Feminism and the emasculation of men

dark crystal

clairefontaine wrote: »

These public cases cause mass outrage. Simpson got a not guilty verdict when it was very obvious that he was guilty.

What it did was cause enough outrage to swing the pendulum the other way so that irrational reactionary laws were passed with the support and energy of the feminist lobby. [Megan's Law is another example of Clinton's pandering to irrational ill thought out laws, but I can't necessarily blame that one on feminists even though for the most part men have been the victims of that one too.]

The momentum after the OJ Simpson trial, was able to push through the Violence Against Women's Act, elevating victim status. There was also a lot of talk at the time from feminist groups about assuming guilt in rape accusation trials. I went to college in the 1990s and such was the culture then that we got rape whistles in our welcome packs.

Now what you have in the US, the abuse of restraining orders to get men out of their homes. About 80% are bogus claims. And custody disputes disguised as domestic violence trials.

The illness of the family courts are such, that there is no jury, no right to a public defendant, and no laws around double jeapardy.

What then do you believe to be a fairer system, Claire? How does the system sort the genuine domestic violence victims (or those in genuine fear of violence) from the bogus ones?

hatrickpatrick

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I have a problem with very extreme hardcore porn, which would probably be deemed a feminist view (I don't think it's just a feminist view though) so does that mean I'm, by association, "in cahoots" with the fanatics?

Only if you believe it should be banned or censored. Everyone has an opinion on things - I personally find the scat porn thig bizarre and distributing, for instance - but I accept that I don't have the right or authority to tell others what to produce or watch.

hatrickpatrick

clairefontaine wrote: »

It's all very nice to talk about equality, but at what cost? Quotas? Biased legislation? Restraining orders at the whim of the plaintiff without evidence? The overpowering cultural fear of domestic violence over ANY OTHER KIND OF CRIME?

And this is where my sympathy ends for it. I will not support any ideology which compromises the democratic process or fairness in the courts against the individual. There is just too much at stake for it.

A world in which no piece of legislation makes reference to "man" or "woman" but to "persons" would be a very good start in my view, just to take one example. That certainly wouldn't carry the kind of costs or side effects you're worried about.

Henry9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

A world in which no piece of legislation makes reference to "man" or "woman" but to "persons" would be a very good start in my view, just to take one example. That certainly wouldn't carry the kind of costs or side effects you're worried about.

LOL, good luck with that. Only if you take the 'equality' industry at face value could you be surprised at the way things are.

Scratch the surface and you'll see it for what it is, just rebranded radical feminism. Not only with the stated aims of excluding men from the category of potential victims of inequality, but they will actively agitate against the possibility of recognising the possibility.

Sure, there might be token words in the direction of fathers rights, and even that took 15 to 20 years of smearing and abuse.
But once they've wiped their feet on that particular doormat, they will plough on with their exclusively feminist worldview.

All of this discussion about who is 'radical' is a complete red herring too.
What matters is which feminists have influence? Who gets the funding? Who has an input into policy?

Bacik, Susan Mckay, Rachel Mullen, Kathleen Lynch, Niall Crowley... etc etc
Funnily enough they seem to spend most if not all of their careers sucking on the public teat, moving easily between academic departments, publicly funded charities and quangos.

Piliger

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Only if you believe it should be banned or censored. Everyone has an opinion on things - I personally find the scat porn thig bizarre and distributing, for instance - but I accept that I don't have the right or authority to tell others what to produce or watch.

There is a world of difference between a personal preference or a personal dislike, and wanting the law to ban things. I personally find fat people offensive. But I have no desire or wish to have them punished by law.

'So called extreme or hard core porn' is fantasy. As is extreme or hard core violence in hollywood movies. I would get far far more worked up about violence than sex, and only when it is made to look extraordinarily real. That is extremely rare in even 'so called extreme' porn.

Piliger

clairefontaine wrote: »

I genuinely cannot understand the persistent denial of feminist influence on legislation on both sides of the pond.

Whatever it's not all feminists, but it's enough of them to reek destruction everywhere.

One the major causes of this is the sadly very large proportion of men who are raised as, or have become, self loathing. These men have been so totally brain washed by the constant decades of bombardment by the media that men are nasty loathsome beings, that they don't even need to be pushed by extreme feminists to act.

Thankfully a larger and larger number of men are now waking up and realising how far beyond any kind of rational 'equality' things have gone.

Pug160

lufties wrote: »

I'm all for gender equality, but as a man I'm honestly getting a bit confused about a man's role in western society. back in the old dark ages, a fella looked after his lady and children and had a more dominant role in society. It's great to see women are more independent, but sometimes I can't help wondering have men become more emasculated and submissive. In my experience when a man is sexualised it is a big laugh generally with an undertone of 'you go girl', when it's the opposite the man is a pathetic sleaze. Also, when a woman is being rude or aggressive, men are expected to be sensitive to this. Sometimes it feels we're being shamed for simply just being male.
These are just some of my thoughts I felt worthy of discussion.
Also to add, this is not a anti-women thread, as I personally cherish and appreciate women with the upmost respect.

I agree with what you're saying to a certain extent, but I don't think the vast majority of women - even most feminists - want to emasculate men. There are certainly women who don't like men and women who want to be men and are envious because they (women) are the perceived weaker sex. But trying to emasculate men would be counterproductive to women. I know it's a load of badly written rubbish (so I've heard) but look at the popularity of 50 Shades of Grey. I know not every woman is innately submissive, but a large percentage arguably are. That includes very well educated, intelligent women. I do think the media portray men as virginal imbeciles far too often, especially on TV. That's maybe something that should be discussed more often.

Piliger

Pug160 wrote: »

I agree with what you're saying to a certain extent, but I don't think the vast majority of women - even most feminists - want to emasculate men. There are certainly women who don't like men and women who want to be men and are envious because they (women) are the perceived weaker sex. But trying to emasculate men would be counterproductive to women. I know it's a load of badly written rubbish (so I've heard) but look at the popularity of 50 Shades of Grey. I know not every woman is innately submissive, but a large percentage arguably are. That includes very well educated, intelligent women. I do think the media portray men as virginal imbeciles far too often, especially on TV. That's maybe something that should be discussed more often.

What has this got to do with it ? Just because most women don't 'want to emasculate men' doesn't mean men are not regularly being emasculated, abused, biased against in the media and courts and in public. No one claims that all women are behind this.

Femme_Fatale

I certainly don't agree with gender quotas, stupid idea IMO.

Piliger wrote: »

I would get far far more worked up about violence than sex, and only when it is made to look extraordinarily real. That is extremely rare in even 'so called extreme' porn.

What about depictions of violent sex? I don't think you're familiar with the extreme porn I'm talking about. No "so-called" required.

Piliger

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I certainly don't agree with gender quotas, stupid idea IMO.

What about depictions of violent sex? I don't think you're familiar with the extreme porn I'm talking about. No "so-called" required.

Why would you think I am not familiar with it ? 'so called' is extremely relavent because it is a subjective term, whether you like it or not.

Femme_Fatale

Because what I'm talking about is depictions of rape/gang rape, with a side of violence depicted, and verbal abuse. Not sure what's "so-called extreme" about that.

Pug160

Piliger wrote: »

What has this got to do with it ? Just because most women don't 'want to emasculate men' doesn't mean men are not regularly being emasculated, abused, biased against in the media and courts and in public. No one claims that all women are behind this.

I never denied that. There are issues that need to be discussed. I agree that there is an agenda and that certain sections of the media are biased.

KyussBishop

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

We all know that you can prioritize equality in certain areas over others. Whatever you might say about feminists supporting mens' rights as well, can we at least agree that ending court sentencing disparity or changing the law with regard to the definition of rape (penetration rather than intercourse, absolutely awful definition which defines it as impossible for a man to be raped), or getting rid of the underage sex double standard, etc etc etc?

You can say that feminism doesn't ignore these issues, but they're certainly nowhere near the top of the agenda for your average feminist lecture or meeting. :rolleyes:

I've never been to a feminist lecture or meeting, so I've no idea - I'd also propose that (by the dictionary definition - supporting equal rights for both men and women), the vast majority of society is feminist, and that you shouldn't judge 'feminists' based on fringe movements - especially since generalizing from part to the whole, is automatically wrong.

I think the 'prioritization of issues' thing is a bad way to look at it really, because:
1: You can work on more than one thing at a time, so things don't have to have a set priority
2: I'd imagine the feminist movement doesn't have very many men that are politically active in it, so immediately that makes it difficult to work on mens issues as well, due to the lack of direct knowledge/experience - I'd expect people to stick with what they're knowledgeable about, since then they have the most effect.

If people who are active within a political movement don't have the necessary experience/knowledge to be active about certain issues, then you can't really criticize them for it, you have to get people involved who do have the necessary experience.

Carlos Orange

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'd also propose that (by the dictionary definition - supporting equal rights for both men and women), the vast majority of society is feminist

What dictionary are you using? This is what Google says

"the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes".

I think they use the Oxford English Dictionary or at least for this one particular word the definitions only differ by case.
That is massively different to advocating for both genders.

Anyway it is in the nature of successful ideas that they get absorbed by society. Very few politicians advocate the end of the welfare state but the few that end up identifying as socialists tend to be on the more extreme end.

tritium

KyussBishop wrote: »

I've never been to a feminist lecture or meeting, so I've no idea - I'd also propose that (by the dictionary definition - supporting equal rights for both men and women), the vast majority of society is feminist, and that you shouldn't judge 'feminists' based on fringe movements - especially since generalizing from part to the whole, is automatically wrong.

I think the 'prioritization of issues' thing is a bad way to look at it really, because:
1: You can work on more than one thing at a time, so things don't have to have a set priority
2: I'd imagine the feminist movement doesn't have very many men that are politically active in it, so immediately that makes it difficult to work on mens issues as well, due to the lack of direct knowledge/experience - I'd expect people to stick with what they're knowledgeable about, since then they have the most effect.

If people who are active within a political movement don't have the necessary experience/knowledge to be active about certain issues, then you can't really criticize them for it, you have to get people involved who do have the necessary experience.

Kyuss, as I mentioned previously, the key point in the definition of feminism is the emphasis on women's rights. That's simply not the same as all round equality. You cant have a full equality agenda coming from that perspective.

If you look at the history of feminism there have been many male advocates for equality who have been actively pushed out of the tent of academic feminism for advocating mens rights should be part of the discussion. Warren Farrell for example was initially pushed out for having the temerity to suggest that men should have parental rights. He's not the only one

The prioritization point isn't down to lack of male involvement, rather the reverse.

Henry9

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'd also propose that (by the dictionary definition - supporting equal rights for both men and women), the vast majority of society is feminist, and that you shouldn't judge 'feminists' based on fringe movements

You can propose all you like, but it's completely irrelevant. The issue is not 'feminism' but 'self identified feminism.'
I can label myself as anything, it doesn't make it so.

KyussBishop wrote: »

especially since generalizing from part to the whole, is automatically wrong.

Well you'd better tell that to every researcher, on every subject, ever.

KyussBishop wrote: »

2: I'd imagine the feminist movement doesn't have very many men that are politically active in it, so immediately that makes it difficult to work on mens issues as well, due to the lack of direct knowledge/experience - I'd expect people to stick with what they're knowledgeable about, since then they have the most effect.

Yeah sure, that's the issue. They've no experience or knowledge.
Rather than willfully obstructing any possible progress because it doesn't fit in with their narrow self serving world view.

How does your dictionary define 'naive' by the way?

Piliger

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Because what I'm talking about is depictions of rape/gang rape, with a side of violence depicted, and verbal abuse. Not sure what's "so-called extreme" about that.

What is extreme about rape fantasies ? More than 60% of women have rape fantasies on a regular basis. Why is that extreme ? Many mainstream movies over the last 50 years have included rape events/scenes. You are completely subjecting in your use of language.

Piliger

KyussBishop wrote: »

I've never been to a feminist lecture or meeting, so I've no idea - I'd also propose that (by the dictionary definition - supporting equal rights for both men and women), the vast majority of society is feminist, and that you shouldn't judge 'feminists' based on fringe movements - especially since generalizing from part to the whole, is automatically wrong.

No offense but you appear to me to be completely disingenuous. No one is bothered what some fringe movement thinks. What is causing the problem is not what some fringe group thinks - it is the fact that this so called fringe movement is now basically in control of the agenda of modern politics in the western world and of the media, delivering this fringe agenda through the press and tv on a daily basis. It has also taken control of the justice system where men are treated wholly unjustly and in a totally prejudiced way and of daily social interaction, where all men are increasingly being seen as latent rapists and latent child abusers.

Eramen

Piliger

tritium wrote: »

Kyuss, as I mentioned previously, the key point in the definition of feminism is the emphasis on women's rights.

Yes. Yet the current dominant form of this neo feminism is something that now transcends far beyond women's rights or equality, creating an environment where women having equal rights is no longer enough. Now men must be punished and forced out of careers and positions in order to place women, whether they deserve or or earn it, in their place. It's not enough to have equal rights and equal opportunity any more.

And a world view is now being imposed, and bought in to by the Media and Politicians whereby if any career, job, tv program, film etc does not have 50% women, then there must ergo be some kind of discrimination. It is totally insane. It takes no account of gender preferences. It takes no account of gender skills. It takes no account of gender choices.

And again ... where 90% of a career is taken up by women .. ah well ... they just ignore it as ... ah that's men's problem.

Lux23

Women don't have equal rights though, do they?

Clandestine

Eramen wrote: »

I don't like this guy. I'd group him with the euphoric MRA's who tend to wear fedora's (hell he wears one is some of his videos)


Warren Farrell is one of the few MRA's actually worth checking out.

Piliger

Lux23 wrote: »

Women don't have equal rights though, do they?

In most cases women have more rights.

Eramen

Clandestine wrote: »

I don't like this guy. I'd group him with the euphoric MRA's who tend to wear fedora's (hell he wears one is some of his videos)


Warren Farrell is one of the few MRA's actually worth checking out.

Thanks, I'll check that out. Does Warren have any YT videos worth watching?

Aurini seems like an alright kind of guy. Usually he is on the ball, but there are some things I don't quite get or agree with him on, especially on this subject (I don't particularly subscribe to the MRA movement).

Femme_Fatale

Piliger wrote: »

What is extreme about rape fantasies ? More than 60% of women have rape fantasies on a regular basis. Why is that extreme ? Many mainstream movies over the last 50 years have included rape events/scenes. You are completely subjecting in your use of language.

Don't usually resort to the emotive but sometimes to get a point across... you wouldn't like your female relative being aggressively f'ucked (and it's real ****ing, not just a depiction) as happens in movies depicting rape/gang rape/accompanying violence and verbal abuse.
So it's not just about flighty fantasy or merely "sex"... there's a darker side to it and there is nothing wrong with not liking this.

Where does this "more than 60% on a regular basis" come from?

Films depicting rape as a negative are very different from those depicting it for the audience to get off to.

Clandestine

Eramen wrote: »

Thanks, I'll check that out. Does Warren have any YT videos worth watching?

Read his book Myth of male power, it basically revitalised the mens rights movement. He used to be a well known feminist before becoming disillusioned with the movement

Piliger

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Don't usually resort to the emotive but sometimes to get a point across... you wouldn't like your female relative being aggressively f'ucked (and it's real ****ing, not just a depiction) as happens in movies depicting rape/gang rape/accompanying violence and verbal abuse.
So it's not just about flighty fantasy or merely "sex"... there's a darker side to it and there is nothing wrong with not liking this.

Where did anyone say you were wrong not to like it ? Or have you just made that up ? Have you now abandoned your assertion of 'Extreme' ?

Secondly I wouldn't want my female relative assaulted, shot, killed ... does that mean all television and film that include those are 'extreme' ?

Where does this "more than 60% on a regular basis" come from?

Do some research and cop on.

Films depicting rape as a negative are very different from those depicting it for the audience to get off to.

And who is it exactly that decides which is which ? A large percentage of people 'get off' on horror movies, and on violent movies. Where is this 'extreme' ?

Piliger

Clandestine wrote: »

Read his book Myth of male power, it basically revitalised the mens rights movement. He used to be a well known feminist before becoming disillusioned with the movement

Regrettably we are in a time when the majority of men suffer from some kind of self loathing as a result of decades of brainwashing. They don't even realise they are being discriminated against left right and centre.
We need to start supporting and joining MRAs and start pushing for equality and fairness.

Femme_Fatale

Eramen wrote: »

Aurini seems like an alright kind of guy.

Yeh a delight. I find his repeated use of "f*ggot" in relation to other men particularly lovely. "If you don't discipline your child, they'll become miserable... same with women; they need boundaries and discipline - that's why they vote in tyrannical socialist governments..." Um... yeh.

Femme_Fatale

[QUOTE=Piliger;89274638Do some research and cop on.[/QUOTE]
Not sure what the "cop on" is about. Where is the "Over 60 per cent" bit?

And who is it exactly that decides which is which ? A large percentage of people 'get off' on horror movies, and on violent movies. Where is this 'extreme' ?

If you can't see how hardcore movies depicting rape (and using real aggressive sex - comparing it with a TV show is moot) is not extreme, then I guess there's no further talking to you.

Piliger wrote: »

Regrettably we are in a time when the majority of men suffer from some kind of self loathing as a result of decades of brainwashing.

The majority?