Male Feminists

Mr.H

RedJoker wrote: »

Thanks tritium, I wasn't aware of that.



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.

Nothing really wrong with seeking Idealism if you understand that change takes time and that we will never live to see the end result of the perfection we seek.

RedJoker

Mr.H wrote: »

Nothing really wrong with seeking Idealism if you understand that change takes time and that we will never live to see the end result of the perfection we seek.

Sure, I agree there's nothing wrong with seeking it, people follow irrational goals because they feel good doing so. Nothing wrong with feeling good, pure rationality is boring. Just like perfection would be boring, even if it could exist. One persons paradise is another persons hell.

Although it's not a matter of more time, just a matter of human nature, and in some cases biology.

LostinBlanch

RedJoker wrote: »

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.

Or you could just say that putting the interests of society as a whole rather than just sectional interests benefits everybody*. Something that current feminism doesn't seem to want to acknowledge. MRA's are a reaction to that, and they are about 40 - 50 years behind the curve i.e. where womens lib and early feminism were in the 70's.

*Who honestly thinks that alienating a whole sector of society is going to end well for everyone? Does anyone know the law of unintended consequences? Current feminism with its batsh*t crazy variants like treating masculinity as a pathology / put all men in camps or just keep 10% alive for breeding purposes needs to be careful that they don't create a backlash / self fulfilling prophecy.

RedJoker

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Or you could just say that putting the interests of society as a whole rather than just sectional interests benefits everybody*. Something that current feminism doesn't seem to want to acknowledge. MRA's are a reaction to that, and they are about 40 - 50 years behind the curve i.e. where womens lib and early feminism were in the 70's.

Personally I think MRAs are misguided since they follow the same equalism ideology that (non-extreme) feminists do, they just approach it from the opposite side. The main issue is that we're not equal, we're complementary:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/02/men-women-brains-wired-differently

"It's quite striking how complementary the brains of women and men really are," Ruben Gur, a co-author on the study, said in a statement. "Detailed connectome maps of the brain will not only help us better understand the differences between how men and women think, but it will also give us more insight into the roots of neurological disorders, which are often sex-related."

There's a Kickstarter project for a film about MRAs which was just funded. Even though I disagree with them I'm still interested to see how things evolve.

Overall, I feel lucky that Ireland appears to be shielded from the worst of this stuff. I'm far from an expert on Irish law but it appears that the Children and Family Act 2015 which will be coming in soon might be more balanced, for example it will give unmarried fathers automatic guardianship if they live with the mother for 12 months rather than the current process which requires a court order.

LostinBlanch wrote: »

*Who honestly thinks that alienating a whole sector of society is going to end well for everyone? Does anyone know the law of unintended consequences? Current feminism with its batsh*t crazy varients like treating masculinity as a pathology / put all men in camps or just keep 10% alive for breeding purposes needs to be careful that they don't create a backlash / self fulfilling prophecy.

http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/i-dont-support-feminism-if-it-means-murdering-all--37301

Mr.H

RedJoker wrote: »

Sure, I agree there's nothing wrong with seeking it, people follow irrational goals because they feel good doing so. Nothing wrong with feeling good, pure rationality is boring. Just like perfection would be boring, even if it could exist. One persons paradise is another persons hell.

Although it's not a matter of more time, just a matter of human nature, and in some cases biology.

Maybe in a lot of cases but in terms of an equal society it is not that far from possible.

100 years ago if I told you that Black people would have the right to vote, have the same job and education opportunities and have the same freedoms that white people have you would think two things; firstly what the hell is this box with letters on it and why is it talking to me, and secondly that I was insane for thinking that black people would have any rights let alone those few I named.

Same goes for women, homosexuals and a lot of people that have gained from the seeking of equal rights.

It will never be perfect but it is far closer to perfection now than it was 100 years ago.

20 years ago if a man and man or woman and woman walked down the street holding hands, everyone would think its a big deal. Now people dont give a blarney because its normal. Of course there is the odd blemish but that is why I say it wont be perfect but again its a lot closer than it was.

I dont label myself to be honest I dont consider myself an egalitarian and I am very much against feminism but I do believe that everyone should be treated equal and I dont need some movement to tell me that.

RedJoker

Mr.H wrote: »

Maybe in a lot of cases but in terms of an equal society it is not that far from possible.

100 years ago if I told you that Black people would have the right to vote, have the same job and education opportunities and have the same freedoms that white people have you would think two things; firstly what the hell is this box with letters on it and why is it talking to me, and secondly that I was insane for thinking that black people would have any rights let alone those few I named.

Same goes for women, homosexuals and a lot of people that have gained from the seeking of equal rights.

It will never be perfect but it is far closer to perfection now than it was 100 years ago.

20 years ago if a man and man or woman and woman walked down the street holding hands, everyone would think its a big deal. Now people dont give a blarney because its normal. Of course there is the odd blemish but that is why I say it wont be perfect but again its a lot closer than it was.

I dont label myself to be honest I dont consider myself an egalitarian and I am very much against feminism but I do believe that everyone should be treated equal and I dont need some movement to tell me that.

Equal basic human rights for everyone is something that is absolutely possible and is a very rational goal, I don't disagree at all.

Equal rights is trickier, family law being an obvious example where gender differences come into play. Also abortion law.

Equal opportunities, on the other hand, isn't possible, we're a hierarchical species for one thing.

hobochris

Personally, I will never label myself a Feminist.

Feminism to me is all one sided, promoting women's rights and issues. To me that is a too narrow a spectrum only focusing on women's rights, its too one sided.

I am an advocate of Equalism not Feminism, I believe that things like female salaries and fathers rights hold equal weight in terms society issues.

</ my two cents>

LostinBlanch

RedJoker wrote: »

Personally I think MRAs are misguided since they follow the same equalism ideology that (non-extreme) feminists do, they just approach it from the opposite side. The main issue is that we're not equal, we're complementary.

lostinblanch wrote:

careful with that kind of thinking -it's the start of the different but equal rubbish that's actually a Trojan horse for inequality cf law of unintended consequences.

Overall, I feel lucky that Ireland appears to be shielded from the worst of this stuff.

lostinblanch wrote:

That's because we're about 10 years behind the US etc (marriage equality referendum notwithstanding). It's still coming down towards us though.

I'm far from an expert on Irish law but it appears that the Children and Family Act 2015 which will be coming in soon might be more balanced, for example it will give unmarried fathers automatic guardianship if they live with the mother for 12 months rather than the current process which requires a court order.

lostinblanch wrote:

Well our current Monister for Feminism, Frances Fitzgerald significantly watered it down. Alan Shatter originally had fathers getting automatic guardianship until Fitzgeralds intervention when she got his job.

http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/i-dont-support-feminism-if-it-means-murdering-all--37301

lostinblanch wrote:

Nice, but doesn't it say A lot when it's the onion that says this and not any prominent feminists? You'd almost think they agreed with such views.

Apologies for any bad formatting as I'm typing on my phone.

RedJoker

RedJoker wrote: »

Personally I think MRAs are misguided since they follow the same equalism ideology that (non-extreme) feminists do, they just approach it from the opposite side. The main issue is that we're not equal, we're complementary:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/02/men-women-brains-wired-differently

LostinBlanch wrote: »

careful with that kind of thinking -it's the start of the different but equal rubbish that's actually a Trojan horse for inequality cf law of unintended consequences.

"Different but equal" is already the mainstream opinion even if it's self-contradictory. Different and complementary makes a lot more sense.

RedJoker wrote: »

Overall, I feel lucky that Ireland appears to be shielded from the worst of this stuff.

LostinBlanch wrote: »

That's because we're about 10 years behind the US etc (marriage equality referendum notwithstanding). It's still coming down towards us though.

You might be right but I think popular opinion may be changing even in the U.S.. On boards I've noticed quite a few posters expressing non-mainstream views. They don't do themselves any favours by getting banned all the time but still.

RedJoker wrote: »

I'm far from an expert on Irish law but it appears that the Children and Family Act 2015 which will be coming in soon might be more balanced, for example it will give unmarried fathers automatic guardianship if they live with the mother for 12 months rather than the current process which requires a court order.

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Well our current Monister for Feminism, Frances Fitzgerald significantly watered it down. Alan Shatter originally had fathers getting automatic guardianship until Fitzgeralds intervention when she got his job.

I wasn't aware of that, thanks.

RedJoker wrote: »

http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/i-dont-support-feminism-if-it-means-murdering-all--37301

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Nice, but doesn't it say A lot when it's the onion that says this and not any prominent feminists? You'd almost think they agreed with such views.

I'm sure some are, I don't think anybody takes them seriously. The treating masculinity as a pathology you mentioned is more of an issue though.

Potatoeman

RedJoker wrote: »

Equal basic human rights for everyone is something that is absolutely possible and is a very rational goal, I don't disagree at all.

Equal rights is trickiegr, family law being an obvious example where gender differences come into play. Also abortion law.

Equal opportunities, on the other hand, isn't possible, we're a hierarchical species for one thing.

I can't think of any Western country that does not have equal human rights.

You mention abortion but both men don't have the right to choose opting out of being a parent legally.

RedJoker

Potatoeman wrote: »

I can't think of any Western country that does not have equal human rights.

Sure.

Potatoeman wrote: »

You mention abortion but both men don't have the right to choose opting out of being a parent legally.

Yes, it seems like banning abortion and banning opting out of being a parent (while also giving automatic guardianship, etc.) is the only egalitarian solution.

What if a father wants to keep his unborn child but the mother wants to abort it? Conversely, I can't see how we could have a man's right to choice without committing extreme acts against women.

Is Ireland's solution the most egalitarian? Being pro-choice and pro-egalitarian (using equal opportunity as the definition) seem to be conflicting positions.

Potatoeman

RedJoker wrote: »

Sure.



Yes, it seems like banning abortion and banning opting out of being a parent (while also giving automatic guardianship, etc.) is the only egalitarian solution.

What if a father wants to keep his unborn child but the mother wants to abort it? Conversely, I can't see how we could have a man's right to choice without committing extreme acts against women.

Is Ireland's solution the most egalitarian? Being pro-choice and pro-egalitarian (using equal opportunity as the definition) seem to be conflicting positions.

You can't force someone as it causes all kinds of issues but there is some odd logic in the prochoice arguement. ''He should have thought of the consequences when he had sex' but not the woman. There are huge consequences for the man based on her choice.

RedJoker

silverharp wrote: »

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

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

...

So can male feminists be categorised?

Going back to the original topic, I wonder where these male feminists fit into the categories:

http://nymag.com/following/2015/11/guys-we-can-see-you-liking-sexy-instagram-pics.html

These were not guys whose public taste in women tended anywhere near the barely legal or barely clothed. These were dudes who went out with or married age-appropriate women — many of whom are my friends. Guys who had mostly eschewed stripper bachelor parties, even "ironic" ones. Guys who self-described as feminists.

LostinBlanch

RedJoker wrote: »

I'm sure some are, I don't think anybody takes them seriously.

Well, substitute Blacks or LGBT people or Jews instead of Men and you wouldn't be able to move for the amount of sh*t that the people who say those things would get, and rightly so.

But listen to the silence when it's men that are talked about in such a way. Strange that.

RedJoker wrote: »

The treating masculinity as a pathology you mentioned is more of an issue though.

It doesn't happen in a vaccuum. Not challenging the (extreme) likes of the above informs this type of thinking and legitimises it.

RedJoker

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Well, substitute Blacks or LGBT people or Jews instead of Men and you wouldn't be able to move for the amount of sh*t that the people who say those things would get, and rightly so.

But listen to the silence when it's men that are talked about in such a way. Strange that.

If/when people say similar things about Blacks/LGBT/Jews/etc. they're usually dismissed as extremists not worth addressing as well.

LostinBlanch wrote: »

It doesn't happen in a vaccuum. Not challenging the (extreme) likes of the above informs this type of thinking and legitimises it.

You could argue that challenging it legitimises the discussion. The scientific community usually refuses to debate Creationists for that reason. Dismissing the extreme opinions as clearly coming from the mentally unstable allows debate about more moderate positions or realistic concerns (such as treating masculinity as a pathology). I don't think satire is an unreasonable response.


Personally I dislike framing men as victims like feminists do for women or the other minorities you mentioned. I was in France last year and got chatting to a girl, she mentioned that she wasn't feminist before but that she missed out on a director position she had applied for and became feminist because of that. If I was a girl/black and society kept on telling me my failures were due to sexism/racism I probably wouldn't feel much motivation to work on myself either. If white male privilege does exist it's that nobody tells them they're not 100% responsible for the outcomes in their life.

Edit: Which is another reason why I'm not an MRA; if a man isn't happy with his life I'd rather direct him to sites like Animus Empire or The Rational Male and have him fix his own life rather than complain about things being "unfair".

Potatoeman

RedJoker wrote: »

Going back to the original topic, I wonder where these male feminists fit into the categories:

http://nymag.com/following/2015/11/guys-we-can-see-you-liking-sexy-instagram-pics.html

Sex positive I would guess. Barley legal is still legal, a bit creppy though.

Tony EH

I think most so called "male feminists" today have no idea what Feminism meant before they were born and are largely just kids trying to understand their world.

I'm old enough to remember when Feminism meant the emancipation of females in society. I admire the likes of Germanie Greer, although I don't always agree with what she says or has said in the past. But Feminists of her day had very real battles on their hands. They didn't spend inordinate amounts of energy taking to the web to crib about a scientist's shirt.

Today's feminism (3rd wave or whatever you're having yourself) stems, from what I can see of it, from a peculiarly "internetty" type of shouting down and a whiny sense of entitlement, coupled with an indefatigable ability to be "offended" or "outraged" by the slightest (and often utterly inoffensive) thing. Like most movement's or groups, Feminism, to a large degree, has been hijacked by those who wish to use the cause for their own agendas, while subsequently diluting what the cause stood for in the first place.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sleepy

Potatoeman wrote: »

Sex positive I would guess. Barley legal is still legal, a bit creppy though.

Instagram wouldn't be my thing and before I was married I always preferred to date women around my own age or older but show me a man with a sexual interest in women who doesn't find scantily clad teenage girls visually stimulating and I'll show you a liar.

Mr.H

My biggest gripe is that cant we seek equality without needing to label ourselves as whatever??

I have so many arguments/debates with "feminists" and it gets quiet stressful. Not because I dont understand the debate well enough to fight my corner. But because these people are mostly trying to turn my girlfriend into a feminist.

I love my girlfriend. I hold the door open for her, allow her to walk on front of me when walking on a narrow path. I walk on the outside of the footpath. To feminists I very much seem like I am sexist. But I dont do these things thinking that she is lower than me. I do these things because I love and respect her. I try to do little things that make her smile. I dont demean her or put her down.

She deserves to have equal rights to me and she has equal rights to me by law.

She has a great job that she is paid well for and probably paid slightly more than her male equivalent. When one day she has kids she may fall a little behind wage wise but that will happen to anyone taking almost a year out of work regardless of the why. She has equal opportunity to men and if she never wanted to have kids she could very well be seen as a great "career woman".

The reason I share all of this is that I really want to understand why Feminism is deemed necessary? I dont see the end goal. So any male or female feminist please enlighten me. I will not put down your views or shout you down. I just wanna understand the real aim.

orubiru

Mr.H wrote: »

My biggest gripe is that cant we seek equality without needing to label ourselves as whatever??

I have so many arguments/debates with "feminists" and it gets quiet stressful. Not because I dont understand the debate well enough to fight my corner. But because these people are mostly trying to turn my girlfriend into a feminist.

I love my girlfriend. I hold the door open for her, allow her to walk on front of me when walking on a narrow path. I walk on the outside of the footpath. To feminists I very much seem like I am sexist. But I dont do these things thinking that she is lower than me. I do these things because I love and respect her. I try to do little things that make her smile. I dont demean her or put her down.

She deserves to have equal rights to me and she has equal rights to me by law.

She has a great job that she is paid well for and probably paid slightly more than her male equivalent. When one day she has kids she may fall a little behind wage wise but that will happen to anyone taking almost a year out of work regardless of the why. She has equal opportunity to men and if she never wanted to have kids she could very well be seen as a great "career woman".

The reason I share all of this is that I really want to understand why Feminism is deemed necessary? I dont see the end goal. So any male or female feminist please enlighten me. I will not put down your views or shout you down. I just wanna understand the real aim.

I would argue that the "aim" of modern Feminism is pretty much just the same as the aims of Scientology. To recruit more followers so that the "leaders" can make more money for themselves. There is no "end goal" as such.

How many people out there like Laura Bates, Jessica Valenti or Laurie Penny are making a living out of being feminists by attracting and indoctrinating new followers and preaching to the already converted?

It's just another way for these people to make money.

They want your GF to become a feminist because then they can turn her into a paying customer. Since Youtube channels and blogs can be monetized based on how many people click the links, there is a push to get more people clicking.

The reason why we can't seek equality without labeling ourselves is because the label is used to market the individual. While some people are able to monetize this, most are only ever able use the label to take the moral "high ground".

silverharp

Another angle is politics I guess, its something of a left wing belief system. Being a member of the conservative party and a tumble feminist would be a contradiction mostly.

The_Valeyard

I believe in equality for all, regardless of gender, race, religion, etc, excluding Bieber fans.


But I do not associate modern feminism with the same femenism like Betty Friedan.

Certain sections of feminism give the impression as aggressive, anti-male, victim seeking or creating matriarch structures. Which only seeks to divide people and creates tension.

orubiru

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.

It's being kept low key for now but our culture is in an interesting place where people are becoming more aware of diverse gender roles and concepts like "gender fluidity" and eventually this has to crash against feminism and it will be interesting to see how they respond.

Imagine you are pushing a narrative that "Men" benefit more than "Women" in society but at the same time society is moving away from that binary definition of gender. The "pay gap" for example can only be fixed by either penalizing men who earn too much or by rewarding women with extra money just for being women. However, there is NOTHING to stop me from declaring that I am not a "cis gender" male. I have a good 50+ years of life left to go, there's no way to predict what gender I will be in a year or 10. I could simply be "undecided". So when my employer starts implementing their "gender quotas" or starts trying to "close the gender pay gap" then I can just declare that I do not identify as male so I shouldn't be lumped in with all the "men". People will always look for loopholes in any system.

Their traditional arguments only work if Men agree to be "Men" and Women agree to be "Women". As soon as someone moves away from that by saying "well, actually, I don't identify as male so I am not part of the patriarchy" or "well, since I am a gay man, I don't think I'll be sexually harassing any women any time soon" it essentially breaks their narrative. Like a creationist being told that actually the Earth is WAY more than 6,000 years old, where can you go from there?

There is the problem also that homosexual, bisexual and transgender people face genuine discrimination and victimization in society. Discrimination that happens actually because of who they are and how they wish to identify. This undermines Feminism in a way because eventually society is going to say "well, hang on now, women have it pretty good when compared to this other group" and asks if maybe its time for us to put "women's issues" to the side for a moment while we deal with actual discrimination and actual injustice.

Old Jakey

I'd say most of the younger ones a are white knights and really think that supporting feminism will get them laid.

Wibbs

IMHO such as it is, I think the "get them laid" while a common meme, is only partially true and it's at best simplistic. I genuinely think that such guys, who are usually young chaps, aren't thinking with their mickeys, it's much more about that very basic social animal human need to belong. If the group mind says "Concept A is what we think" then they naturally go along with "Concept A" and happily so. That goes for many such memes in any society.

Tony EH

Those kind of people tend to change their tune depending on the company they find themselves in. Which in my view makes them worse than any hardcore 3rd waver any day of the week.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LostinBlanch

orubiru wrote: »

I would argue that the "aim" of modern Feminism is pretty much just the same as the aims of Scientology. To recruit more followers so that the "leaders" can make more money for themselves. There is no "end goal" as such.

How many people out there like Laura Bates, Jessica Valenti or Laurie Penny are making a living out of being feminists by attracting and indoctrinating new followers and preaching to the already converted?

It's just another way for these people to make money.

They want your GF to become a feminist because then they can turn her into a paying customer. Since Youtube channels and blogs can be monetized based on how many people click the links, there is a push to get more people clicking.

The reason why we can't seek equality without labeling ourselves is because the label is used to market the individual. While some people are able to monetize this, most are only ever able use the label to take the moral "high ground".

This is a huge part of it. As long as there is a financial reward for claiming that women are victims of the patriarchy / men / whatever you're having yourself then there is very little impetus to change. Look at the amount of academics employed in gender studies departments / heads of various publically funded female oriented NGO's etc all pushing this angle. Before you even get to the Youtube channels and blogs all monetising their followers.

If there was genuine equality a lot of those jobs would disappear overnight. Hence the major pushback against egalitarianism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

orubiru

LostinBlanch wrote: »

This is a huge part of it. As long as there is a financial reward for claiming that women are victims of the patriarchy / men / whatever you're having yourself then there is very little impetus to change. Look at the amount of academics employed in gender studies departments / heads of various publically funded female oriented NGO's etc all pushing this angle. Before you even get to the Youtube channels and blogs all monetising their followers.

If there was genuine equality a lot of those jobs would disappear overnight. Hence the major pushback against egalitarianism.

I feel like, in the interests of fairness, we should also acknowledge that plenty of "anti-feminists" make a decent amount of money out of simply opposing feminism.

There is a "Youtube Atheist", who's videos I rather enjoyed, called Logicked and even this guy has just this week taken his first steps into making these "anti-feminism" videos. I think because it's a pretty easy way to grow his subscriber base.

The Youtuber shown in the OP must make a few thousand dollars (from Patreon etc) per video and actually has almost the same number of subscribers (200,000!!) as the infamous Feminist Frequency.

There is obviously a lot of money to be made on both sides. It's actually kind of entertaining to watch, isn't it?

silverharp

orubiru wrote: »

I feel like, in the interests of fairness, we should also acknowledge that plenty of "anti-feminists" make a decent amount of money out of simply opposing feminism.

There is a "Youtube Atheist", who's videos I rather enjoyed, called Logicked and even this guy has just this week taken his first steps into making these "anti-feminism" videos. I think because it's a pretty easy way to grow his subscriber base.

The Youtuber shown in the OP must make a few thousand dollars (from Patreon etc) per video and actually has almost the same number of subscribers (200,000!!) as the infamous Feminist Frequency.

There is obviously a lot of money to be made on both sides. It's actually kind of entertaining to watch, isn't it?

A few of the atheist channels have gone the same , the amazing atheist for instance although I don't like him personally . thunderf00t likewise has moved away from debunking Christians. Feminism and sjw's are where its at
Personally it doesn't affect me but as I have kids going through school I want to be up to date on issues that could affect them. My son only has 2 ways of letting me down now , becoming a Christian or a male feminist lol

orubiru

silverharp wrote: »

A few of the atheist channels have gone the same , the amazing atheist for instance although I don't like him personally . thunderf00t likewise has moved away from debunking Christians. Feminism and sjw's are where its at
Personally it doesn't affect me but as I have kids going through school I want to be up to date on issues that could affect them. My son only has 2 ways of letting me down now , becoming a Christian or a male feminist lol

Yeah, for me it's one of the most interesting trends I've seen on the internet in recent times. They all end up making videos about Feminism.

I'm assuming it's because if you've debunked one creationist then you've essentially debunked them all. That just leaves us with the real crazies that almost nobody listens to anyway.

Feminists, on the other hand, are often given a platform by mainstream media and you can read a lot of their stuff on The Guardian or you can see them giving TED talks... or even talking at the UN. The level of potential drama or shock is a lot more interesting.

Things like "Gamergate" and "Atheism+" seem to have been very influential in turning a lot of these anti-religion types into anti-feminism types.

Also, the feminists always seem to be able to come up with new stuff to "debunk" and always seem to be trying to "out feminist" one another so you get constantly escalating levels of craziness. This has led to loads and loads of channels that are basically just ridiculing feminists.

(Wow, just checked Thundefoot and Amazing Atheist there on Youtube, around 400,000 and 750,000 subscribers! That's mad.)

Sleepy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd be very interested to see if the study controlled for social class or lifestyle.

I'd suggest that couples where domestic chores are shared more equitably are more likely to be those that are educated to degree level and, consequently, to both have professional jobs.

Add the long hours demanded by American work-practices, the stress associated with same and the necessity to carry out domestic chores in the evening after work and is it any wonder that couples in such a relationship would have less sex than those in a more traditional single-income, woman as home-maker marriage.

Of course, while we've all seen women advising men trapped in sexless relationships to do more housework etc., I've never met a woman who actually found a guy doing the hoovering to be a turn on whilst I know plenty that love a man smelling of motor oil or sawdust.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Old Jakey

How can any man describe himself as a male feminist? Maybe a hundred years or today if you live in India, but if you're western? It's like Jews supporting the Nazi party!

efb

I am certainly a male feminist

Women not having the same autonomy over her body that men have in this county disgusts me

socstudent

Feminism is political, economic and social equality, why can't men be feminist?

Amirani

efb wrote: »

I am certainly a male feminist
tts
Women not having the same autonomy over her body that men have in this county disgusts me

Men don't have full autonomy over their bodies either. I am pro-choice, but I can't stand when abortion is used as a women's rights vs men's rights thing. It's entirely down to rights of woman vs rights of foetus.

efb

I didn't say full autonomy.
If my life is at risk I don't have to be evaluated against anything else kept alive like an incubator

efb

I didn't do women v men's rights

ancapailldorcha

This thread is about male feminists, not abortion. Please bear that in mind.

efb

Suedecred wrote: »

That's a question of balancing the rights of the mother against the rights of the unborn child. Some people are disgusted that an unborn child would be terminated despite never having a choice in being conceived.

Yes. As a man my bodily autonomy isn't based on anyone else

A foetus doesn't impact on my rights

Wibbs

Let's not go down the abortion discussion folks. Never goes well and usually ends up with two or three posters playing back and forth point scoring tennis with each other and the thread goes to hell. Back on to the general topic please. Thanks.

Sleepy

socstudent wrote: »

Feminism is political, economic and social equality, why can't men be feminist?

Because most of us wouldn't agree with that definition of feminism.

I wouldn't even necessarily agree with that as a definition of equality without the addition of the words "of opportunity".

efb

Yes but is the opportunity truly equal yet?

I don't believe it is.

socstudent

Sleepy wrote: »

Because most of us wouldn't agree with that definition of feminism.

I wouldn't even necessarily agree with that as a definition of equality without the addition of the words "of opportunity".

What is your definition?

Lemming

efb wrote: »

Yes but is the opportunity truly equal yet?

I don't believe it is.

What opportunity? Which opportunity? And equal to what and where? Or are you simply talking in abstract vague notions?

silverharp

efb wrote: »

Yes but is the opportunity truly equal yet?

I don't believe it is.

it doesnt matter , everyone has different advantages, nobody is responsible for their IQ, their parents , height, strength etc. Opportunity should only mean lack of artificial barriers like historic legal conventions or religious beliefs and similar.

zeffabelli

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's because egalitarianism is a sex killer.

"Mating in Captivity" by Esther Perel....fantastic read, has a chapter on how egalitarianism has killed the erotic in American marriage.