more weight and power and could pay people less.

Interesting way of looking at it, and - even though of course, it's not the cause of increased feminism - I'd certainly say there's merit to the idea, that it's played a part, as an opportunistic reason for lowering wage levels over the years.

hatrickpatrick

PucaMama wrote: »

Id call it trying to stop the playing of a song that's a bit vulgar at times. A cafe for example or a restaurant or wherever else is an inappropriate place for that song.

In your opinion.

kunst nugget

PucaMama wrote: »

Id call it trying to stop the playing of a song that's a bit vulgar at times. A cafe for example or a restaurant or wherever else is an inappropriate place for that song.

I think One Way or Another by Blondie should be banned because it is obviously about someone stalking a person in the hope of having potentially non-consensual sex with them.

Oh wait, no I don't because that would be fúcking daft. Just like looking to ban Blurred Lines. Nobody bats an eyelid at Rihanna singing 'S&M' to her tween market but people go fúcking mental at the idea of an adult overhearing 'Blurred Lines' in a student union? Ffs…

hatrickpatrick

Lyaiera wrote: »

I hate this censorship rubbish. "Oh they're censoring that! How dare they! Freedom of Speech!" etc. Censorship, if any of you are familiar with the history of it is about freedom from state censorship, not about private groups seeking to influence other private groups.

Says who? Censorship is banning or restricting freedom of expression. Boards censores swear words, for example ****.
Why does it *have* to be a state actor exactly? Calling on a college to ban something is every bit as vile as calling on the state to ban it.

Carlos Orange

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Says who? Censorship is banning or restricting freedom of expression. Boards censores swear words, for example ****.
Why does it *have* to be a state actor exactly? Calling on a college to ban something is every bit as vile as calling on the state to ban it.

Some people think the first amendment defines what free speech is. It doesn't.


Especially since they are talking about another countries constitution.

Lyaiera

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Says who? Censorship is banning or restricting freedom of expression. Boards censores swear words, for example ****.
Why does it *have* to be a state actor exactly? Calling on a college to ban something is every bit as vile as calling on the state to ban it.

Oh? I thought you were talking about the historic notion of free speech and debate. Not what individuals get up to. You do realise that stopping private institutions from having agency would be another form of intrusion that formed the debate when it came to rights, rights such as free speech.

They're two sides of the same coin, the right to say something and the right not to say something. But cool, "FREE SPEECH1!11!" etc. Whatever...

GalwayGuy2

Oh wait, no I don't because that would be fúcking daft. Just like looking to ban Blurred Lines. Nobody bats an eyelid at Rihanna singing 'S&M' to her tween market but people go fúcking mental at the idea of an adult overhearing 'Blurred Lines' in a student union? Ffs…

Actually, that's a very good point.

You'd by surprised at how much BDSMy things are aimed at female tweens-teens.

hatrickpatrick

Lyaiera wrote: »

Oh? I thought you were talking about the historic notion of free speech and debate. Not what individuals get up to. You do realise that stopping private institutions from having agency would be another form of intrusion that formed the debate when it came to rights, rights such as free speech.

They're two sides of the same coin, the right to say something and the right not to say something. But cool, "FREE SPEECH1!11!" etc. Whatever...

All I'm trying to say, in the simplest terms possible, is that any movement which actively calls for any institution whatsoever to restrict freedom of speech or face boycotts and pressure to do the same, is a movement I will not support.

Ergo I am pro equality, but I am not a feminist.

Why is this argument becoming so complicated? I am merely disproving the idiotic notion that "I'm not a feminist" = "I don't believe men and women should have equal rights". That is literally all I'm arguing. If you already agree with that statement, then my argument doesn't apply to you at all

PucaMama

So, free speech is great so long as it goes along with popular opinion. Sigh.

hatrickpatrick

PucaMama wrote: »

So, free speech is great so long as it goes along with popular opinion. Sigh.

What part of this are you failing to understand? I have no problem with the pro-censorship feminists saying whatever they want to say, but I'm not going to be a part of their movement because I wholeheartedly disagree with every single word of it. I am NOT talking about restricting their freedom of speech in any way, but I despise their attempts to restrict mine. That have the right to do it, doesn't make them not authoritarian gobsh!tes.

PucaMama

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What part of this are you failing to understand? I have no problem with the pro-censorship feminists saying whatever they want to say, but I'm not going to be a part of their movement because I wholeheartedly disagree with every single word of it. I am NOT talking about restricting their freedom of speech in any way, but I despise their attempts to restrict mine. That have the right to do it, doesn't make them not authoritarian gobsh!tes.

So allow it then that i think its no loss to not play that song. That's my opinion.