Male Feminists

silverharp

Sargon put out a video the other day where he tried to categorise male feminists, I didnt know any work had been done in this area :pac:

so basically he split them into firstly, males who arent up to the traditional male role. the next group are "so sorry" for being possibly sexist in the past or in the future but are completely harmless. The next group are men that have been guilty of thought crime and the last group might actually have committed a crime against a woman in the past. He goes on to discuss whether a man can even be a feminist from a female feminist perspective...but try listen to it , its only a outline

It looks like a can of worms... Ive no problem supporting particular women activists but the idea of describing oneself as a feminist does seem odd. for the record I'd have no issue with equity feminists but I do think the third wave type are simply wrong because they reject biology but anyway keep the topic to male feminists so it doesnt go all over the place.

So can male feminists be categorised? and ultimately do female feminists even accept them apart from being useful?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by0spgMrbl0

Wibbs

Well speaking for myself, I would have had no problem saying I was a feminist back in the day and did, 80's 90's sort of era. I just accepted as a given that equal rights were… well, a given(even though I'd be more on the right/old fashioned of the political spectrum). For me that started to change in the noughties. Now I still see equality as a given, but the goalposts started to change. I started to smell bullshít and I since I can produce so much of it, I am well able to smell it in others.

For me growing up feminism was about women being just as strong as men, just as capable, just as adult and that the old patriarchal ideas were denying them that. And by god they were. However more and more this whateverdafuq wave of US leftist "feminism" was stating the very opposite of that. That women were weaker and needed protection. No longer from men(who were the baddies), but from "authority". It just didn't and doesn't square with the women I have in my life and have known throughout it. I have been surrounded by grown arsed women that weren't, nor wouldn't be subject to "triggers" or "microagressions" and the like.

As for male feminists today? I really don't think they can be categorised as the usual US "manosphere" clickbait websites suggest. Yes you have the "delicate" young guy in college backing up the call for a matriarchy of "equals" hoping to get laid, but IMH and IME the vast majority of men who would say they were feminists are like I was back in the day and haven't really delved into the wackier nonsense out there, nor would buy into it if they did. Just like most women who identify as feminists.

TL;DR? See below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJRF8xGzvj4

speedboatchase

I don't think most men could look at the actual definition of feminism and have any problems with it. But of course feminism comes in waves and there are elements of the current third wave that invoke positive discrimination, which I can't abide in any form.

Second wave feminism: equal opportunities
Third wave feminism: equal outcomes

^^ that's a fairly broad generalisation, but that's where I see one of the biggest shifts in recent times. Having said that, it's easy to get lost in Tumblr or Twitter outrage and believe that all women are favour of extreme 'progressives' when it's simply not the case. The more you speak to people in real life on these subjects rather than engage with blue-haired Tumblr users, the saner you're feel.

So in general, I definitely consider myself a feminist. But there are probably many third wave feminists who feel I'm not feminist enough and need to catch up.

Sleepy

Even though I would have done the same when I was a teenager in the 90's, being honest, I cringe when I hear a man call himself a feminist these days.

Rather than hearing "I'm in favour of equal rights" I hear "my wife / girlfriend / object of my affection carries my balls around in her handbag and am too stupid to realise I'm part of a movement that seeks to subjugate me".

professore

I think the whole idea of 3rd wave feminism (or any "ism" that fights for special privileges for themselves and demonises everyone else) is a bit nuts. Problem is that some men seem to be falling for it.

This kind of stuff:
http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/what-open-marriage-taught-one-man-about-feminism.html

This guy is in an abusive relationship and doesn't see it.

ancapailldorcha

speedboatchase wrote: »

I don't think most men could look at the actual definition of feminism and have any problems with it. But of course feminism comes in waves and there are elements of the current third wave that invoke positive discrimination, which I can't abide in any form.

Nail on the head. Take Catholicism. The "ism" for the most part is fine in that it prohibits murder, theft, etc while emphasising how important it is to care for our fellow humans, ie "Do unto others...". Sadly, that's not how ideologies tend to pan out in the real world. Ideologically, I'd be the same as yourself. I recently found out that feminine hygiene products are taxed as luxury goods in the UK. Ridiculous. However, now we have the internet giving every idiot in the land a platform and now I get to read in one of the UK's most popular news outlets that not only should they be free, men would be bragging about their time of the month were the genders reversed. Thanks but no thanks.

silverharp

Another one of Sargon's video from a while back but he made a brilliant observation, its a feminist conference in Australia and the speaker is Laurie Penny, if you go to about the 34.10 min mark , on a topic that was supposed to be about men, she goes on to say that she was mainly talking about women and that the men should get used to it and then the camera pans to the audience, the reaction of the women and men in the audience is a hoot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2K8eXjcEzU

Sleepy

I'm not so sure I agree there professore. Yes, he's in a very non-traditional male role of the stay-at-home, financially dependent on the breadwinner parent whose partner isn't faithful to them (sounds something like the role of a 50's American housewife).

I disagree that this makes him a "feminist" but unless he's behaving this fashion purely out of a fear of his wife leaving him / her having manipulated him somehow, I fail to see any abuse. It's an open marriage where he has as much freedom as her to sleep with others, I'm guessing that if he's writing professionally in the NY Times he's not as financially dependent on her as he claims in the article...

Actually, I just googled his name to see if that guess was right. Seems there's a lot of questioning as to whether Michael Sonmore exists at all, he's no other writing credits, no LinkedIn so presumably a pseudonym. Many actually asking if "he" is in fact a woman engaging in a spot of fantasy or "agenda pushing".

Taken at face value though, while it wouldn't be a relationship I'd be interested in being involved in, there's nothing inherently wrong with it as long as both parties are happy imo.

professore

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm not so sure I agree there professore. Yes, he's in a very non-traditional male role of the stay-at-home, financially dependent on the breadwinner parent whose partner isn't faithful to them (sounds something like the role of a 50's American housewife).

I disagree that this makes him a "feminist" but unless he's behaving this fashion purely out of a fear of his wife leaving him / her having manipulated him somehow, I fail to see any abuse. It's an open marriage where he has as much freedom as her to sleep with others, I'm guessing that if he's writing professionally in the NY Times he's not as financially dependent on her as he claims in the article...

Actually, I just googled his name to see if that guess was right. Seems there's a lot of questioning as to whether Michael Sonmore exists at all, he's no other writing credits, no LinkedIn so presumably a pseudonym. Many actually asking if "he" is in fact a woman engaging in a spot of fantasy or "agenda pushing".

Taken at face value though, while it wouldn't be a relationship I'd be interested in being involved in, there's nothing inherently wrong with it as long as both parties are happy imo.

You could be right about the agenda pushing. Don't get me wrong, if people want an open marriage, more power to them, but it should be "I think we should think about an open marriage" and the other partner says "Sounds like a fun idea". I only see it working where both are on an equal footing. Not where one is submissive to the other as in this case.

He never once said he wanted it - she manipulated him into it, something he clearly doesn't want: "It took me about six months — many long, intense conversations, and an ocean of red wine — before I knew it, too.

When my wife told me she wanted to open our marriage and take other lovers, she wasn’t rejecting me, she was embracing herself."

Everything he says is framed in her terms. His opinion doesn't matter.

It does work both ways and, yes, I too enjoy sexual carte blanche. I just don’t use mine as much as my wife uses hers. What’s important is equality of opportunity, not outcome.

Translation : He doesn't use his at all.

"There are of course moments of jealousy, resentment, and insecurity. "
FINALLY ... his real thoughts come out.

And this:

"My open marriage has made heavy demands on my ability to silence the voice of doubt in my head, that gnawing feeling of worthlessness."

The poor guy is clinically depressed about the whole thing but can't admit it even to himself.

jobbridge4life

I have always considered myself a feminist and my balls are very much attached and my own. Feminism for me meant men and women are equal and both should be free to do whatever they want within the confines of the law. Nowadays however there is a certain radical branch of feminism that I find deeply frustrating, everything is an assault, everything is harassment, men are rapists, to even question the veracity of a rape or sexual abuse claim is tantamount to repeating the alledged offence, I don't want to hear your opinion if you are a white male etc. All that claptrap is painful and self-defeating.

So now I guess if I had to label myself I'd want a new word.

Lemming

Sleepy wrote: »

Taken at face value though, while it wouldn't be a relationship I'd be interested in being involved in, there's nothing inherently wrong with it as long as both parties are happy imo.

It would seem very much that the author's wife (assuming either of them are in fact real ... ) is the dominating sort who gets off on cuckolding her husband. From a BDSM perspective, 'cuckolding' would seem - anecdotally - to be reasonably popular as a fetish. By that I mean in so much as it wouldn't be a particularly niche fetish to ever hear about although perhaps not common either.

Now herein lies the rub; he has been forced into it judging by his own words as succinctly highlighted by professore. And in the world of BDSM, the notion of SSC (Safe-Sane-Consensual) is paramount. Without that, you are dealing with a shark who thinks that they can hide their abusive tendencies under a veneer of fetish. The "wife" is a classic text book definition of such behaviour and the author is very much in an abusive relationship, doubly so when you look at it through the prism of SSC.

Sleepy

I definitely missed the nuance in that article. On reading your comments and re-reading it, I can see I was wrong.

Great video by the way silverharp.

J Mysterio

professore wrote: »

I think the whole idea of 3rd wave feminism (or any "ism" that fights for special privileges for themselves and demonises everyone else) is a bit nuts. Problem is that some men seem to be falling for it.

This kind of stuff:
http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/what-open-marriage-taught-one-man-about-feminism.html

This guy is in an abusive relationship and doesn't see it.

hahaha. Thay guy is the biggest dick I have ever come across. :pac:

ancapailldorcha

J Mysterio wrote: »

hahaha. Thay guy is the biggest dick I have ever come across. :pac:

Please try to post in a more constructive manner.

Mr.H

speedboatchase wrote: »

I don't think most men could look at the actual definition of feminism and have any problems with it. But of course feminism comes in waves and there are elements of the current third wave that invoke positive discrimination, which I can't abide in any form.

.

The dangerous truth is that you are so off base with this. People have re-invented the "definition" of Feminism

Actual definition:

Feminist - a word that can be broken in to two sections; Feminine and Ism.

Feminine: having qualities or an appearance traditionally associated with women, especially delicacy and prettiness.

Ism - a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement.

Therefore Feminism is not about equality of the sexes it is about the liberation of women full stop.

The issue is that women are liberated. At least in western society. Women have every opportunity that men have. In places like India there are social issues not sexist issues.

Feminism drives the sexes further apart

Potatoeman

Mr.H wrote: »

The dangerous truth is that you are so off base with this. People have re-invented the "definition" of Feminism

Actual definition:

Feminist - a word that can be broken in to two sections; Feminine and Ism.

Feminine: having qualities or an appearance traditionally associated with women, especially delicacy and prettiness.

Ism - a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement.

Therefore Feminism is not about equality of the sexes it is about the liberation of women full stop.

The issue is that women are liberated. At least in western society. Women have every opportunity that men have. In places like India there are social issues not sexist issues.

Feminism drives the sexes further apart

The definition is: "the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men."

It's only about women's rights and not about equality. This is why feminist organisations will fight policies that are about equality in area's where men are disadvantaged. It's why they are fighting for polices to get more women into male dominated fields in colleges when many UK and USA third level institutions are approaching levels of 60% female students.

Sleepy

There's as many definitions of Feminism as there are Feminists ime.

silverharp

In the past there was no reason to be against feminism , at the time most resistance would have been by religious conservatives so supporting feminism was a twofer. As a dad today now I see it as toxic for the next generation of boys. Admitidly Ireland tends to escape the worst excesses but there is still a general air that boys and men are problematic to use the lingo so I will at least be pointing out to my son this little corner of the culture wars for his own benefit.

LostinBlanch

Eighteen replies and no one has mentioned Victor Svyatski, the founder of Femen.

When asked

whether he started Femen “to get girls”, he replies: “Perhaps yes, somewhere in my deep subconscious.”

the evasion_kid

Up until a few years ago I had no problem with feminism,then 3rd wave feminism came along,looking at it over the last few years its downright toxic to society and looks like some kind of mental disorder,if anything I think it's driving a wedge between men and women and Id be suspicious of another man reasons if he claimed himself a feminist ie:is he playing the white knight just to try get laid.I don't like the Chinese menu approach it takes to equality either... "I'll take some of A,B,E&F,G but you can keep the bad stuff....don't want any of that!".I think eventually it will implode on itself,not to mention the bastard child of 3rd wave feminism " the red pill" running amok and giving guff back to mammy.

LostinBlanch

silverharp wrote: »

In the past there was no reason to be against feminism , at the time most resistance would have been by religious conservatives so supporting feminism was a twofer. As a dad today now I see it as toxic for the next generation of boys. Admitidly Ireland tends to escape the worst excesses but there is still a general air that boys and men are problematic to use the lingo so I will at least be pointing out to my son this little corner of the culture wars for his own benefit.

Unfortunately, more parents like you will have to be vigilant and start to push back against this view that seeks to define masculinity as a pathology before it becomes ingrained in society.

Anyone who is rational would seek a truly egalitarian society where there is no need for anyone to identify as feminists or MRAs.

newport2

the evasion_kid wrote: »

Up until a few years ago I had no problem with feminism,then 3rd wave feminism came along,looking at it over the last few years its downright toxic to society and looks like some kind of mental disorder,if anything I think it's driving a wedge between men and women and Id be suspicious of another man reasons if he claimed himself a feminist ie:is he playing the white knight just to try get laid.I don't like the Chinese menu approach it takes to equality either... "I'll take some of A,B,E&F,G but you can keep the bad stuff....don't want any of that!".I think eventually it will implode on itself,not to mention the bastard child of 3rd wave feminism " the red pill" running amok and giving guff back to mammy.

Interesting article in New York Post along the line of a few of the points you are making there

http://nypost.com/2015/10/26/theres-a-feminist-civil-war-brewing-over-caitlyn-jenner/

orubiru

newport2 wrote: »

Interesting article in New York Post along the line of a few of the points you are making there

http://nypost.com/2015/10/26/theres-a-feminist-civil-war-brewing-over-caitlyn-jenner/

It's inevitable, really.

Personally, I think that Caitlyn Jenner's message is a good one (I don't know if her personality is all that great). She is out there raising awareness and maybe even encouraging tolerance in areas where there was none. As a man in my 30s there was basically zero awareness of trans people and basically zero understanding of what it means to be "trans" until I was in my early 20s. I think it would be the same for a lot of us. If the next generation grows up with more understanding and awareness then that can only be a good thing.

If the next generation grows up with the fear that saying the wrong thing in the wrong way could have serious consequences? Well, that's not so good.

So we need to find a way to encourage progressive ideas without just going out and enforcing them.

Unfortunately for Feminists like Germaine Greer they have built a lot of their "Feminist Theory" around deliberately provocative and divisive language whilst also encouraging new Feminists to take "offense" at some very innocuous things.

So when the older generation of feminist says something provocative like "The Woman of the Year has a penis" or implies that it's a kind of misogyny to say that a man who works hard to become a woman is more valued than a woman who was born a woman the younger generation reacts with the outrage that they have been conditioned to express.

For an "outsider" like myself it's a bit of a problem. I agree with the basic idea that men and women should be treated fairly and equally in society. However, I am still going to want to watch movies with male protagonists and I'm still going to enjoy images of hot women on TV or whatever. So, while my beliefs may at times align with feminism, I can never be "a real feminist".

Another reason I will not classify myself as a "male feminist" is because there are too many vocal male feminists out there who will start off with statements that are perfectly reasonable and then try to slip some crazy nonsense in under you radar.

PZ Myers did a lecture with his Atheism+ rubbish that started with the basic premise that "Feminism is the radical idea that women are human beings". Now who could disagree with that? Then they try to force lectures on Evolutionary Psychology from a drastically under-qualified Rebecca Watson on to you and hit the roof when you disagree. They know you'll agree when they assert that "women are humans" but then they try to use that to force you to agree that the Atheist movement is some kind of home to "White Male Supremacy".

Yes, I think that our society needs to have serious discussions about rape and sexual assault and (to a lesser degree) catcalling. Yes, I think that we need to raise strong and empowered women who can eventually help balance out some of the gender imbalances we see in society. No, I will not go and see the all new, all female, Ghostbusters movie because I would rather see the original guys in their original roles and I have no interest in seeing women playing those roles.

When you say "I'm a Feminist" then you are automatically associating yourself with the most visible aspects of that movement. People don't have time to listen to you trundle out a snappily worded definition and then twist it into an objective truth before proudly telling them that "you're a feminist too, see?" They just assume that you like a bit of a whine and that you could pounce on something they say at any moment.

It's basically just a religion and I honestly feel that it's better to just steer clear. You can volunteer and do things that help woman and make society better for women but you can do that without aligning yourself with these hypocritical, delusional and oftentimes hysterical, ideologues.

Lemming

orubiru wrote: »

Personally, I think that Caitlyn Jenner's message is a good one (I don't know if her personality is all that great). She is out there raising awareness and maybe even encouraging tolerance in areas where there was none. As a man in my 30s there was basically zero awareness of trans people and basically zero understanding of what it means to be "trans" until I was in my early 20s. I think it would be the same for a lot of us. If the next generation grows up with more understanding and awareness then that can only be a good thing.

When you consider the statistical probabilities of murder & violence that transgender folk are likely to face (I've heard US figures of a transgender woman being 17 times more likely to meet a violent death than a man) I find Greer's bile all the more appalling to stomach. She knows those statistics and yet she still keeps spouting such horrible intolerance to what is arguably one of societies most vulnerable groups of people.

Spiteful, hateful and pathetic excuse for a living organism. I hesitate to call Greer human.

orubiru

Lemming wrote: »

When you consider the statistical probabilities of murder & violence that transgender folk are likely to face (I've heard US figures of a transgender woman being 17 times more likely to meet a violent death than a man) I find Greer's bile all the more appalling to stomach. She knows those statistics and yet she still keeps spouting such horrible intolerance to what is arguably one of societies most vulnerable groups of people.

Spiteful, hateful and pathetic excuse for a living organism. I hesitate to call Greer human.

Yes, dehumanizing the opposition is one of the oldest tactics around.

It's a rather interesting counterbalance to your "concern" about one of societies most vulnerable groups of people, don't you think?

If Greer says she believes that trans women are not "real" women but she will use someones preferred pronouns out of politeness then we are obviously not obligated to agree with this. She's just a person with an opinion. Your reaction to that opinion is a bit, dare I say it, hysterical.

You are trying to make a leap from an individuals ignorance (and potential intolerance) straight on over to society wide assault and violent death. It can't be done.

On one hand you stand up for an oppressed group, expressing concern that they are being murdered at an alarming rate. On the other hand you describe another human being as "spiteful, hateful and pathetic excuse for a living organism" and say "I hesitate to call Greer human".

That is a serious amount of cognitive dissonance right there.

Mr.H

A few interesting things being raised here but a lot of "myths" also.

All the good Acting roles go to males
This is a myth.

On tv and in movies men and women are depicted a certain way. This is all marketing 101.

When we watch tv or movies we want to live vicariously and be entertained. That is the essence of the tv and movie industry. Whether a guy wants to be James bond or a girl wants to be Zena warrior princess or Lara Croft it is purely a fantasy that we have. Hence why movies and tv shows try to connect us with a character. Now there is no point in me giving the theory (imo) on the logistics of this.

My point is simple. Women are depiced as attractive smart and strong (sometimes mentally but also often sexually). Men are shown as strong leaders and heroes. BUT men are also shown as clumsy idiots and are often overweight and ugly.

Women who are beautiful get the best roles because the entertainment industry would be scared to depict women as fat ugly and stupid. This is why we very very rarely see people like Rossanne and Mellisa McCarthy. For a "non attractive" woman (and I am not saying those women are not "non attractive" by the way) to be hired for entertainment purposes they have to be very very funny. Its the only way the entertainment industry will take that gamble.

Guys on the others hand...................... Have you watched any disney tv these days??? young males are shown as twits. Sometimes attractive but often ugly. The funny aspect usually comes at their expense. If Disney tried to do this to a young girl there would be outrage...............

This is only one aspect.

Another aspect is... Have you seen the new set of Bind movies?? Ill go back to Casino Royal so not to spoil anyone on the new movie. Bind was sat on a "no seated" chair. He was naked. A heavy ball was swung by a man from behind the chair hitting Bond in the man parts with this heavy ball. Could you imagine that was done to Lara in the Thombraider????? Outroar would be the least of the problems. Hollywood cant do that to a woman and get away with it.

There are reasons for certain characters HAVING to be men rather than women.

So point summed up: Guys often do get lead roles in movies but the entertainment process is more complicated than "he is a guy so hire him".


My problem with feminism summed up
What exactly is the end goal this time around???

60's wave of feminism was burning the bras. It was an act set out to say that women are not just mothers but they want to be able to work. Which I agree should be their choice. They won that war.

80's was about sexual freedom and awakening.

But now???? What is the message?
The right to vote?
The right to education?
The right to the same job opportunities as men?

I dont understand and every time I try to ask I am get babbling about how the suffragettes were persecuted................. These new feminists dont seem to actually understand why they are fighting??

My understanding is that every single "celeb" that talks about feminism is doing it for personal gain.

Be it for politics reasons, trying to get better movie roles or pure financial gain, they are manipulating masses of impressionable women for selfish reasons.

Mr.H

Lemming wrote: »

When you consider the statistical probabilities of murder & violence that transgender folk are likely to face (I've heard US figures of a transgender woman being 17 times more likely to meet a violent death than a man) I find Greer's bile all the more appalling to stomach. She knows those statistics and yet she still keeps spouting such horrible intolerance to what is arguably one of societies most vulnerable groups of people.

Spiteful, hateful and pathetic excuse for a living organism. I hesitate to call Greer human.

To be fair mate I get your annoyance and anger and to a I identify with it to a degree. I hate some of the crap that comes out of her mouth as well but no point in lowering ourselves to her standard.

As for the transgender I have different views on that myself.

The alarming stats need to be fixed but I do think the issue itself needs to be addressed.

In this PC world we allow too much at times. I get that idea of a man who is trapped in a woman's body and all that. But it is no coincidence that a very high percentage of transgender people have had significant events in their lives that have led to the decisions of changing gender.

I am not trying to be disrespectful and I would never treat a transgender person different. BUT I do believe it is a disorder and not a real thing. It is a mental issue that needs to be found the route cause as changing ones gender isnt going to fix the route cause.

If I am a black man stuck in a white mans body I CAN have an operation to change that (I think:D) but it will not make me a black man.

I am born with a penis therefore I am a man. having surgery will not allow me to give birth to a child.

Pat Mustard

professore wrote: »

This kind of stuff:
http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/what-open-marriage-taught-one-man-about-feminism.html

I haven't had a chance to read this entire thread in detail but I've read that article and it doesn't ring true for me.

First, he writes an entire article about his supposedly open marriage but while he mentions that his wife has been with various men, we don't hear about him scoring, once.

Secondly, although he mentions his own 'jealousy, resentment and insecurity', he mentions nothing about competition. If feeling secure and complacent kills that competitive spirit then feeling insecure feeds it and drives it forward. If I was in an open marriage and my wife was bragging about Paulo and Ryan the graphic designer, I'd regard that as a direct challenge and there's no way that I'd be lolling around the house like this joker.

And 'oceans of red wine'? Who talks like that, seriously!?

The story just seems like a piece of discarded script from Desperate Housewives. I don't believe a word of it.

newport2

orubiru wrote: »

If Greer says she believes that trans women are not "real" women but she will use someones preferred pronouns out of politeness then we are obviously not obligated to agree with this. She's just a person with an opinion.

I don't agree with her views on this, but I suspect far more people hold this view than the few who will admit it.

ancapailldorcha

It's interesting to see a third wave feminist have a go at someone who isn't a cis-gender white male though.

jimgoose

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I haven't had a chance to read this entire thread in detail but I've read that article and it doesn't ring true for me...

Well, if it is true then that's the disease, and that "man", whoever he is, is the carrier.

silverharp

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's interesting to see a third wave feminist have a go at someone who isn't a cis-gender white male though.

Is Greer not more like a second wave feminist? There was a conference where she was sat beside Anita sarky and I'd swear Greer was thinking to herself wtf have I started....

ancapailldorcha

silverharp wrote: »

Is Greer not more like a second wave feminist? There was a conference where she was sat beside Anita sarky and I'd swear Greer was thinking to herself wtf have I started....

Possibly. I only read the Guardian to get a sniff of this guff before heading to do their crosswords.

H3llR4iser

Back to the original topic of male feminists, it's an interesting and wide subject.

I have had a few women, one ex-girlfriend and one friend in particular, jokingly "accusing" me of being "too much of a feminist". But the reality is very, very complex for me.

On a general level, I am firmly convinced that there are no differences in terms of skills and capabilities. I tend to work well with women, I currently am in a team with a few that are outstanding professionals, some of the best I ever met, period. It is my full belief that most women could accomplish whatever they wanted as long as they put enough effort into it. Say "a woman can't..." in my presence, and I wouldn't be happy - nor silent.

I also have an enormous gripe against the lifestyle judgement; The whole concept of "slut shaming" is something that positively makes my blood boil.

If a guy goes out four nights and comes home with a different girl each night, he'd be hailed as a hero - songs will be sang in his name, bottles emptied and so on.

If it's a woman, the heavens will tear apart - and more often than not, it's actually men doing the shaming with the old and unbelievably stupid "lock and key" analogy. I don't see why women shouldn't be able to do whatever they want - and sleep with whomever they want compatibly with relationship status - without anybody being a complete arsehole about it.

However I am also very critical of the current form of mainstream feminism, which is as wrong as it gets. It isn't anymore about "equality" but about favoritism. If a woman gets picked ahead of a men for a job, it's her merit for being strong and capable; If she is turned down, it's sexism. If a movie has a male action lead who gets beaten, shot at and tortured, it's all fine - he depicts a trained professional in a dangerous job. If it's a woman in the same role, she can't be touched - it'd be sexist!

Modern feminism essentially depicts women as weak and incapable to deal with failure and the consequences of their choices, in constant need of a watchdog to right wrongs for them. In this regards, any man who aligns himself with these clowns is, in my frank view, an idiot - but I reserve it to the women too, I do believe in complete equality afterall .

Last, I have to say that unfortunately women are sometimes their own worst enemy. As an example, you will most likely hear the "it's not a job/task for a woman" from another woman. I volounteer for CoderDojo, and in three years we hardly ever saw a girl attending. We tried real hard to involve them - from having female tutors to actually going to the schools and organizing meeting with the parents. Believe it or not, it's mostly the mothers who go "but see, isn't it something more for boys, with computers and programming?".

I guess that, in these mothers minds, all the excellent ladies I work with in IT are not really women, and the same for the millions others in jobs that are really "not for a woman".

J Mysterio

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's interesting to see a third wave feminist have a go at someone who isn't a cis-gender white male though.

Just to get this straight, 'CIS' is the term for 'not trans', 'not gay', 'not anything else'?

What?

ancapailldorcha

J Mysterio wrote: »

Just to get this straight, 'CIS' is the term for 'not trans', 'not gay', 'not anything else'?

What?

I left out heterosexual though. I only use it to highlight that these people specifically target this demographic.

J Mysterio

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I left out heterosexual though. I only use it to highlight that these people specifically target this demographic.

I still just don't understand. It's like:

1. 'Im a man but I want to be a woman'.
2. 'I am transgender'.
3. 'If I have a lable to describe my gender identity, others should too'.
4. 'Men who identify as male/ women who identify as female should be labelled'.
5. 'They shall be CIS'.

silverharp

H3llR4iser wrote: »

I also have an enormous gripe against the lifestyle judgement; The whole concept of "slut shaming" is something that positively makes my blood boil.

If a guy goes out four nights and comes home with a different girl each night, he'd be hailed as a hero - songs will be sang in his name, bottles emptied and so on.

If it's a woman, the heavens will tear apart - and more often than not, it's actually men doing the shaming with the old and unbelievably stupid "lock and key" analogy. I don't see why women shouldn't be able to do whatever they want - and sleep with whomever they want compatibly with relationship status - without anybody being a complete arsehole about it.

This caught my eye as I've heard the opposite argument that its women that give other women a hard time for going outside of group norms? its not a term I have actually heard discussed in real life to be honest. To take an extreme example though a "Samantha" sex in the city type would be a red flag as far as marriage material goes. If the US and UK is anything to go by there is now a shortage of quality men because "feminism" has been so successful. Otherwise though there is no "moral" issue or whatever

As for the rest fully agree. Feminism is a subset of the wider obsession of identity politics , so the can do gal seems to have been turned into the snowflake who is only one critical comment away from crawling into the foetal position. Im banking that the whole movement will have collapsed before my kids have to encounter it.

ancapailldorcha

J Mysterio wrote: »

I still just don't understand. It's like:

1. 'Im a man but I want to be a woman'.
2. 'I am transgender'.
3. 'If I have a lable to describe my gender identity, others should too'.
4. 'Men who identify as male/ women who identify as female should be labelled'.
5. 'They shall be CIS'.

Because referring to most of the populace as "cis gender" means equality in their eyes though it ignores the fact that only a small minority are transgender.

H3llR4iser

silverharp wrote: »

This caught my eye as I've heard the opposite argument that its women that give other women a hard time for going outside of group norms? its not a term I have actually heard discussed in real life to be honest. To take an extreme example though a "Samantha" sex in the city type would be a red flag as far as marriage material goes. If the US and UK is anything to go by there is now a shortage of quality men because "feminism" has been so successful. Otherwise though there is no "moral" issue or whatever

As for the rest fully agree. Feminism is a subset of the wider obsession of identity politics , so the can do gal seems to have been turned into the snowflake who is only one critical comment away from crawling into the foetal position. Im banking that the whole movement will have collapsed before my kids have to encounter it.

You make an interesting point - on the surface, it normally looks like that. Women criticize other women for being "sluts" (sometimes out of social norms pressure, sometimes out of envy - sort of how we see somebody driving a Lambo and go "what a prick", without even knowing the guy), while all men dream about meeting the "slut".

In reality most of the guys/men I've known, on the face will pretend to lust after the "pornstar" type when in reality are either scared of a sexually independent woman or just set into neo-medieval ways, where the lady who quite clearly does what she wants is, as you put it, "not marriage material" or somewhat tainted. Essentially they say they want Sasha Grey, but look for the hopeless housewife from a '50s commercial. Think about the classic argument about "how many partners before me" - we even had some threads here with guys discovering their new girlfriend had considerably more than themselves and started doubting about her "suitability" and even morals...

the evasion_kid

H3llR4iser wrote: »

You make an interesting point - on the surface, it normally looks like that. Women criticize other women for being "sluts" (sometimes out of social norms pressure, sometimes out of envy - sort of how we see somebody driving a Lambo and go "what a prick", without even knowing the guy), while all men dream about meeting the "slut".

In reality most of the guys/men I've known, on the face will pretend to lust after the "pornstar" type when in reality are either scared of a sexually independent woman or just set into neo-medieval ways, where the lady who quite clearly does what she wants is, as you put it, "not marriage material" or somewhat tainted. Essentially they say they want Sasha Grey, but look for the hopeless housewife from a '50s commercial. Think about the classic argument about "how many partners before me" - we even had some threads here with guys discovering their new girlfriend had considerably more than themselves and started doubting about her "suitability" and even morals...

Women also criticize other women for being "sluts" because they lower the value of sex,something they've used since the beginning of time to manipulate men or use as a bargaining chip, also these women could be out there tempting their bf's or husbands.

In the case of men its evolutionary,most men want to be certain the offspring they are raising are theirs.

silverharp

H3llR4iser wrote: »

You make an interesting point - on the surface, it normally looks like that. Women criticize other women for being "sluts" (sometimes out of social norms pressure, sometimes out of envy - sort of how we see somebody driving a Lambo and go "what a prick", without even knowing the guy), while all men dream about meeting the "slut".

In reality most of the guys/men I've known, on the face will pretend to lust after the "pornstar" type when in reality are either scared of a sexually independent woman or just set into neo-medieval ways, where the lady who quite clearly does what she wants is, as you put it, "not marriage material" or somewhat tainted. Essentially they say they want Sasha Grey, but look for the hopeless housewife from a '50s commercial. Think about the classic argument about "how many partners before me" - we even had some threads here with guys discovering their new girlfriend had considerably more than themselves and started doubting about her "suitability" and even morals...

there are no absolutes but from the male perspective tall stories aside , the majority of guys arent out there banging away every weekend , clearly some guys are and some girls however the men that arent should be wary of meeting such a girl with marriage in mind , because for the previous 7 or 8 years she'd have had no interest in such a guy but now suddenly finds such a guy worth going after as a provider, it sounds like a recipe for future relationship problems. Also for the guy who hasnt slept around much why take the risk with a girl who might have fertility issues when it comes to having kids because of Chlamydia for example. So what I'm saying might sound a bit victorian but there are practicalities on the other hand most people fall in the middle somewhere so I wouldnt have thought it hugely important for most

Carlos Orange

Lemming wrote: »

When you consider the statistical probabilities of murder & violence that transgender folk are likely to face (I've heard US figures of a transgender woman being 17 times more likely to meet a violent death than a man)

Hi. Can you provide a link to some official statistics?

Lemming

psinno wrote: »

Hi. Can you provide a link to some official statistics?

I'll have to go try and dig some out psinno. I was in work when I posted and the figure I mentioned was heard from someone else so whilst I have absolutely no doubts that transgender folk suffer violence disproportionately to other groups because of who they are, I can't stand over that exact figure with any convinction.


Edit:

Can't find anything on the 17 times figure, but this linked report on hate violence from 2012 makes for interesting reading, taken from the US Office for Victims of Crime section on transgender sexual assault.

The below quote is taken from page 21 (should be from a section called "Hate Violence Homicides") of the above linked report;

73.1% of all homicide victims in 2012 were people of color, yet LGBTQ and HIV-affected people of color only represented 53% of total survivors and victims. The overwhelming majority of homicide victims were Black and African American (53.8%), 15.4% of victims were Latin@, 11.5% of victims were White, and 3.85% of victims were Native American. More than half (61.5%) of victims were women, many of whom identified as transgender women. 53.8% of total victims were transgender women, yet transgender survivors and victims only represent 10.5% of total reports to NCAVP.

Highlighted bits are my emphasis.

The report does go on to note in the next paragraph that it is often difficult to directly link the rates of homocide with transphobic crime however.

This data demonstrates that the most marginalized LGBTQ and HIV-affected communities experience higher rates of severe violence. NCAVP will continue to document this trend and to research strategies to address this violence for these communities. In addition to the homicides listed within this report, NCAVP monitored several additional LGBTQ and HIV-affected homicides in 2012. Unfortunately there was not enough information from media sources, NCAVP member programs, or law enforcement for NCAVP to connect these homicides to homophobic, biphobic, or transphobic hate violence.

efb

J Mysterio wrote: »

Just to get this straight, 'CIS' is the term for 'not trans', 'not gay', 'not anything else'?

What?

Cis is non trans. I'm a cis gendered gay man

Carlos Orange

Lemming wrote: »

I'll have to go try and dig some out psinno. I was in work when I posted and the figure I mentioned was heard from someone else so whilst I have absolutely no doubts that transgender folk suffer violence disproportionately to other groups because of who they are, I can't stand over that exact figure with any convinction.

Thanks Lemming. I come across numbers sometimes on the net (like the life expectancy of a black trans woman is 35) and I'm always interested in any sort of backup. It sounds pretty horrific but kinda hard to believe as well.

Lemming

psinno wrote: »

Thanks Lemming. I come across numbers sometimes on the net (like the life expectancy of a black trans woman is 35) and I'm always interested in any sort of backup. It sounds pretty horrific but kinda hard to believe as well.

The figures are appalling. Even more so when you have transgender friends and get to witness the absolute train-wreck that society hands them out of either needless ignorance or outright malice.

RedJoker

Not surprising that we'd start seeing splits in feminism on transexuality. I'm surprised we haven't seen it on homosexuality yet. The blank slate theory (men and women are the same but society conditions them to behave differently) that feminism is based on directly contradicts the argument that homosexuality isn't a choice.

silverharp

RedJoker wrote: »

Not surprising that we'd start seeing splits in feminism on transexuality. I'm surprised we haven't seen it on homosexuality yet. The blank slate theory (men and women are the same but society conditions them to behave differently) that feminism is based on directly contradicts the argument that homosexuality isn't a choice.

Ive never pinned down a blank slater on that but they would probably find a way to weasel out of it

tritium

RedJoker wrote: »

Not surprising that we'd start seeing splits in feminism on transexuality. I'm surprised we haven't seen it on homosexuality yet. The blank slate theory (men and women are the same but society conditions them to behave differently) that feminism is based on directly contradicts the argument that homosexuality isn't a choice.

There's been plenty of negative feminist discussion on (male) homosexuality and also bisexuality (Julie bindel is delightful here), its just kept at low key, like the ugly stepchild that doesn't get shown in the family photos

Feminism also has some very poor history in some respects when it comes to transgender. A quick google of Janice Raymond will make that clear.

RedJoker

tritium wrote: »

There's been plenty of negative feminist discussion on (male) homosexuality and also bisexuality (Julie bindel is delightful here), its just kept at low key, like the ugly stepchild that doesn't get shown in the family photos

Feminism also has some very poor history in some respects when it comes to transgender. A quick google of Janice Raymond will make that clear.

Thanks tritium, I wasn't aware of that.

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Anyone who is rational would seek a truly egalitarian society where there is no need for anyone to identify as feminists or MRAs.

There's a few definitions of egalitarian but I assume you mean it in the "equal opportunities" way. The problem with having a "truly egalitarian society" is that it's impossible so you'd have to be irrational to seek it. The fact that it *feels* like the right thing to do is a hint that we're in the realm of emotion rather than logic, it's idealism.