Male Feminists

orubiru

somefeen wrote: »

I'm a man and I'm a feminist.
I have alot of reasons

2. Feminism is also about ungendering behaviours and emotions. As men we are taught the only emotions it is socially acceptable for us to express are anger and happiness. We are more likely to commit suicide as a result and more likely to be victims or perpetrators of violence.

3. Some of the progressive ideas actually make sense. Gender neutral toilets being one example

OK, I am just thinking about your points 2 & 3 above. Isn't Feminism pretty much guaranteed to be self defeating on both of these items?

On point 2, look at ANY mainstream feminist website. They are talking about female issues. They are talking about things that affect women. They are talking about the failings/oppression of "Men". There's nothing wrong with that but this is the opposite of "ungendering".

Talking about "women's issues" is great. Activism with the goal of attaining fairness and equality in society is great. Let's not pretend that "feminism is for everyone" though. Any look at a major, mainstream, feminist website or read through of a mainstream feminist book reveals that it's a movement by women, for women. That's OK but lets not try and pretend that the goal of feminism is the "ungendering of behaviours and emotions" in any way at all.

If anything, Feminism is actually doing the opposite of what you think it is doing in point 2.

On point 3, again I feel like Feminist ideas such as the creation of "safe spaces" for women is in direct contradiction to ideas like gender neutral toilets. How can the movement, on one hand, be making so much noise about creating safe spaces due to the epidemic of sexual assaults while, on the other hand, be pushing for toilet areas where men and woman can just share the facilities without fear?

I was under the impression that there was a pretty big push by Feminists to have "women only" carriages on trains. Here we finding out that they are also pushing to have "gender neutral" toilets.

You are a Feminist, can you explain whats going on there?
Why are there so many contradictions?

I think that people should not kill each other, we shouldn't commit adultery, we shouldn't steal. I agree with all of these things, and I am sure that most people do too, but I am not a Christian.

I agree with lots and lots of messages from The Bible and I think that a lot of it is a load of old nonsense. However, I do not tell people "I'm a Christian".

Few people would say "I'm a Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, Christian, Muslim, Scientologist" even though they are probably fully on board with some of the core tenets from ALL of those groups.

I guess my question is, if you disagree with SO much then why even bother to identify yourself as "a feminist"? Is there maybe a more appropriate description for your standpoint? Egalitarian, perhaps?

What's the point in identifying as a "Feminist" when you don't agree with half of the stuff they are putting out there?

If this is "Everyday Feminism" http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/11/witchcraft-and-feminism/ then I think I'll pass.

Wibbs

orubiru wrote: »

If this is "Everyday Feminism" http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/11/witchcraft-and-feminism/ then I think I'll pass.

What in god's name did you make me read O?

"However, it can’t be denied that the medical industry is just as much a site for racism, transphobia, homophobia, sexism, fatphobia, and ableism as any other institution of systemic oppression."

"the medical industrial complex is a site of systemic oppression, my spirituality and my politics demand that I find alternatives. It is here that witchcraft can help us find different avenues towards holistic healing outside of the medical industrial complex."

Woooooooooooooooooo :eek: Man talk about "out there". Now in fairness that site would be right on the extreme end of Special Snowflake Safe Spaces(™). That said you do see more of the less overt stuff sympathetic to that kind of "thinking" in mainstream media and feminist thought. Far more than you would the extreme nonsense peddled by their mirror morons on MRA/MGTOW/PUA sites.

katydid

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 :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

Surely anyone who recognises the equality of men and women in a feminist?

Saw on the BBC today that there's protests about the state pension age in the UK for women finally being raised to the same level it is at for men. Strange that they never suggested lowering the men's age at any point in the last 20 years to equalise things.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Sleepy

orubiru wrote: »

I guess my question is, if you disagree with SO much then why even bother to identify yourself as "a feminist"? Is there maybe a more appropriate description for your standpoint? Egalitarian, perhaps?

It rather suits feminism when the nuttier elements of the MRA movement describing themselves as Egalitarians because a truly equal society, or a movement dedicated to equality, renders them obsolete.

While there's certainly a minority of feminists that are misandrists (and , unapologetically so); I believe the majority of "a la carte" feminists (or those that identify as feminist without playing any active part in the movement) are, in fact, egalitarians. They've simply been fed the victim mantra so often that they fail to realise that women are, from a legal and systematic point of view, the first class citizens in the western world. Second wave Feminism won all it's sensible battles and gained rights for women that surpass, rather than equal, those of men.

The women who make up the core of active feminism have made careers out of it. They're professors of gender studies, "activists" getting paid for media appearances, authors, "artists" and journalists. Their livelihoods are defined by Feminism and, like any of us, they'll fight tooth-and-nail to protect their source of income. So, when they can point at the likes of Paul Elam as representative of "egalitarianism", they will: it's in their financial interest to paint those in favour of equality, rather than female supremacy, as the Enemy(™).

An egalitarian society wouldn't have Ministers for Women, National Women's Councils, Mothers having de-facto automatic custody of their children, lower sentencing for women, etc. In much the same way as many men opposed their fore-runners, feminists will oppose egalitarians for the same reason: they don't want to lose their privileged status.

Sleepy

katydid wrote: »

Surely anyone who recognises the equality of men and women in a feminist?

No. By the very definition of the word "equality" they're an egalitarian.

zeffabelli

Sleepy wrote: »

No. By the very definition of the word "equality" they're an egalitarian.

The problem with egalitarianism is that people tend to across the board feel like they are giving more than they are getting, so you have no real sense of what equality actually is.

For example, let's say you own a lot of property and you want to leave it to your child[ren], in an equal society this is inappropriate because not everyone will have inherited wealth that they did not earn. An egalitarian would recognise this as unegalitarian and want to redistribute the property so that everyone starts out on equal footing.

This is neither fair or just.

And this is exactly how quotas and affirmative action started.... with egalitarian notions of leveling the playing field.

So how do you do this with everyone feeling like they are giving more than they are getting?

Wibbs

Sleepy wrote: »

The women who make up the core of active feminism have made careers out of it. They're professors of gender studies, "activists" getting paid for media appearances, authors, "artists" and journalists. Their livelihoods are defined by Feminism and, like any of us, they'll fight tooth-and-nail to protect their source of income. So, when they can point at the likes of Paul Elam as representative of "egalitarianism", they will: it's in their financial interest to do so.

+1000. I've noticed this as a more obvious, less polished thing in the other side, the MRA, more specifically the PUA types. It kicked off as a How to pick up women thing, but more and more became a MRA thing as it got more and more commercial and money and position was to be had. The active feminists have been at it for longer so are more under the radar, the male stuff has been more rushed so it's more obvious.

Man that Every day feminist site reads like the Onion. "The Feminist Guide to Being a Foodie Without Being Culturally Appropriative". You could not make that kinda thing up. Looks pretty polished and expensive a site too. That's the problem with the intewebs of course. It could be three women in a shed somewhere. Though according to their blurb; "Since its launch in June 2012 by Sandra Kim, Everyday Feminism has quickly become one of the most popular feminist digital media sites in the world, with over 4.5 million monthly visitors from over 150 countries. In the last year, over 30 million unique users have visited our site and our articles have been read over 60 million times." Interwebs stats are about as reliable as a 1970's Fiat, but it seems to garner enough readers. Jeeeebus. Though maybe as an Onion alternative...

Sleepy

zeffabelli wrote: »

The problem with egalitarianism is that people tend to across the board feel like they are giving more than they are getting, so you have no real sense of what equality actually is.

For example, let's say you own a lot of property and you want to leave it to your child[ren], in an equal society this is inappropriate because not everyone will have inherited wealth that they did not earn. An egalitarian would recognise this as unegalitarian and want to redistribute the property so that everyone starts out on equal footing.

This is neither fair or just.

And this is exactly how quotas and affirmative action started.... with egalitarian notions of leveling the playing field.

So how do you do this with everyone feeling like they are giving more than they are getting?

Haven't we already squared that circle via inheritance tax? A compromise between the two viewpoints of what's "fair" that sees some of that unearned wealth re-distributed whilst still allowing a parent to elevate their child(ren) via inheritance?

Saipanne

I can't get behind modern feminism. Any movement that gets scientists fired over a flippant remark or a stupid t-shirt will always find me as their enemy.

Wibbs

Saipanne wrote: »

Any movement that gets scientists fired over a flippant remark or a stupid t-shirt will always find me as their enemy.

What really pissed me off about that was as much about the fact that these same self styled "feminists" didn't give a mention to the women boffins who were involved in that scientific triumph. And there were a few of them and they were at the sharp end.

ancapailldorcha

Wibbs wrote: »

What really pissed me off about that was as much about the fact that these same self styled "feminists" didn't give a mention to the women boffins who were involved in that scientific triumph. And there were a few of them and they were at the sharp end.

This contravenes their "women will always be victims" narrative. Anyway, I need to google "culturally appropriative".

Saipanne

Wibbs wrote: »

What really pissed me off about that was as much about the fact that these same self styled "feminists" didn't give a mention to the women boffins who were involved in that scientific triumph. And there were a few of them and they were at the sharp end.

As for the Rosetta t-shirt debacle, most of the civilised world read that news in AWE. Amazed that we humans could pull off such a feat. Such things give you hope, for the future, what humans can achieve when we work together.

Some people looked at it and thought "oh my God, look at that t-shirt".

That sums them up, for me.

Sleepy

Wibbs wrote: »

What really pissed me off about that was as much about the fact that these same self styled "feminists" didn't give a mention to the women boffins who were involved in that scientific triumph. And there were a few of them and they were at the sharp end.

Actually, you've hit on something I'm noticing a lot on my Facebook feed at the moment: female scientists or engineers being trumpeted for their achievements almost solely because they're female.

Sure, it's great to give young girls positive role-models in spheres that may not be seen as traditionally "feminine" but can't we just celebrate their achievements rather than pointing out that the person who achieved that feat was a woman OMG shock horror, eleventyeleventy1!

Push them in front of a microphone and ask them about their achievements, how they did it, what it means etc. But leave off the "as a woman" bull****. It's demeaning.

Waestrel

Saipanne wrote: »

As for the Rosetta t-shirt debacle, most of the civilised world read that news in AWE. Amazed that we humans could pull off such a feat. Such things give you hope, for the future, what humans can achieve when we work together.

Some people looked at it and thought "oh my God, look at that t-shirt".

That sums them up, for me.

Are you saying space exploration oppresses women?
http://www.antifeministtech.info/2015/10/the-feminist-war-on-space-exploration/

silverharp

katydid wrote: »

Surely anyone who recognises the equality of men and women in a feminist?

At this stage the dictionary definition is meaningess . feminism today at is minimum is obsessed with equality of outcome with the added rider of ignoring outcomes that benefit women.
Any reasonable person would agree with equal opportunity based on ability.

katydid

silverharp wrote: »

At this stage the dictionary definition is meaningess . feminism today at is minimum is obsessed with equality of outcome with the added rider of ignoring outcomes that benefit women.
Any reasonable person would agree with equal opportunity based on ability.

Not the feminism I know and believe in. The dictionary definition is enough, no matter what extremists may say. Just like any "ism"

silverharp

katydid wrote: »

Not the feminism I know and believe in. The dictionary definition is enough, no matter what extremists may say. Just like any "ism"

That's fine , the problem is there is a tyranny about this in the media and public sphere . take for instance the theatre issue with the number of female playwrights a few weeks ago , it was all emotion and little analysis.

zeffabelli

silverharp wrote: »

That's fine , the problem is there is a tyranny about this in the media and public sphere . take for instance the theatre issue with the number of female playwrights a few weeks ago , it was all emotion and little analysis.

What I did not understand about that was two things:

1, How many women actually submitted plays?

2. Why would women celebrate a revolution that turned them into breeding chattle for the Catholic Church in an oppressive theocracy? I would have thought Irish feminists would want to subvert the celebrations?

silverharp

zeffabelli wrote: »

What I did not understand about that was two things:

1, How many women actually submitted plays?

2. Why would women celebrate a revolution that turned them into breeding chattle for the Catholic Church in an oppressive theocracy? I would have thought Irish feminists would want to subvert the celebrations?

I did a bit of googling on this at the time, in the UK a theatre manager went on record as saying that 3/4 of unsolicited plays were by men. The second point was that new female ones were not that good because they tend not to make the main character the driver of the story. Yet you had the Irish guy "checking his privilege" he probably knew he'd lose his job if he defended himself with facts.

Sleepy

katydid wrote: »

Not the feminism I know and believe in. The dictionary definition is enough, no matter what extremists may say. Just like any "ism"

That's as valid an argument as basing it on one's own interpretation of a religious text i.e. it's worthless.

katydid

Sleepy wrote: »

That's as valid an argument as basing it on one's own interpretation of a religious text i.e. it's worthless.

The point is that you can't define any "ism" by the actions or claims of extremists. In that sense you're right, any attempt at definition is worthless. As is criticism on the basis of these extremists.

Carlos Orange

katydid wrote: »

The point is that you can't define any "ism" by the actions or claims of extremists. In that sense you're right, any attempt at definition is worthless. As is criticism on the basis of these extremists.

As is claiming the bits of feminism you don't like are 'extremists' just because you don't like them.

katydid

psinno wrote: »

As is claiming the bits of feminism you don't like are 'extremists' just because you don't like them.

You don't think that, for example, women who claim that marriage is a form of slavery for women are extreme?

Or Andrea Dworkin's statement "I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig."?

They're not "extreme", just something ordinary woman and men don't like?

JPNelsforearm

Male feminists, aka cucks.

Carlos Orange

katydid wrote: »

You don't think that, for example, women who claim that marriage is a form of slavery for women are extreme?

There are extreme feminists that hold opinions I find disagreeable.
There are non extreme feminists that hold opinions I find disagreeable.

When a university backs out of marking International Men's Day because it isn't about women that is mainstream feminism. As it is when a female politician holds a female only press briefing. When someone posts a blog about how all heterosexual sex is rape that is extreme feminism.

Sleepy

katydid wrote: »

The point is that you can't define any "ism" by the actions or claims of extremists. In that sense you're right, any attempt at definition is worthless. As is criticism on the basis of these extremists.

No, my point was that the argument is without logic.

But to expand on your point:

With a movement as diverse as feminism it can only be defined in terms of the lowest common denominator to which all of it's adherents can be identified as supporting. As a parallel: "Christians" believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

In this logical form of definition, we can say that "Feminists believe in the advancement of women's rights".

Now, while some "feminists" may believe that the advancement of women's rights shouldn't come at the expense of the rights of any other group (i.e. that the movement is about equality and helping women to obtain it), others believe that it doesn't matter if those rights trample upon the rights of others just so long as women's rights increase.

While I would agree with the former group (as long as they mean equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome, a whole other issue with modern feminism and one which pushes many otherwise sane women into the latter camp); I'd argue that their goals have long since been obtained in the developed world and, having accomplished their mission, it's high time they disbanded. (In fact, in Ireland, I'd argue that we've strayed into territory where women now hold a position of legal and systematic superiority to men).

zeffabelli

Sleepy wrote: »

No, my point was that the argument is without logic.

But to expand on your point:

With a movement as diverse as feminism it can only be defined in terms of the lowest common denominator to which all of it's adherents can be identified as supporting. As a parallel: "Christians" believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

In this logical form of definition, we can say that "Feminists believe in the advancement of women's rights".

Now, while some "feminists" may believe that the advancement of women's rights shouldn't come at the expense of the rights of any other group (i.e. that the movement is about equality and helping women to obtain it), others believe that it doesn't matter if those rights trample upon the rights of others just so long as women's rights increase.

While I would agree with the former group (as long as they mean equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome, a whole other issue with modern feminism and one which pushes many otherwise sane women into the latter camp); I'd argue that their goals have long since been obtained in the developed world and, having accomplished their mission, it's high time they disbanded. (In fact, in Ireland, I'd argue that we've strayed into territory where women now hold a position of legal and systematic superiority to men).

As long as obstetrics will risk a womans life because the feotus/baby has parity or in fact more rights than she does...

Irish feminism still has to get its ducks in a row.

Big Ian

I'm dying laughing at the Everyday Feminism website especially at the 'food appropriation' article. Now they can't eat foreign food without feeling guilty! Ha ha ha what a shower of retards!

ancapailldorcha

Big Ian, please read the charter before posting again. These comments are beneath the standard of posting required here.

orubiru

Wibbs wrote: »

+1000. I've noticed this as a more obvious, less polished thing in the other side, the MRA, more specifically the PUA types. It kicked off as a How to pick up women thing, but more and more became a MRA thing as it got more and more commercial and money and position was to be had. The active feminists have been at it for longer so are more under the radar, the male stuff has been more rushed so it's more obvious.

Man that Every day feminist site reads like the Onion. "The Feminist Guide to Being a Foodie Without Being Culturally Appropriative". You could not make that kinda thing up. Looks pretty polished and expensive a site too. That's the problem with the intewebs of course. It could be three women in a shed somewhere. Though according to their blurb; "Since its launch in June 2012 by Sandra Kim, Everyday Feminism has quickly become one of the most popular feminist digital media sites in the world, with over 4.5 million monthly visitors from over 150 countries. In the last year, over 30 million unique users have visited our site and our articles have been read over 60 million times." Interwebs stats are about as reliable as a 1970's Fiat, but it seems to garner enough readers. Jeeeebus. Though maybe as an Onion alternative...

Yeah! I used to enjoy reading Creationist or Flat Earth stuff but one fateful day a lady on my Facebook shared an Everyday Feminism article and my main source of online entertainment was changed forever.

What intrigues me the most is that no matter how hard you try, no matter how feminist you are, they will always say that your feminism is not enough.

In this recent article for example http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/11/signs-partner-manipulative/ I believe that SEVERAL of the points applied to "manipulative partners" could be applied to Everyday Feminism itself.

When you read something like Everyday Feminism what they are actually doing is taking an aspect of everyday life and asking if it can be reduced down in such a way that it can be reframed as "Sexism".

So that's a difference between "Original" Feminism and "Modern" Feminism, I think.

zeffabelli wrote: »

As long as obstetrics will risk a womans life because the feotus/baby has parity or in fact more rights than she does...

Irish feminism still has to get its ducks in a row.

This is an example of ACTUAL feminism and something I could get behind.

However, if I am going to identify as "A Male Feminist" and get behind a campaign for a woman's right to bodily autonomy I do not want to find myself dragged in to stupid debates over whether or not pornography should be banned in Ireland. I certainly do not want to be called out for being "not a real feminist" because I won't support nonsense views.

I appreciate people saying that "the dictionary definition is good enough for me" and I can see that women have issues in many parts of the world that absolutely MUST be addressed.

However, the reality of the situation is that there is a very fine line between "Feminist" and "Not a Real Feminist". We are not talking about extremists here.

My idea of mainstream, non extremist, Feminism is the Feminism described by The Guardian or everydayfeminism.com or Feminists talking at the UN comparing online "violence" to actual physical violence. They are mostly dealing with vague and/or frivolous nonsense.

In my experience the general situation is...

Fem: "Do you believe that Men and Women should have equal rights".
Oru: "Yes! Of course!"
Fem: "So you are a Feminist, see?"
Oru: "OK then. I suppose I am. I'm a Male Feminist!"
Fem: "What about that wage gap then?"
Oru: "Well, if you looked at the stats and considered the fact that..."
Fem: "YOU'RE NOT A REAL FEMINIST"

Take your pick. Whether it's Rape Culture or Women in Video Games or Cultural Appropriation of Food, in the end you are going to be called out as "not Feminist enough" because you will eventually not agree with something.

It's not a religion or a cult but it's very very close to that.

Lemming

orubiru wrote: »

This is an example of ACTUAL feminism and something I could get behind.

However, if I am going to identify as "A Male Feminist" and get behind a campaign for a woman's right to bodily autonomy I do not want to find myself dragged in to stupid debates over whether or not pornography should be banned in Ireland. I certainly do not want to be called out for being "not a real feminist" because I won't support nonsense views.

You don't need to call yourself a male feminist to get behind an idea that is simply the right thing to do, and it bothers me that people may be led to believe that in order to support such notions they must proclaim themselves aligned with whatever "ism" is involved in championing an issue. After all, a broken clock is right twice a day as the proverbial expression goes, so however much you may disagree with any given view, there are occasions where a view might actually have merit.

Sleepy

zeffabelli wrote: »

As long as obstetrics will risk a womans life because the feotus/baby has parity or in fact more rights than she does...

I'm pro-choice myself but Men don't have the right to have abortions either: it's nothing to do with equality. That so many regard abortion rights as a feminist issue highlights the lie that Feminism is about equality IMO.

The Monty Python boys, as usual, got it right in The Life of Brian: until a Man has the right to have a child, sexism is enshrined in law. While it was obviously written as a reductio ad absurdum, our progress in medical science is actually making it look less and less absurd that a man (or a woman who was born a man) might be able to carry a pregnancy to term in the not-too-distant future.

So, while I agree with the Repeal the 8th campaign, I see it as an issue for the pro-choice movement rather than one for the feminist movement. Especially when you consider that, while many of the individuals in both movements may be the same, there would also be a considerable number of feminists who consider themselves to be "pro-life".

Big Ian

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Big Ian, please read the charter before posting again. These comments are beneath the standard of posting required here.

Sorry but you have to admit it's hilarious that some feminists can't even eat sushi, do yoga or do belly dancing without worrying about 'cultural appropriation'.

Pat Mustard

Big Ian wrote: »

Sorry but you have to admit it's hilarious that some feminists can't even eat sushi, do yoga or do belly dancing without worrying about 'cultural appropriation'.

Banned for a month for ignoring a mod instruction.

Please do not post in this thread again, even when your ban expires.

silverharp

Jonathan McIntosh who seems to be a bit of an oddball trust fund male feminist writes a nonsense piece in the Independent about "hypermasculinity" , the guy clearly knows very little about movies. On the plus side he gets served in the comments section


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/captain-america-civil-war-our-fixation-with-hyper-masculine-films-damages-all-of-us-a6750366.html

Why is the Marvel universe - and the geeks who love it - still obsessed with aggressive hypermasculinity?
I'm looking forward to seeing Captain America: Civil War, but part of me wonders why. We need to raise questions at the model of male bonding and friendship-building by way of violence.....

orubiru

silverharp wrote: »

Jonathan McIntosh who seems to be a bit of an oddball trust fund male feminist writes a nonsense piece in the Independent about "hypermasculinity" , the guy clearly knows very little about movies. On the plus side he gets served in the comments section


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/captain-america-civil-war-our-fixation-with-hyper-masculine-films-damages-all-of-us-a6750366.html

I have to say that I don't really understand the point of this type of criticism. He's saying that he likes and enjoys these types of movies but he'd enjoy them a lot more if they were specifically tailored to his needs. Sure, who wouldn't love to have multi-million dollar, movies produced exclusively for them?

I hated the 2nd Transformers movie. So, I have never been to see another Transformers movie. I haven't went out there saying I want to watch Transformers, but not this Transformers, and demanding that Transformers be more inclusive. It's daft and it's difficult to take such approaches seriously.

If the basic idea is that "hyper-masculine" things are in some way damaging then, sure, I'd be agreeable to that point of view. Anything taken to extremes is probably damaging to some extent. So "hyper-feminine" things would also have to be damaging, following the same logic. We should certainly all be in favour of putting anything, ahem, "radical" under very intense scrutiny.

He cites The Martian as a great example of what he wants to see. Fine then, watch The Martian again. Saying that I liked Movie X and so I just wish that Movies A B and C would be just like Movie X is NOT "pop culture criticism". It's just silly. Very few movies have the power to change the world or significantly impact society. The Martian is a great movie but it's not ground-breaking in any way at all, really. The same thing was basically done by Apollo 13, which was released 20 years ago.

There is something pathetic about the Male Feminist talking about "toxic masculinity" or "hyper-masculinity". No, no, ladies! I'm not like THOSE men. I denounce masculinity because it's so damaging.

I don't feel comfortable when people describe feminists as "man haters" because it seems like a really misinformed opinion to have. Male Feminists, like this guy, do seem to be very strongly "anti-man" rather than "pro womens rights".

I suppose it's quite funny to consider the possibility that the biggest "man haters" within the Feminist Movement are actually the men.

JPNelsforearm

LOL at that chap^, when you hear or read phrases like "Toxic masculinity" you know you are well an truly down the rabbit hole, and that in a main stream newspaper, please tell me again about how oppressed you are and the patriarchy runs things.....:rolleyes: Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him.

VinLieger

silverharp wrote: »

Jonathan McIntosh who seems to be a bit of an oddball trust fund male feminist writes a nonsense piece in the Independent about "hypermasculinity" , the guy clearly knows very little about movies. On the plus side he gets served in the comments section


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/captain-america-civil-war-our-fixation-with-hyper-masculine-films-damages-all-of-us-a6750366.html

Ugh he associates himself with Anita Sarkesian, nothing more needs to be said to ruin his credibility

Saipanne

So, it popped up on my Facebook that a male feminist porn star (go figure) called James Deen has been accused of rape. One can only assume that he is ok with the concept of being guilty until proven innocent.

After all, the accusation is all the evidence you need.

Sleepy

Saw that on Reddit last night. It seems to be a bogus accusation yet one of the other actresses who was on set won't defend him because (paraphrased) "women should be believed when they make rape claims and her calling out the fake accusation would make it harder for sex workers to make legitimate accusations" :rolleyes:

There's screen caps of various twitter PMs being posted.

Saipanne

All of these insane revelations have led me to the point that I would never date a feminist. It's just too dangerous.

RDM_83 again

Saipanne wrote: »

All of these insane revelations have led me to the point that I would never date a feminist. It's just too dangerous.

Thats a bit of a weird thing to pull from the James Dean thing? I mean isn't he a self described Feminist himself?
To be honest I'd take a different view on this, its someone who is the definition of being a "Feminist" to appeal to women being called out on their actual treatment of women rather than what they say.
^^
Reason I think the above is companies would not be dropping associations with him since he is immensely profitable for them if there wasn't some substance to this rather than twitter based self promotion.

Saipanne

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Thats a bit of a weird thing to pull from the James Dean thing? I mean isn't he a self described Feminist himself?
To be honest I'd take a different view on this, its someone who is the definition of being a "Feminist" to appeal to women being called out on their actual treatment of women rather than what they say.
^^
Reason I think the above is companies would not be dropping associations with him since he is immensely profitable for them if there wasn't some substance to this rather than twitter based self promotion.

What I mean is I could never date a person who assumes that:

1. A woman never fabricates a rape accusation

2. If such an accusation is made, the onus is on the accused to prove their innocence. Ergo, guilty until proven innocent.

This is what the leaders of this movement preach. Scary stuff.

Carlos Orange

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Reason I think the above is companies would not be dropping associations with him since he is immensely profitable for them if there wasn't some substance to this rather than twitter based self promotion.

If you are going to go down that route.... the woman who accused him of rape co owns a website that uploaded a new video which stars him 2 days before the accusation on Twitter.

Wibbs

Yea, that kinda thing is where it starts to get very muddied alright.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Yea, that kinda thing is where it starts to get very muddied alright.

Which one? I find it all a bit odd, next to nothing for ages and then suddenly everyone "knows" he's a piece of **** apparently.

Wibbs

Well that kinda thing can happen often enough and in unconnected areas. EG imagine a company where one of the customers is sometimes extremely late with payment. You think "bit of a dick sometimes but…". Then you trundle along to a business conference and over a few drinks later someone else pipes up and says "you know yer man, he can be a right git with payments" and then the floodgates open. If these women were assaulted, they may have thought "it just happened to me, everyone else says he's nice", all it can take is someone else to come forward and others feel less alone.

However and it's a big however for me, is I really don't like how society is going when serious accusations like this are played out on social media. A) lives can be ruined with a single accusation. Bandwagoning can happen in tiny groups of people, across hundreds, thousands, millions that's going to be magnified. C) In sexual crimes there is the feeling that going to the authorities may be useless for victims, so they may feel such a route is their only option. This is not good. Most of all I really don't want to live in a society where Twitter replaces due process and a court of law.

Carlos Orange

Wibbs wrote: »

Most of all I really don't want to live in a society where Twitter replaces due process and a court of law.

It is a weird one but it kinda feels like it reduces rape. It used to be something that involved the police and serious sanctions but now it is pivoting to trial by social media. Reduced level of proof and reduced sanctions. More of an issue of personal morality like having an affair. Going from something with a burden of proof to balance of probability (like university 'trials') or no proof seems like a bad idea to me.