Feminism and the emasculation of men

Amirani

mariaalice wrote: »

An interesting statistic I came across for The ESRI, is that 34% of woman now have a higher education level that their male partners which is a big change from the past, patterns of male/female interaction in Irish society are changing, however that has nothing to do with feminism.

Indeed, and it's generally reported as women outperforming men due to "working harder" and "maturing quicker". The real reason is that all-female schools offer large educational advantages over all male schools. If roles were reversed, one would imagine it would be reported quite differently.

I think it's quite important to not take for granted what is considered as "fact". As Wibbs pointed out earlier, not all perceived inequality is such.

As for the OP and his emasculation, I think he's probably contributed more to that via this thread than feminism has.

lufties

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am a feminist and I have NEVER called for ANYTHING to be censored EVER.

What's up with all of these feminists all do this/that/the other comments lately?

Just something trivial, what's your opinion on the perception(generally) that men should pay for dinner on a date, when women want to regarded as strong and independent.

hatrickpatrick

Muise... wrote: »

Feminism isn't a card-carrying party-line type organisation. I disagree with other feminists on this one - because I think it's more efficient to flush ignorant types out in the open with rapey lyrics. Good to know who to avoid.

I see this argument a lot, but IMO it's too much of a cop out. MRAs aren't card-carrying either and yet that movement has been regarded as a hate group due to the actions of a minority within it - I don't see why feminism shouldn't be held to the same standard.

Hell, republicanism doesn't automatically entail violence against civilians, by definition, but it's so widely associated with it now that I prefer to call myself a nationalist. One does not simply ignore the negative connotations a label has garnered - even if not supporting those particular aspects of the movement. If that's the kind of thing that's repeatedly appearing in the media, it's inevitably going to have an effect on how the masses view the movement when it comes up for debate. As unfair as this is (and believe me, as an activist I've encountered this often enough to know that it IS unfair), there's no denying it. Even if most feminists don't support censorship, those who do have been vocal enough to get that associated with the label itself.

For that reason, it's not a label I can in conscience adopt.

Mike747

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Domestic violence happens to both men and women, and as a guy who was formerly in a horrific relationship involving constant harassment, stalking and blackmail, it makes me sick to my stomach to see those ads on TV with a lad checking his girlfriend's phone or whatever and then saying that lads need to take it easy. Everyone knows a guy who was treated like absolute sh!t by a girlfriend when he was a teenager - why are we always portrayed as the villain in such ad campaigns?

It's absolutely sickening, and it DOES pile evidence on to the idea that lads in general are being demonized on a constant basis, while women are painted as great and innocent. Equality means equality in everything, not just in the things which you are at a disadvantage in. You know, it also means things like "a girl treating a lad like crap will be regarded just as harshly as the reverse", and "a woman who attacks somebody will be treated the same way in court as a lad" etc etc etc.

Watch this video. This guy nails it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdULeAE1aw8

Muise...

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's hard to ignore it when it makes news headlines around the world, feminist groups calling for Blurred Lines to be banned in various venues and boycotting Facebook advertisers to pressure them into removing "offensive" Facebook pages.

Again, I don't want to impede their freedom of expression, if they want to engage in such activities they have every right to do so, but it has certainly ensured that I will never apply the label to myself despite being an ardent believer in egalitarianism for all humans, and as I said from talking to women I know, is something that is actually pissing a lot of people off, not just myself.

If you think that this sort of sophomore frivolity is the sum of the women's struggle, you don't really deserve the label anyway.

TheLastMohican

kunst nugget wrote: »

I don't know… to stop gay hens pecking them while they're trying to whistle?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why do you think there are handy little pumps available for the last ohhhh 50 years or so....

And special bottles for feeding babies - they have been around for centuries!

Have a ponder about that for a while....

jaja321 wrote: »

Clearly they stop womens ability to function as politicians.

Breast pumps, bottles, and supporting partners be handy yo.

Please, please tell me that ye were smiling while writing this. Not smirking. Smiling. And no whistling, because if you sneezed while doing it your mouths could be contorted for life.

GenieOz

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am a feminist and I have NEVER called for ANYTHING to be censored EVER.

What's up with all of these feminists all do this/that/the other comments lately?

Right, not everyone calls for the same thing, but when you call yourself the same thing as the extremists(The loud minority) then you're going to be guilty by association.

hatrickpatrick

seenitall wrote: »

Hmmm... something tells me that if it were women being screwed over in divorces currently, you'd not have half as much a problem with it. Just a guess.

I most certainly would, and the same definitely happens in reverse - one of my friends was recently exposed to just how unfair this can be on one of her male relatives and is now firmly in agreement with what MRAs have been arguing for years.

What I really find unfair about it is that marriage is essentially a contract in which the terms of termination are horribly biased against men (in general), and yet guys who shun marriage are made fun of as "peter pan syndrome" and other such utter bollocks. Maybe instead of being a generation of guys who "won't grow up", they're just a generation of guys who don't see why society should expect them to sell their souls? Just a thought.

Czarcasm

lufties wrote: »

Not at all, I just think this strive for women's equality leaves us men a little bit dumbfounded about our new role in society and sometimes with all the political correctness that goes with it, men are still adjusting.

Have you ever thought lufties that the issue is one of your own perception? You should consider speaking for yourself as your generalisations about "us men" and political correctness and "men still adjusting" are just as misguided as your interpretation of feminism. I'm incorrigibly sexist and it's never been an issue for me nor anyone I've interacted with, so I would suggest your issue isn't emasculation due to feminism, but your attitude to women.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Domestic violence happens to both men and women, and as a guy who was formerly in a horrific relationship involving constant harassment, stalking and blackmail, it makes me sick to my stomach to see those ads on TV with a lad checking his girlfriend's phone or whatever and then saying that lads need to take it easy. Everyone knows a guy who was treated like absolute sh!t by a girlfriend when he was a teenager - why are we always portrayed as the villain in such ad campaigns?

It's absolutely sickening, and it DOES pile evidence on to the idea that lads in general are being demonized on a constant basis, while women are painted as great and innocent. Equality means equality in everything, not just in the things which you are at a disadvantage in. You know, it also means things like "a girl treating a lad like crap will be regarded just as harshly as the reverse", and "a woman who attacks somebody will be treated the same way in court as a lad" etc etc etc.

We've discussed this before Patrick. If men aren't prepared to take female on male or male on male domestic violence seriously, then that can hardly be the fault or the responsibility of women who campaign and advocate for support services for female victims of domestic violence.

If you want support services for male victims of domestic violence, then make your own voice heard, rather than tear down the efforts of other people.

hatrickpatrick

Muise... wrote: »

If you think that this sort of sophomore frivolity is the sum of the women's struggle, you don't really deserve the label anyway.

Sorry but it's appearing in headlines all over the world. You can't sweep that under the carpet. Did you read the part I mentioned about republicanism? I'm a republican in the strict sense of the word (I believe in a united republic of Ireland) but because that label is associated with violent extremists I choose not to adopt it. You can't just ignore the most vocal aspects of a movement and then claim that they are not a legitimate reason for others to distance themselves from the movement in general. It's not helpful.

BTW I'm not just talking about Blurred Lines. Did you see what happened with Marissa Meyers (Yahoo CEO) decided to do a Vogue photoshoot? The condemnation she received from self-styled "feminists" was unbelievable, and furthered my belief that a large number of feminists, while claiming to believe in *equality*, don't believe in *freedom*.

hatrickpatrick

Czarcasm wrote: »

We've discussed this before Patrick. If men aren't prepared to take female on male or male on male domestic violence seriously, then that can hardly be the fault or the responsibility of women who campaign and advocate for support services for female victims of domestic violence.

If you want support services for male victims of domestic violence, then make your own voice heard, rather than tear down the efforts of other people.

I'm sorry, but an ad campaign on TV painting domestic violence as a black and white "guys abusing girls" issue when it comes to teenagers is absolutely disgusting, and no amount of campaigning for male victims will change that. No campaign like this should demonise one group as always being the perpetrator when it isn't true. It has a profoundly demoralizing effect on teenage boys - I can attest to this myself.

Muise...

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sorry but it's appearing in headlines all over the world. You can't sweep that under the carpet. Did you read the part I mentioned about republicanism? I'm a republican in the strict sense of the word (I believe in a united republic of Ireland) but because that label is associated with violent extremists I choose not to adopt it. You can't just ignore the most vocal aspects of a movement and then claim that they are not a legitimate reason for others to distance themselves from the movement in general. It's not helpful.

BTW I'm not just talking about Blurred Lines. Did you see what happened with Marissa Meyers (Yahoo CEO) decided to do a Vogue photoshoot? The condemnation she received from self-styled "feminists" was unbelievable, and furthered my belief that a large number of feminists, while claiming to believe in *equality*, don't believe in *freedom*.

I've never been particularly interested in these celebrity spats that take place in the echo-chamber of mass media, tbh. Fcuk the headlines; they are not the story.

seenitall

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I most certainly would, and the same definitely happens in reverse - one of my friends was recently exposed to just how unfair this can be on one of her male relatives and is now firmly in agreement with what MRAs have been arguing for years.

What I really find unfair about it is that marriage is essentially a contract in which the terms of termination are horribly biased against men (in general), and yet guys who shun marriage are made fun of as "peter pan syndrome" and other such utter bollocks. Maybe instead of being a generation of guys who "won't grow up", they're just a generation of guys who don't see why society should expect them to sell their souls? Just a thought.

I agree with the bolded bit, and that situation has come about because traditionally "the woman's place is in the home", so she gets the custody and the security of staying in the family home. When those outdated views change, so will the reality of divorce.

That remark you quoted relates to Mike, not yourself. His posts have been rather outrageous, even by AH standards.

up for anything

GenieOz wrote: »

Right, not everyone calls for the same thing, but when you call yourself the same thing as the extremists(The loud minority) then you're going to be guilty by association.

I think you'll find that a lot of women and men call themselves feminists and there is no reason that the they should be guilty by association as you purport. Childish reasoning.

By your thinking than all Muslims are terrorists, all the benefit claimants are work shy scumbags, all people who care about their environment are surely eco-terrorists. Pretty sad really.

pickarooney

Bannasidhe wrote: »

His lady - like his dog/bike/house/chiponhisshoulder?

Or his wife/her husband/his mother/her brother

I've never understood how people can construe the use of a pronoun as malicious or oppressive in this way. I've seen it many's a time but it's never made any sense, it's simply the way genitive pronouns work in English.

eviltwin

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm sorry, but an ad campaign on TV painting domestic violence as a black and white "guys abusing girls" issue when it comes to teenagers is absolutely disgusting, and no amount of campaigning for male victims will change that. No campaign like this should demonise one group as always being the perpetrator when it isn't true. It has a profoundly demoralizing effect on teenage boys - I can attest to this myself.

Those ads don't tar ALL men with the same brush. You might as well argue Childline ads should be banned in case it offends parents.

jimgoose

lufties wrote: »

...In my experience when a man is sexualised it is a big laugh...

You gets sexualised by young wans, do you? Lucky, jammy bassid! :mad:

GenieOz

up for anything wrote: »

I think you'll find that a lot of women and men call themselves feminists and there is no reason that the they should be guilty by association as you purport. Childish reasoning.

By your thinking than all Muslims are terrorists, all the benefit claimants are work shy scumbags, all people who care about their environment are surely eco-terrorists. Pretty sad really.

and the bolded bits are exactly why I won't be bothering with this thread, unbelievable.

lufties

jimgoose wrote: »

You gets sexualised by young wans, do you? Lucky, jammy bassid! :mad:

Yep I've been in clubs, had my balls felt randomly, been pushed around by women in pubs 'for the laugh'. but I'm sure women go through that in places like coppers too.

eviltwin

lufties wrote: »

Yep I've been in clubs, had my balls felt randomly, been pushed around by women in pubs 'for the laugh'. but I'm sure women go through that in places like coppers too.

NO ONE should put up with that kind of behaviour, no excuse for it. Did you report it? I know staff aren't always great with these things though.

jimgoose

lufties wrote: »

Yep I've been in clubs, had my balls felt randomly, been pushed around by women in pubs 'for the laugh'. but I'm sure women go through that in places like coppers too.

I shouldn't imagine so. That is straightforward assault, nothing to do with "gender politics".

Bannasidhe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's hard to ignore it when it makes news headlines around the world, feminist groups calling for Blurred Lines to be banned in various venues and boycotting Facebook advertisers to pressure them into removing "offensive" Facebook pages.

Again, I don't want to impede their freedom of expression, if they want to engage in such activities they have every right to do so, but it has certainly ensured that I will never apply the label to myself despite being an ardent believer in egalitarianism for all humans, and as I said from talking to women I know, is something that is actually pissing a lot of people off, not just myself.

So it would have been as accurate to say 'what's up with these college societies calling for bans on....'


Perhaps you should try using the word 'some' as in 'some feminists are calling for some things to be banned' or 'some men think women should stay at home and have babies and never ever get a paying job.'


Inaccurate Blanket Statement is still Inaccurate.

lufties

eviltwin wrote: »

NO ONE should put up with that kind of behaviour, no excuse for it. Did you report it? I know staff aren't always great with these things though.

I didn't actually, perhaps I should have. Then again approaching staff in a busy pub, I can only imagine the reaction I'd get.

Grejio

average hero wrote: »

This is an odd one that sometimes get people riled up alright. There are complex issues that all combine into the one general argument.

Should women get paid the same for the same job and work? Undoubtedly YES!!!! Men and women should have the ability to be and act like who they want as long as it isn't illegal or go against the public good.

There has been a huge change in a relatively short time with regards to social positions and gender identity in the Western world. I think in many ways we are still playing catch up. For example, why has this (mainly) been just in the Western world? And the biggest one of all, why are a lot of men attracted to femininity and perceived beauty and women attracted to power, status and wealth? I'm not stating that ALL of either gender are attracted to it, but very generally.

Also, a lot of media espouses equal rights and women's independence, but will then have a women's section in their paper with an article on a model going to her rugby players match in England or such drivel.

For the record, certain women who I believe are complete legends include Ronda Rousey (cute!), Mary McAleese (full of class) and Angela Merkel (pragmatist and completely competent de facto leader of the EU)

Someone who asks for a pay rise or threatens to quit if they don't get one deserves a payrise more than someone who doesn't all things equal.

Femme_Fatale

Starting a gender war with thinly-veiled agenda ftw.

lufties wrote: »

this is not a anti-women thread, as I personally cherish and appreciate women with the upmost respect.

So long as they're not Irish.

lufties

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Starting a gender war with thinly-veiled agenda ftw.

can you explain that a bit more?

Mike747

lufties wrote: »

I didn't actually, perhaps I should have. Then again approaching staff in a busy pub, I can only imagine the reaction I'd get.

They'd probably just laugh and tell you to fuck off.

lufties

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Starting a gender war with thinly-veiled agenda ftw.

So long as they're not Irish.

What are you on about?

A sneery assumption is it?

Bannasidhe

lufties wrote: »

Just something trivial, what's your opinion on the perception(generally) that men should pay for dinner on a date, when women want to regarded as strong and independent.

If some man wants to buy me dinner I have no issue with that - doesn't mean I will ever have sex with him ( ).

I think that is up to each couple to decide for themselves. I have both bought dinner for people and had dinner bought for me.

If I specifically invite someone out to dinner - I pay because I invited them - If I am specifically invited out to dinner, I expect the person who invited me to pay - their gender is immaterial.

If it's a case of 'fancy grabbing a bite to eat' then I expect everyone to pay for themselves tbh.

Femme_Fatale

lufties wrote: »

What are you on about?

A sneery assumption is it?

Based on your own posts.