Feminism and the emasculation of men

lufties

iwantmydinner wrote: »

I don't get how any of the above equates to them appreciating men more than, fr'instance, I do.

This if course, is not to mind the fact that again, it's an awful generalisation.

Alright so.

Freddie Dodge

Feminism as it was originally intended has evolved today into a bankrupt philosophy.

it does not seek equality, just advantage, and as such deserves no support or respect from the gender over whom it seeks this advantage.

What is even worse is the men who describe themselves as feminists. Turkeys etc...

Im an egalitarian, - I believe in equality, not the zero-sum game of gender advantage.

.

Femme_Fatale

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

Feminism as it was originally intended has evolved today into a bankrupt philosophy.

it does not seek equality, just advantage, and as such deserves no support or respect from the gender over whom it seeks this advantage.

Depends on which strain. Some feminists agree equality has been achieved, broadly speaking, but there are certain areas that they wish to question, e.g. aspects of lad culture.
In the same way that men, overall, are doing ok, but there are certain things that need to be addressed, e.g. how they can be depicted in advertising.

lufties

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Oh dear. I don't know why that is, but if western women aren't interested in a guy, they're not interested in a guy. They don't owe him anything, even if they have the nerve not to be gorgeous.

The constant talk here of women being preoccupied with wealth refers to an alien world to me.
In the world I live in, if you like a person, you like a person - and that's all there is to it.
I know there are gold-diggers out there (I cannot relate to them in the slightest) - the stereotype exists for a reason. But is it as widespread as said here on AH? I doubt it very, very much.

Femme,I think these guys were just glad and perhaps astonished that they were well received by intelligent,beautiful women who take care of themselves as opposed to being bossed around by bitchy, overweight, self entitled munters.

sorry to be crude but you know what I mean

Femme_Fatale

lufties wrote: »

I think these guys were just glad and perhaps astonished that they were well received by intelligent,beautiful women who take care of themselves as opposed to being bossed around by bitchy, overweight, self entitled munters.

Oh dear. I'm having trouble being convinced that you're not trying to be inflammatory when I see language like the above being used... :-/

iwantmydinner

lufties wrote: »

Femme,I think these guys were just glad and perhaps astonished that they were well received by intelligent,beautiful women who take care of themselves as opposed to being bossed around by bitchy, overweight, self entitled munters.

sorry to be crude but you know what I mean

DONE.

lufties

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Oh dear. I'm having trouble being convinced that you're not trying to be inflammatory when I see language like the above being used... :-/

its not inflammatory..in fact you made a reference to gargons in a previous post...could that me taken as inflammatory?

How Soon Is Now

The problem with this thread is there have been some good points brought up but unfortunately as is the case most of the time they where done in the wrong way or just not explained very well.

To a degree i can kinda see some of the points the OP tried to make the thing was he did it in a way that the overpowering ones on here where able to shoot him down and make him look stupid.

Being totally honest women and men are not equal in a broad sense and never will be this whole equal rights for everyone is bull**** because theres no actual way to guide it.

If u tell one person they should get same as the other someone is stepping on someones toes it will always be this way.

There is one very major situation that comes to mind for me and i imagine many people that highlights clearly how men and women will never be equal and thats how where both viewed when it comes to kids.

MS.ing

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Depends on which strain. Some feminists agree equality has been achieved, broadly speaking, but there are certain areas that they wish to question, e.g. aspects of lad culture.
In the same way that men, overall, are doing ok, but there are certain things that need to be addressed, e.g. how they can be depicted in advertising.

they need to familiarise themselves with marketing, and that 'sex, does indeed sell ****' whether they like it or not.

osarusan

Fair play lufties, fair play.

308 posts so far (even if 45 of them are yours).

Femme_Fatale

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

To a degree i can kinda see some of the points the OP tried to make the thing was he did it in a way that the overpowering ones on here where able to shoot him down and make him look stupid.

That's it. The mean "overpowering" people, not the way in which the points were phrased.

How Soon Is Now

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

That's it. The mean "overpowering" people, not the way in which the points were phrased.

Which is why I mentioned before that the points that where made in first place weren't done in the correct way.

Femme_Fatale

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

Which is why I mentioned before that the points that where made in first place weren't done in the correct way.

And then you cancelled all that out with your sentence that I quoted.

People being able to argue back (that's what this forum is for) are not "overpowering".

lufties

MS.ing wrote: »

they need to familiarise themselves with marketing, and that 'sex, does indeed sell ****' whether they like it or not.

Yeah maybe, but what exactly do you mean?

How Soon Is Now

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

And then you cancelled all that out with your sentence that I quoted.

People being able to argue back (that's what this forum is for) are not "overpowering".

Some are better then others at defending there point. Some just love to get there point across. Some have a good point at heart but execute it awfully and get chopped down bit by bit......

lufties

iwantmydinner wrote: »

DONE.

What's Done? They were the exact words used on the blog, I'll PM you the link if you like?

Lou.m

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.

The male gender has not been emasculated it is simply trying to find a new identity. I don't doubt it is confusing. I think men are trying to find a way to express male sexuality. However I also think that is curtailed in Ireland by leave overs from conservatism.

Men are trying to learn how to be sexual whilst not dehumanizing the opposite gender. It is about seeing the female as a sexual subject and not a sex object. Sexuality is there for mutual enjoyment and consent.

Men ( some men then) do not know the difference between flirtatious and intimidating and do not know social cues well.

That is not to say some women are not sleazy. Some are and WAY overstep the mark and that is not right either.

I think you are mistaken in what feminism was.
I think men and women today forgot what we were coming from. They think the milder forms of sexism of the 70's were what feminism was coming from.


The role of feminism was to get women the right in law to vote the right in law to own property the right in law to open a bank account the right in law to inherit ( as in inheriting her parents property as opposed to some distant relative.) As regards property French married women suffered from restrictions on their legal capacity which were removed only in 1965! until the mid-19th century, writers largely assumed that a patriarchal order was a natural order that had always existed. This perception was not seriously challenged until the 18th century when Jesuit missionaries found matrilineality in native North American peoples. English law defined the role of the wife as a ‘feme covert’, emphasizing her subordination to her husband, and putting her under the ‘protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord’. Upon marriage, the husband and wife became one person under the law, as the property of the wife was surrendered to her husband, and her legal identity ceased to exist. Aware of their daughters’ unfortunate situation, fathers often provided them with dowries or worked into a prenuptial agreement pin money, the estate which the wife was to possess for her sole and separate use not subject to the control of her husband, to provide her with an income separate from his.

In contrast to wives, women who never married or who were widowed maintained control over their property and inheritance, owned land and controlled property disposal, since by law any unmarried adult female was considered to be a feme sole. Once married, the only way that women could reclaim property was through widowhood.

A woman was a bondservant of her husband literally. In Irish law even in 1957 Since 1957, a married woman in Ireland has still no real identity or existence in her own right. She is still regarded as the chattel of her husband. Her domicile is automatically her husband's - that is to say, if he happens to be in America, she is also legally speaking in America, no matter where she might 'actually' be. She must have permission from him for all kinds of things - pledging any credit or making almost any kind of private financial arrangements; putting the children on her passport; in certain cases, if she needs to have a gynaecological operation.!!!


There is a painting called 'the unequal marriage' by Vasili Pukirev in it a girl of a bout 13 or so marries a very old man. It is a reminder that in high society this type of marriage of a young girl who would be probably illiterate would marry a much older man and have no right to her own money, property or legal status. The Unequal Marriage (1862), is a painting depicting the wedding ceremony of an elderly, high-ranking official and a young, visibly unhappy girl. This was one of the celebrated denunciatory pictures of the 1860s, revealing the unequal position of women and the corruption of bureaucracy. THAT was what feminism was against.

I would be in the camp of feminist that would argue that in law for the most part equality has been achieved. I would state that in Ireland however the abortion issue is still unacceptable to me as it stands.

By the way women on the whole are NOT interested in a guy for money we want our own monies . Seriously it's easy to say someone does not like you for money because well it's the perfect excuse you will never know. Not unless you become rich. How do poor guys reproduce then if all women want money??

By the way it's safe to say you should not be shaping your interpersonal relationships on what society says you should be talking to the person you are trying to get to know and stating your needs and getting to know theirs.

Some couples are more traditional and some are not. Some women want to be homemakers and some don't.

By the way men have the right to be attracted to what they are attracted to but they don't have a right to be jerks about it.

Each to their own. I am a skinny blonde girl. I know 'curvier girls ' who get WAY more attention than me because that is what some guys are into.

It is only people with low self esteem themselves who try and make others feel bad about themselves for having bad skin or a lazy eye etc.

They have to so they can justify treating that person like crap. And if one of 'the beautiful people ' is falling over themselves for you even if you treat them like crap then they are in it for something else or are just plain crazy.

It's the goldiggers who kiss ass... genuine women require genuine effort.

It is the truth though that this society has been raised to think sex and love are on tap when they are in fact precious and love is rare. It used to be a person only expected to fall in love and hook up a few times in a life time. Now they expect much more. It is rare to make that kind of connection. And people do not cherish it when they find it.


I have to just say though eastern Europeans both men and women put in waay more effort into relationships. It might be just the case that Irish culture is not set up for romance in a more liberal less socially constructed world. Beyond that though when men go on about finding women in notoriously much more misogynistic cultures it does sort of sound like ' I am going to pick up a female slave in the land when men still rule'. I simply think, 'rather her than me.'

I can tell you being bisexual dating men or women is tough because relationships are tough and it has less to do with gender and more to do with your own personal failings and bitterness as a woman or as a man.

jaja321

Starting a sentence with..I'm all for gender equality but...is kinda like ..I'm not racist but...

lufties

jaja321 wrote: »

Starting a sentence with..I'm all for gender equality but...is kinda like ..I'm not racist but...

Alright so, you think my OP was contradictary is that it? When did it once indicate any hostility to women. I made valid points.

Bill Maher says some interesting words to say here, albeit being a bit comedy of course:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x64cy3Bcr98

newport2

I think one of the main problems with the perception of feminism is that so many people who define themselves as feminists mean different things by it and have different objectives, along with very different perceptions of how things currently stand in terms of equality.

Any movement that leaves it up to the individual members themselves to define what the movement itself means is going to meet a lot of opposition, primarily due to the extremists within it whose views are then extrapolated onto all members, particularly by people opposing it.

Most women and men just want to be treated equally, plain and simple.

lufties

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

Some are better then others at defending there point. Some just love to get there point across. Some have a good point at heart but execute it awfully and get chopped down bit by bit......

To be honest, I have found it hard to put into words my thoughts on the matter and maybe it seems a bit incoherent. thanks for trying to understand though.

robindch

Links234 wrote: »

Equality isn't a zero sum game [...]

An excellent way of putting it -- thanks.

Links234

robindch wrote: »

An excellent way of putting it -- thanks.

Thanks I'm always proud of my skills as a languager :pac:

hatrickpatrick

seenitall wrote: »

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.

That doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of women out there perfectly willing to take advantage of this biased law, WHILE screaming about equality in *other* areas of life. This is very clearly ridiculous.

hatrickpatrick

eviltwin wrote: »

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.

No, but it tars only men with that brush. Never women. That's the problem.

hatrickpatrick

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

But it's not just some fringe minority thing. The campaign against offensive Facebook pages was a massive international thing, for instance. You can't simply ignore it or sweep it aside - it is embedded in the current, 21st century meaning of the word "feminist" for better or worse.

As I said earlier, not all republicans support dissident violence, but a sizable enough portion do that I prefer to use the word "nationalist" to describe myself. When it comes to gender equality, I favour "egalitarian" - emphasizing that my beliefs are all about gender equality, but not all the extra stuff Feminism has absorbed in recent years.

How Soon Is Now

lufties wrote: »

To be honest, I have found it hard to put into words my feelings on the matter and maybe it seems a bit incoherent. thanks for trying to understand though.

This is why there are so many things I'd love to post about on here but don't.

I find it easier to express my self threw talking then typing.

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

Mod

Honest to jaysus how many times do we have to remind people that calling out a troll is against the charter, and tbh, lufties is right - if you think he's a troll you shouldn't be responding - also against the charter [see feeding the troll for further info].

It would be best for this discussion if we could all refrain from personalising the argument please.

Can we get a large picture of Sean Bean emblazoned in the AH header which says "One does not simply feed the trolls"?

lufties

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Can we get a large picture of Sean Bean emblazoned in the AH header which says "One does not simply feed the trolls"?

What do you mean by that Pat?

hatrickpatrick

lufties wrote: »

Look czarcasm, if you can't take or respect my point of view that's fine, but please lose the condescending attitude.

Oh dear... You must be new here
*fondles czarcasm affectionately*

hatrickpatrick

lufties wrote: »

What do you mean by that Pat?

Nothing, it's a Lord of the Rings joke

lufties

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Nothing, it's a Lord of the Rings joke

Oh right, haven't seen that.

The One Doctor

lufties wrote: »

What do you mean by that Pat?

I think it means that he is calling you out as as someone who is stirring things up for the sake of it. From reading your posts in this thread, your position is untenable and deliberately provocative and you knew it from the start.

hatrickpatrick

lufties wrote: »

Oh right, haven't seen that.

:eek::eek::eek:
I demand that you depart this land immediately and watch or read it. In fact, I call upon the mods to issue a temporary ban, which will be lifted as soon as you can score say 75% on a Lord of the Rings quiz

hatrickpatrick

The One Doctor wrote: »

I think it means that he is calling you out as as someone who is stirring things up for the sake of it. From reading your posts in this thread, your position is untenable and deliberately provocative and you knew it from the start.

Actually it wasn't, I'm not targeting anyone in particular I just love a good excuse to paraphrase Boromir

Bannasidhe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But it's not just some fringe minority thing. The campaign against offensive Facebook pages was a massive international thing, for instance. You can't simply ignore it or sweep it aside - it is embedded in the current, 21st century meaning of the word "feminist" for better or worse.

As I said earlier, not all republicans support dissident violence, but a sizable enough portion do that I prefer to use the word "nationalist" to describe myself. When it comes to gender equality, I favour "egalitarian" - emphasizing that my beliefs are all about gender equality, but not all the extra stuff Feminism has absorbed in recent years.

It is?

Perhaps you could send me a copy of the memo from Fem HQ?

I would posit that it is 'embedded' by people who have some conflicts of interest with feminism rather than the view of the majority of feminists as you claim it is.

hatrickpatrick

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It is?

Perhaps you could send me a copy of the memo from Fem HQ?

I would posit that it is 'embedded' by people who have some conflicts of interest with feminism rather than the view of the majority of feminists as you claim it is.

It's embedded in it from an outsider's perspective. For the people who get their information from the news, for instance - and you can't deny that a lot of people get their information from newspapers or news programs on TV or radio.

You can ignore this problem if you want, but it's only going to get worse IMO - as I said, I know women in my own circle of friends who specifically cite campaigns calling for "banning" and "censoring" of "offensive" stuff as a reason they're not fond of the label "feminism".

You can dismiss this if you want. But I find it highly offensive when people say "Not a feminist? Ah, so you don't believe in equality then." I do believe in equality, but I don't in any way believe in any of the other BS that's been going around recently.

What do you think of my republican analogy? If I told people I was a republican as opposed to a nationalist, I guarantee a lot of people would assume that means I support armed revolution - no matter how unfair that would be, that's the reality of perception.

Bannasidhe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of women out there perfectly willing to take advantage of this biased law, WHILE screaming about equality in *other* areas of life. This is very clearly ridiculous.

You mean the law that was enacted in 1964 long before the existence of Feminism?

I campaign for the rights of unmarried fathers. I think the law in question was ****e when it was enacted and ****e now but for the opposite reasons. At the time it allowed men a get out of being a daddy card and put all the responsibility on the mother. Did government do that for the benefit of women? Did the uck! They did that so it would be easier to stick the mother away in a laundry and take away her child. Were men kicking up a fuss about this? Some did - but the vast majority just got on with their lives free of any stigma or shame - that was reserved for the 'fallen' women.

Now, the same law is depriving men of legal rights and responsibilities regarding their children - a law written by men nearly 50 years ago - how the hell is that the fault of Feminism????

I know a huge amount of feminists who are actively campaigning against the inequalities of the Guardianship of Children Act 1964 because it is wrong. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

Now no doubt you will say 'prove it' - in that case - you made the claim women are taking 'advantage' - the onus is on you to prove that. Do keep in mind that family court judges have to abide by the LAW - and men wrote the law.

Links234

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's embedded in it from an outsider's perspective. For the people who get their information from the news, for instance - and you can't deny that a lot of people get their information from newspapers or news programs on TV or radio.

From my perspective, the biggest issue for feminists in Ireland is one of reproductive rights and healthcare, but maybe that's just me?

newport2

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Now, the same law is depriving men of legal rights and responsibilities regarding their children - a law written by men nearly 50 years ago - how the hell is that the fault of Feminism????

I know a huge amount of feminists who are actively campaigning against the inequalities of the Guardianship of Children Act 1964 because it is wrong. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

Now no doubt you will say 'prove it' - in that case - you made the claim women are taking 'advantage' - the onus is on you to prove that. Do keep in mind that family court judges have to abide by the LAW - and men wrote the law.

I agree mainly with what you say, but I don't see the point of repeatedly emphasising:

"men wrote the law"
"a law written by men nearly 50 years ago"

So what if men wrote it? Does that make it right? Is that the fault of men today?

That makes as much sense as telling a girl who gets bullied that it was girls who bullied her. Either an irrelevent point to make or meant to imply that somehow the blame is shared because someone of the same gender had a hand in it.

Bannasidhe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's embedded in it from an outsider's perspective. For the people who get their information from the news, for instance - and you can't deny that a lot of people get their information from newspapers or news programs on TV or radio.

You can ignore this problem if you want, but it's only going to get worse IMO - as I said, I know women in my own circle of friends who specifically cite campaigns calling for "banning" and "censoring" of "offensive" stuff as a reason they're not fond of the label "feminism".

You can dismiss this if you want. But I find it highly offensive when people say "Not a feminist? Ah, so you don't believe in equality then." I do believe in equality, but I don't in any way believe in any of the other BS that's been going around recently.

What do you think of my republican analogy? If I told people I was a republican as opposed to a nationalist, I guarantee a lot of people would assume that means I support armed revolution - no matter how unfair that would be, that's the reality of perception.

I am a middle aged women who came out in the late 1970s in Ireland - do you honestly think I give a flying monkey about how people who base their opinions on what they read in newpapers or see on the TV perceive things?

Should I accept something because it says so in a tabloid?

I don't think so.

I would consider 'nationalist' just as loaded a term as republican. Nationalism sparked a whole world war after all. Nationalist also tends to mean the same thing across the globe whereas 'republican' has different meanings in different countries. Now if you mean 'Irish Republican' than yes, that has para-military connotations but that is now being challenged by people who actually believe in the idea of a true Irish Republic in terms of governance regardless of how many counties it contains.

There was a time when the tricolour was seen as being tainted due to is use by paramilitaries. That did not make it 'their' flag - it meant an extreme group was being allowed to co-opt our flag. We took it back - ironically via an Englishman. Jack's Army proudly waved/wore/ate/drank the Tricolour and reclaimed it from the extremists.

Likewise the extremists do not own feminism except in the minds of those whose agenda it suits.

Links234

newport2 wrote: »

I agree mainly with what you say, but I don't see the point of repeatedly emphasising:

"men wrote the law"
"a law written by men nearly 50 years ago"

So what if men wrote it? Does that make it right? Is that the fault of men today?

That makes as much sense as telling a girl who gets bullied that it was girls who bullied her. Either an irrelevent point to make or meant to imply that somehow the blame is shared because someone of the same gender had a hand in it.

The point is that it's somehow paradoxically blamed on feminists, when that is anything but the case. It's a point that needs emphasising, because so many of the men folks tend to blame women folks for their unequal standing in family law, when it was other men folks who are to blame.

Bannasidhe

newport2 wrote: »

I agree mainly with what you say, but I don't see the point of repeatedly emphasising:

"men wrote the law"
"a law written by men nearly 50 years ago"

So what if men wrote it? Does that make it right? Is that the fault of men today?

That makes as much sense as telling a girl who gets bullied that it was girls who bullied her. Either an irrelevent point to make or meant to imply that somehow the blame is shared because someone of the same gender had a hand in it.

No it is not the fault of men today - where did I say it was???

My point was - feminists are being blamed for the current situation when they had absolutely nothing to do with the legislation that has these inequalities enshrined on our legal system.

Blame the politicians who have yet to change the law - it is up to them. But it suits some people's agenda to say 'ohhhh, bloody feminists won't let men have access to their children' - no - the LAW won't let them. Feminists did not write that law.

Got it yet?

Legs.Eleven

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You mean the law that was enacted in 1964 long before the existence of Feminism?

I campaign for the rights of unmarried fathers. I think the law in question was ****e when it was enacted and ****e now but for the opposite reasons. At the time it allowed men a get out of being a daddy card and put all the responsibility on the mother. Did government do that for the benefit of women? Did the uck! They did that so it would be easier to stick the mother away in a laundry and take away her child. Were men kicking up a fuss about this? Some did - but the vast majority just got on with their lives free of any stigma or shame - that was reserved for the 'fallen' women.

Now, the same law is depriving men of legal rights and responsibilities regarding their children - a law written by men nearly 50 years ago - how the hell is that the fault of Feminism????

I know a huge amount of feminists who are actively campaigning against the inequalities of the Guardianship of Children Act 1964 because it is wrong. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

Now no doubt you will say 'prove it' - in that case - you made the claim women are taking 'advantage' - the onus is on you to prove that. Do keep in mind that family court judges have to abide by the LAW - and men wrote the law.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you debate. Take note OP!

newport2

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No it is not the fault of men today - where did I say it was???

Where did I say you did? I asked if it was the fault of men today. That's a question, not a statement.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My point was - feminists are being blamed for the current situation when they had absolutely nothing to do with the legislation that has these inequalities enshrined on our legal system.

Fair enough.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Got it yet?

I've got it thankyou.

Bannasidhe

newport2 wrote: »

Where did I say you did? I asked if it was the fault of men today. That's a question, not a statement.



Fair enough.



I've got it thankyou.

Apologies for the strident tone.

I am weary of making this same point over and over again.

hatrickpatrick

Links234 wrote: »

From my perspective, the biggest issue for feminists in Ireland is one of reproductive rights and healthcare, but maybe that's just me?

I have no issue of course with either of those goals. Just as I have no issue with the republican goal of a United Ireland, but shun the label due to its association with violent uprising.

I don't think we're ever going to agree on this, to be honest. You don't seem to accept my argument that the barrage of headlines such as "Feminists campaign against X Facebook page" or "Feminists call for ban on X" or "Feminists condemn X for selling Y" make the movement look bad from a free speech perspective. That's ok, we must simply accept our disagreement I fear, because I don't think anything either of us says here will persuade the other to budge

Bannasidhe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I have no issue of course with either of those goals. Just as I have no issue with the republican goal of a United Ireland, but shun the label due to its association with violent uprising.

I don't think we're ever going to agree on this, to be honest. You don't seem to accept my argument that the barrage of headlines such as "Feminists campaign against X Facebook page" or "Feminists call for ban on X" or "Feminists condemn X for selling Y" make the movement look bad from a free speech perspective. That's ok, we must simply accept our disagreement I fear, because I don't think anything either of us says here will persuade the other to budge

Do all those headlines which say 'soccer fans riot' mean people perceive all soccer fans as hooligans or that there exists an extreme minority?

Newspaper headlines are designed to sell newspapers and in order to so so they will sensationalise/spin - they are certainly no basis for forming an opinion on anything.

Obliq

Emasculate: 1. (usually as adjective emasculated) deprive (a man) of his male role or identity
2. make (someone or something) weaker or less effective

According to the Oxford English.

Now, I'm having a big problem seeing what feminism has to do with either depriving any man of their male role or identity or making them weaker/less effective.

There is clearly a feeling among (edit: some men -sorry all!) men that their male role or identity is now less clear cut than when the male was seen as a standard issue breadwinner, in charge of all the power tools and the head of the household, but I can't see how the balancing of these factors in modern relationships is making men any less, well...masculine.

In my relationship, I consider my man to be the MOST manly man around, BECAUSE he has no difficulty with a kick ass feminist like myself. He cheerfully wrings his hands when the plumbing breaks or a shelf needs to be accurately and neatly screwed to a wall, as he is more of a hit-it-with-a-hammer-till-it-works and a if-it-isn't-sawed-up-with-a-chainsaw-forget-it kind of guy. He also doesn't mind me buying him presents, if they're useful.

I'm describing this only because emasculation is a total non-issue for him, or for my two sons who are growing up with the example of men being attracted to opinionated strong women - as did I.

I'd really like to hear from some men about what "emasculation" actually means to them, leaving aside feminism for the red-herring it is in relation to a man's role or identity.

robindch

Links234 wrote: »

Equality isn't a zero sum game [...]

Along with trust, this seems to be one of the main differences between liberal types and conservative types -- conservatives seeming to have an emotional belief that most or all of life's transactions are zero-sum. Liberal types, on the other hand, tend to believe and operate as if transactions don't have to be zero-sum. I've mentioned this to a few zero-summers, but none of them seem to understand the concept, or at least pretend not to understand it.

One of the odder expressions of this zero-sum attitude was a comment by one highly conservative woman who mentioned to me one time that she was very concerned in the run up to the birth of her second child -- how on earth could she divide the enormous love she felt for her first child, with the second? That comment is incomprehensible, unless one believes that "love" is something doled out by nature in zero-sum quantities.