Feminism and the emasculation of men

Foxtrol

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I knew someone would dismiss my post by saying it was an attempt to side-step. It is not. It is simply saying: blame feminism when feminism is to blame, don't blame every issue faced by men due to their gender, on feminism. Because that's simply incorrect.
You don't have to be a feminist to be of a different view to you on this thread btw. And I have not for one second dismissed negatives which men experience due to being men.

It's a realistic business decision at times that could be made by a woman or a man; I'm not ecstatic about it, but I see how it could be necessary for some businesses.

I don't know if those men are self loathing; I think they just buy into nonsense like "Men are the aggressors/predators, women are the victims", "Men can always fend for themselves", "Men should only ever be strong and never show vulnerability", "Men can't be assaulted by women" and "Men certainly can't be sexually assaulted by women".
The above views are as old as the hills and instilled in a lot of men's and women's psyches.

No one said every issue men face due to their gender is because of feminism (I certainly didn’t) but likewise not all issues faced by women due to their gender are because of men (despite a lot of stuff coming from feminist groups may have you believe).

I think to point out the fact that that a viewpoint could be propagated by a man is very dismissive of the issue, as is the ‘well men made the laws’ excuse. Do you believe some feminist/womans rights campaigns feed into these stereotypes or do they have no responsibility because a man’s hand may have been involved at some stage?

The views that women shouldn’t work outside the home, hold positions of power, seen and not heard etc are built into many peoples psyches and are/were as old as the hills but most feminists wouldn’t be as quick to accept it as an excuse for them. It really seems so easy to excuse not taking men’s issues seriously.

Femme_Fatale

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

Problem with that Island is that despite your attempts to be more "understanding" of women, few of them would be interested in joining you there. Maybe a few of the "all PIV is rape" crew might want you around for some menial or dirty tasks, but the normal lovely hotties would be on MY island. Piliger and tritium would probably be there too.

Wtf?

A couple of masks really have slipped on this thread.

Femme_Fatale

Foxtrol wrote: »

No one said every issue men face due to their gender is because of feminism (I certainly didn’t)

You didn't, but at least one other has definitely implied it.

but likewise not all issues faced by women due to their gender are because of men (despite a lot of stuff coming from feminist groups may have you believe).

Yeh I actually edited my post to include that, before you quoted it.

I think to point out the fact that that a viewpoint could be propagated by a man is very dismissive of the issue, as is the ‘well men made the laws’ excuse.

There is nothing wrong with it being pointed out when it is being blamed on feminism though. That isn't simultaneously dismissing it. For example, on the thread about a female teacher having sex with her male teenage pupil, someone commented feminists wouldn't say a word against it... there is nothing wrong with saying well actually, it appears to be other men who are not only saying nothing against it, but seeing it as a great thing.

Do you believe some feminist/womans rights campaigns feed into these stereotypes or do they have no responsibility because a man’s hand may have been involved at some stage?

No in fairness I believe the first one.

The views that women shouldn’t work outside the home, hold positions of power, seen and not heard etc are built into many peoples psyches and are/were as old as the hills but most feminists wouldn’t be as quick to accept it as an excuse for them.

Nobody's saying that's an excuse, just that it would be incorrect to blame men.

tritium

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

Problem with that Island is that despite your attempts to be more "understanding" of women, few of them would be interested in joining you there. Maybe a few of the "all PIV is rape" crew might want you around for some menial or dirty tasks, but the normal lovely hotties would be on MY island. Piliger and tritium would probably be there too.

Besides you and Htrick would soon run out of money for your left leaning political system, and in your efforts to borrow your way out of the problem, we'd end up owning your Island.

To add insult to injury, I'd declare bitcoin the national currency there.

Wow I get back late and find everyone has trashed the place while I was away. No offence intended Freddie but I doubt we'd be on the same island. In spite of my sometimes taking a particular slant I'm actually fairly sympathetic to both sides on this one, albeit I'm about as left leaning as a right hand turn - guess I'd see myself as an egalitarian with very little tolerance for the extremists.

(Probably why I also take issue with any side claiming they have the inside track on equality)

Incarnations

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Point - missed.

A teacher still shouldn't be having sex with their pupil, even if the pupil wants it.

No point was missed.

Who said that it's ok for a teacher to have sex with their students.

I'm a male and a would have liked to have had sex with a couple of attractive teachers at my school.

Henry9

KyussBishop wrote: »

Since nobody else is bothering much with statistics, here are some:

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

'Few' makes it sound like a small number, but that 20% is 62 million people in the United States alone - would have a tough time linking that many people, to radical feminist views, or other questionable views that people are generalizing to the wider feminist movement.

I only came back to this to see if you posted something boneheaded, you didn't disappoint.

A poll, really? Whatever happened to generalizations are inherently logically fallacious??
This must be a serious piece of research, if the Guardian of Generalisations is convinced.
Let's see:

The poll was conducted April 11-12 among 1,000 adults using a sample selected from YouGov's opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population. Factors considered include age, race, gender, education, employment, income, marital status, number of children, voter registration, time and location of Internet access, interest in politics, religion and church attendance.

A whole thousand people, from a self selected panel?
Representing 300 million people?
That meets your criteria of avoiding generalisations??

would have a tough time linking that many people, to radical feminist views

Indeed, but then again nobody was trying to do that were they?

Piliger

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Wtf?

A couple of masks really have slipped on this thread.

And yours slipped quite a long while ago ...... :rolleyes:

Femme_Fatale

Piliger wrote: »

And yours slipped quite a long while ago ...... :rolleyes:

How on earth did it?

And this post by you is utterly uncalled-for:

Piliger wrote: »

Unfortunately that is the very intention of most non-male posters.

Piliger

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

A lie.

The truth.

Piliger

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

How on earth did it?

And this post by you is utterly uncalled-for:

Why ? It is the 100% truth.

Femme_Fatale

Piliger wrote: »

The truth.

It's only what you're telling yourself, it doesn't make it the truth. To dismiss men is NOT the intention behind comments from women to this thread.

Piliger wrote: »

Why ? It is the 100% truth.

That this is the intention of most non male posters: "Heh, you know this actually sums up perfectly, the type of schoolyard tribalism that these kind of "Us vs Them" ideologically-divided threads - on topics of mens-rights/feminism, bitcoin/cyber-libertarianism, among more - tend to turn to."

You can tell yourself that, but that doesn't make it true.

I'd like to see examples of how my mask slipped "long ago". I've been very straight-up on this thread. And I haven't posted any misandry, whereas you and posting borderline misogyny...

(Misandry is not disagreement with you/defence of some feminists btw).

Bannasidhe

Piliger wrote: »

Why ? It is the 100% truth.

Your Misogyny is showing.

Femme_Fatale

Incarnations wrote: »

No point was missed.

Who said that it's ok for a teacher to have sex with their students.

I'm a male and a would have liked to have had sex with a couple of attractive teachers at my school.

Oh fair enough; I thought you'd be objecting to the double standard of it being viewed as worse for a male teacher to have sex with a female pupil than vice versa.

Henry9

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What do the vast majority want? - to be given the same opportunities and treatment as their fathers. Their brothers. Their uncles. Their sons. Their nephews.

And. They. Should. Have. It.
I. Very. Rarely. See. Anyone. Say. Otherwise.

tritium

Henry9 wrote: »

I only came back to this to see if you posted something boneheaded, you didn't disappoint.

A poll, really? Whatever happened to generalizations are inherently logically fallacious??
This must be a serious piece of research, if the Guardian of Generalisations is convinced.
Let's see:

The poll was conducted April 11-12 among 1,000 adults using a sample selected from YouGov's opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population. Factors considered include age, race, gender, education, employment, income, marital status, number of children, voter registration, time and location of Internet access, interest in politics, religion and church attendance.

A whole thousand people, from a self selected panel?
Representing 300 million people?
That meets your criteria of avoiding generalisations??

Indeed, but then again nobody was trying to do that were they?

The sample size is actually not too bad , I'm not sure of the exact margin for error there but once the selection is done in a statistically sound way it wouldn't be the major issue (edit:should be around the 5% marknim guessing,too tired to calculate)

The opt in panel probably less so since it likely introduces inherent biasvdepending on the approach used.

Most interesting part of this however is this study (if its the same one I'm thinking of) gets somewhat different answers depending on how the question is asked. Most notable is the vast majority clearly don't equate feminism and equality in the questions. It'd also enlightening to see the authorsbtrying to bridge that 60% or so gap.

Bannasidhe

Henry9 wrote: »

And. They. Should. Have. It.
I. Very. Rarely. See. Anyone. Say. Otherwise.

Come. Back. When. You Never. Hear. Anyone. Say. It.

Henry9

tritium wrote: »

The sample size is actually not too bad , I'm not sure of the exact margin for error there but once the selection is done in a statistically sound way it wouldn't be the major issue

The opt in panel probably less so since it likely introduces inherent biasvdepending on the approach used.

Most interesting part of this however is this study (if its the same one I'm thinking of) gets somewhat different answers depending on how the question is asked. Most notable is the vast majority clearly don't equate feminism and equality in the questions. It'd also enlightening to see the authorsbtrying to bridge that 60% or so gap.

For the population of the US? Now way is 1k enough.

A major opinion poll uses way more than that, and like you say for a clear binary decision.
http://www.daytodaypolitics.com/polls/presidential_election_Obama_vs_McCain_2008.htm

Of course you can get any answer you like depending on how you frame your questions:

Self selection renders it meaningless, but it's a 'stat' therefore admissable I guess.

Henry9

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Come. Back. When. You Never. Hear. Anyone. Say. It.

Or will I wait until you're not being hyperbolic and condescending?
Which will be first do you think?

Freddie Dodge

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Wtf?

A couple of masks really have slipped on this thread.

No, WTF yourself ????

What fcuking "mask" ?

How fcuking dare you ????

I have posted my opinions clearly several times in this thread, and not once attempted to hide them.

I added to a humorous post made by someone who I disagree fundamentally with on almost every subject, admittedly getting in a few digs, but no "mask" slipped because there isn't one.
Its almost funny because people regularly take the piss because I'm so direct. I see plenty mod action here always for being too blunt and sometimes uncivil.

Mask my hole :mad:

KyussBishop

Henry9 wrote: »

I only came back to this to see if you posted something boneheaded, you didn't disappoint.

A poll, really? Whatever happened to generalizations are inherently logically fallacious??
This must be a serious piece of research, if the Guardian of Generalisations is convinced.
Let's see:

The poll was conducted April 11-12 among 1,000 adults using a sample selected from YouGov's opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population. Factors considered include age, race, gender, education, employment, income, marital status, number of children, voter registration, time and location of Internet access, interest in politics, religion and church attendance.

A whole thousand people, from a self selected panel?
Representing 300 million people?
That meets your criteria of avoiding generalisations??

Would you rather that the pollsters personally go door to door and ask 300 million Americans what they think about feminism? Come off it.

Polls, with a correctly performed selection of random people (to get a representative sample - unlike posters cherry-picked samples of crackpots from the feminist movement, causing sampling bias), are a proven method of estimating public attitude - it's a routinely used and perfectly valid statistical method, making it a far more solid statistic than anything else that's been put forward thus far (in fact, pretty sure it's the only statistic put forward thus far...).

The group who performed the survey, YouGov, have an excellent track record on polling thus far - so they've got a pretty good claim, to having a representative methodology.

Henry9 wrote: »

Indeed, but then again nobody was trying to do that were they?

If people are trying to generalize about the feminist movement, they pretty much have to back that up with some kind of statistics showing the view that they are generalizing is representative of a majority of the movement - so yes, if people want to generalize, they need to back that up.

Otherwise, just - you know - stop using sweeping generalizations, and just label the parts of the feminist movement you have a problem with, instead of generalizing; save us all going through another round of this constantly repeating argument.

KyussBishop

tritium wrote: »

The sample size is actually not too bad , I'm not sure of the exact margin for error there but once the selection is done in a statistically sound way it wouldn't be the major issue (edit:should be around the 5% marknim guessing,too tired to calculate)

The opt in panel probably less so since it likely introduces inherent biasvdepending on the approach used.

Most interesting part of this however is this study (if its the same one I'm thinking of) gets somewhat different answers depending on how the question is asked. Most notable is the vast majority clearly don't equate feminism and equality in the questions. It'd also enlightening to see the authorsbtrying to bridge that 60% or so gap.

Good points, and while there certainly can be problems with this study I can't see offhand, it's literally the first one I found on Google, so welcome more competing stats.

KyussBishop

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

No, WTF yourself ????

What fcuking "mask" ?

How fcuking dare you ????

I have posted my opinions clearly several times in this thread, and not once attempted to hide them.

I added to a humorous post made by someone who I disagree fundamentally with on almost every subject, admittedly getting in a few digs, but no "mask" slipped because there isn't one.
Its almost funny because people regularly take the piss because I'm so direct. I see plenty mod action here always for being too blunt and sometimes uncivil.

Mask my hole :mad:

Even though I didn't take it all that seriously, I never buy the 'just kidding' excuse, especially when it's used as an opportunity to get some digs in - is usually a way of creating an 'out', for a poster to pretend to be facetious when saying something, when they pretty much mean it, and just want to have the 'out' of saying "just kidding" if challenged.

Femme_Fatale

Problem with that Island is that despite your attempts to be more "understanding" of women, few of them would be interested in joining you there. Maybe a few of the "all PIV is rape" crew might want you around for some menial or dirty tasks, but the normal lovely hotties would be on MY island.

Oh sorry for not realising the above was a joke.

tritium

Henry9 wrote: »

For the population of the US? Now way is 1k enough.

Once your population rises above about 50-100k large sample effects kick in and you get very little return for adding sampling units

Henry9

KyussBishop wrote: »

Would you rather that the pollsters personally go door to door and ask 300 million Americans what they think about feminism? Come off it.

Not my problem is it? Defining how the number should be gathered is your problem right?
Maybe while they're at it they could call into every university feminist/gender studies department, ask them a few questions.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Polls, with a correctly performed selection of random people (to get a representative sample - unlike posters cherry-picked samples of crackpots from the feminist movement, causing sampling bias), are a proven method of estimating public attitude - it's a routinely used and perfectly valid statistical method, making it a far more solid statistic than anything else that's been put forward thus far (in fact, pretty sure it's the only statistic put forward thus far...).

1. You said generalisations are inherently wrong
2. They're not randomly selected, they're self selected.
3. Why don't you prove it's representative.

Polling works, up to a point, in elections, with a clearly defined binary outcome.
Social science questions are a much greyer area, and more open to manipulation by framing.
I've seen polling results both in favour of and against abortion in Ireland for example.

This survey says the same number of people believe Obama is a Muslim.
(based on 3,000 people, conducted by these guys http://www.pewresearch.org/)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g9Fu0WbCqTWm6kF5FRgE1KTl3fWQ
http://www.people-press.org/2010/08/19/growing-number-of-americans-say-obama-is-a-muslim/

Bannasidhe

Henry9 wrote: »

Or will I wait until you're not being hyperbolic and condescending?
Which will be first do you think?

About as long as it takes you to attack the post and not the poster I imagine.

donfers

I don't think the so-called extreme mens rights activists can be labelled as a kind of mirror image of the hardcore element in feminism.

Why?

Simple, ask the so-called extreme men's rights activists in the gentlemens club if they'd be happy to lose the MRA tag and join forces with women under an egalitarian or humanist label? If they'd be content to go along with a scenario where social issues aren't fought along gender lines (does it matter if it is a woman or a man who faces injustice?)

I know that the majority would say yes.

Then ask the extreme feminists the same question, "drop the feminist tag and go in under an egalitarian label ok guys?"

I know that the majority would say no.

So they're not the same at all.

Now the question is why? They have become so entrenched in universities, government-funded special interest groups and the media that they really just don't want to lose what they possess at this stage.

The decision-makers, the influencers, whether it be women or men you see are not so different at all, their priority is all about maintaining power rather than doing the right thing for the man or woman on the street.

And anybody who contends that doing the right thing should be centred around segregating or exclusifying their own interests alone and f**k the rest has no credibllity in my view, and is doomed to creating a perpetual divide (it does nobody any good except for the decision-makers and influencers who feed off the hostility it creates, as it justifies their hardline policies/positions)

Henry9

tritium wrote: »

Once your population rises above about 50-100k large sample effects kick in and you get very little return for adding sampling units

That's assuming that all of the strata in the distribution are sufficiently represented, which for a country as heterogeneous as the USA would be a pretty serious claim.

Even if you could stratify the population that well, the chances of each sub category being sufficiently represented in 1,000 out of a bunch of self selected people, I would say is remote.

Plus the claim is not falsifiable, there's no election to prove or disprove the number.

Henry9

Bannasidhe wrote: »

About as long as it takes you to attack the post and not the poster I imagine.

I am attacking the post, you were being both hyperbolic:

We all just want to crush men under our high heels and make them our sex slaves....

and condescending:

Men - do you know who these feminists are?
Really are?
They are your mothers. Your sisters. Your aunts. Your daughters. Your nieces.

Maybe if you didn't communicate like we're bold children who need you to talk down to us, it would be more effective.

Femme_Fatale

Henry9 wrote: »

I am attacking the post, you were being both hyperbolic:
and condescending

Wasn't that just in reaction to one person's hostile-to-women post though?