Male Feminists

smash

The James Deen Rape Allegations Reveal a Huge Problem With "Male Feminism"

When "male feminism" is actually toxic: In the pantheon of entitled white male tropes, the self-proclaimed, all-caps Male Feminist is quickly ascending in status beyond the standard flip-flop-wearing bro or gingham shirt-swathed ****boy. The Male Feminist is similar to the softboy, a term coined by writer Alan Hanson in Medium, in that he is "emotionally intelligent but does nothing with this knowledge. He is artistic. He is aware. He is still a dick."

The Male Feminist might be floppy-haired and blue-eyed, with tattoos of children's book characters etched on his unthreateningly large deltoids. He might claim he'd rather have sex with Jenny Slate than Kate Upton, and he might accompany his girlfriend to SlutWalks and donate to Planned Parenthood. Yet, when she actually needs a ride to the nearest clinic he will claim he has band practice and disappear into the ether.

This is not to say that all men who self-identify as feminist fall into this category. Male celebrities like Ryan Gosling, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Matt McGorry have been lauded by the media (including this publication) for self-identifying as feminist, thus serving as a positive example for men to openly embrace feminist principles. As feminists have tirelessly pointed out, to identify as a feminist is to say that you agree with the idea that men and women are social, political and economic equals — a concept that, according to a 2013 Huffington Post/YouGov poll, nearly 82% of men and women agree with.

But for some men, a specific breed of Male Feminist, it's their quickness to the draw, their willingness to embrace a label that has, until recently, been widely vilified by mainstream culture, that arouses intense skepticism. At best, they are hopelessly naïve. At worst, they are charlatans using the veil of feminism to disguise their sins.

"There's something suspicious about anyone eager to identify with the oppressed," Kat Stoeffel wrote for New York magazine in 2014. "Many men seem to reach for the 'feminist' label first to shore up their sensitive-dude bona fides and, second, to get a little female validation."

A whole lot more in there too http://mic.com/articles/129345/there-s-a-huge-problem-with-the-concept-of-the-male-feminist#.UZNBQSH1Y

Sleepy

[Feminism is] a label that has, until recently, been widely vilified by mainstream culture

*raises eyebrow*

"Recently" on a timeline according to recorded history, or the evolution of Homo Sapiens, sure, Feminism.

On the timeline of the movement, however, I'd argue that feminism has been seen as a positive thing by mainstream culture for the past 50 years and it's only recently that a sizeable minority are vilifying what the movement has become.

smash

Sleepy wrote: »

*raises eyebrow*

"Recently" on a timeline according to recorded history, or the evolution of Homo Sapiens, sure, Feminism.

On the timeline of the movement, however, I'd argue that feminism has been seen as a positive thing by mainstream culture for the past 50 years and it's only recently that a sizeable minority are vilifying what the movement has become.

I think it has always been vilified in some shape or form by various groups. Nowadays it's vilified across a lot of social media but praised by various media outlets. The minority whackos have made sure they have a loud voice and ironically these whackos are the ones who are praised and are causing the vilification at the same time.

Want a news article? Run a feminism piece! It's guaranteed to stir a reaction no matter what the content actually says.

ancapailldorcha

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

+1

Orwell warned us about a world in which our every move and thought would be controlled be a tyrannical state. The only difference between his vision and today's world is that we're not there yet and we're appointing our own thought police and selling off our rights.

orubiru

smash wrote: »

A whole lot more in there too http://mic.com/articles/129345/there-s-a-huge-problem-with-the-concept-of-the-male-feminist#.UZNBQSH1Y

I really wonder if they are aware of how they contradict themselves.

This quote "As feminists have tirelessly pointed out, to identify as a feminist is to say that you agree with the idea that men and women are social, political and economic equals" is put out there and I would accept that under this definition I would be described as a feminist.

BUT after describing the good things that a Male Feminist might be doing, such as accompanying his girlfriend to a slut walk, we have this quote "yet, when she actually needs a ride to the nearest clinic he will claim he has band practice and disappear into the ether".

It basically sounds like the role of the Male Feminist is to serve women. It's not enough to believe in equality and attend the slut walk if you are going to make an excuse to not do chores.

How does refusing to take my girlfriend somewhere in the car contradict "the idea that men and women are social, political and economic equals"? It doesn't.

So it's high fives all round for being a Male Feminist and stating that you "agree with the idea that men and women are social, political and economic equals" but when you refuse to be a servant "when she actually needs a ride to the nearest clinic" your not one of those True Feminists like Ryan Gosling, who I am sure has never ever let a woman down?

In this new World of Equals she can't drive to the clinic by her own damn self in her own damn car? She can't call a Taxi? Nah, she needs her Man to drive her there.

If he doesn't? Well, he's not a very good Feminist is he?

zeffabelli

orubiru wrote: »

I really wonder if they are aware of how they contradict themselves.

This quote "As feminists have tirelessly pointed out, to identify as a feminist is to say that you agree with the idea that men and women are social, political and economic equals" is put out there and I would accept that under this definition I would be described as a feminist.

BUT after describing the good things that a Male Feminist might be doing, such as accompanying his girlfriend to a slut walk, we have this quote "yet, when she actually needs a ride to the nearest clinic he will claim he has band practice and disappear into the ether".

It basically sounds like the role of the Male Feminist is to serve women. It's not enough to believe in equality and attend the slut walk if you are going to make an excuse to not do chores.

How does refusing to take my girlfriend somewhere in the car contradict "the idea that men and women are social, political and economic equals"? It doesn't.

So it's high fives all round for being a Male Feminist and stating that you "agree with the idea that men and women are social, political and economic equals" but when you refuse to be a servant "when she actually needs a ride to the nearest clinic" your not one of those True Feminists like Ryan Gosling, who I am sure has never ever let a woman down?

In this new World of Equals she can't drive to the clinic by her own damn self in her own damn car? She can't call a Taxi? Nah, she needs her Man to drive her there.

If he doesn't? Well, he's not a very good Feminist is he?

Clinics will insist that someone is there to take you home. I suppose you expect her to pay for the while thing too.

You confuse decency with servitude. I think this might be a common delusion among the chip on the shoulder victim brigade.

py2006

zeffabelli wrote: »

I think this might be a common delusion among the chip on the shoulder victim brigade.

Is this your retort to all who question elements of feminism?

smash

orubiru wrote: »

In this new World of Equals she can't drive to the clinic by her own damn self in her own damn car? She can't call a Taxi? Nah, she needs her Man to drive her there.

Beyonce 1999:
"Tell me what you think about me, I buy my own diamonds and I buy my own rings"

Beyonce 2008:
"Cause if you liked it then you should have put a ring on it."

I guess women like feminism when it suits them?

smash

py2006 wrote: »

Is this your retort to all who question elements of feminism?

From another thread:

zeffabelli wrote: »

Well known saying, 'bad husband, worse father."

smash wrote:

Awful saying. Extremely sexist and quite frankly disgusting.

zeffabelli wrote: »

What? This is not really a place for ideological preaching. Seriously.... save the religion for the converted.

smash wrote:

Then why did you post the comment?

zeffabelli wrote: »

It's a saying, you are calling it sexist and bringing ideological leftist criticism into it.

WTF? Take it to the gentlemens club if you want to evangelicalise. And then with the "disgusting" comment you take this high horse moral superiority stance. Who annointed you Jesus?

Don't stir her....

Sleepy

zeffabelli wrote: »

Clinics will insist that someone is there to take you home. I suppose you expect her to pay for the while thing too.

You confuse decency with servitude. I think this might be a common delusion among the chip on the shoulder victim brigade.

Assuming it means an abortion clinic, what if the man is pro-life?

I'm not personally, and yes, I'd consider any man who wouldn't support his partner by accompanying her to an abortion clinic a fairly lousy boyfriend (assuming it was his and he agreed with the termination), especially for as flaky reason as band practice but I don't see how it would invalidate his (poor imo) decision to support feminism. Then again, it's a strawman argument made by someone so stupid that she actually believes feminism is about equality.

Wibbs

Sleepy wrote: »

Then again, it's a strawman argument made by someone so stupid that she actually believes feminism is about equality.

Dial that kinda posting right back. Attack the post, not the poster. Secondly, Smash dragging posts from other threads/forums is also not on.

zeffabelli

Sleepy wrote: »

Assuming it means an abortion clinic, what if the man is pro-life?

I'm not personally, and yes, I'd consider any man who wouldn't support his partner by accompanying her to an abortion clinic a fairly lousy boyfriend (assuming it was his and he agreed with the termination), especially for as flaky reason as band practice but I don't see how it would invalidate his (poor imo) decision to support feminism. Then again, it's a strawman argument made by someone so stupid that she actually believes feminism is about equality.

Both feminism and men's rights stuff are the bi products of what happened when the left abandoned formal religion. It developed its own cultish fashionable morality that people to wear like a seasonal accessory.

And did you call me stupid in your post or were you referring to someone else? Please confirm.

orubiru

zeffabelli wrote: »

Clinics will insist that someone is there to take you home. I suppose you expect her to pay for the while thing too.

You confuse decency with servitude. I think this might be a common delusion among the chip on the shoulder victim brigade.

I didn't say that I wouldn't be there. I didn't say that I wouldn't pay. I didn't say that I wouldn't act in a decent way. I do not have a chip on my shoulder.

The point I was making is that the statement "to identify as a feminist is to say that you agree with the idea that men and women are social, political and economic equals" is not contradicted in any way when "she actually needs a ride to the nearest clinic he will claim he has band practice and disappear into the ether".

It's not a chip on the shoulder at all. If there is an insistence that Feminism is only "to agree with the idea that men and women are social, political and economic equals" then you have to accept that lazy or indifferent boyfriends can still be Feminists.

Being a Feminist does not automatically make you a good guy and equally bad guys, yes even rapists, can be Feminists if we insist on using these stupid "catch all" definitions.

If the complaint in the article is that terrible people are hiding behind the shield "Male Feminist" then the logical conclusion is that this is made possible by dishonest definitions such as "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people". It's possible to believe that and also be a complete and utter monster.

"Victim Brigade". I'm sorry but plenty of men and women have been victims of harassment and bullying in the name of "Feminism" so I don't think it's fair to just dismiss. I can fully understand why someone might have a chip on their shoulder and so what if they do?

Sleepy

zeffabelli wrote: »

Both feminism and men's rights stuff are the bi products of what happened when the left abandoned formal religion. It developed its own cultish fashionable morality that people to wear like a seasonal accessory.

And did you call me stupid in your post or were you referring to someone else? Please confirm.

Apologies for my lack of clarity: I was referring to the author of the piece posted by smash. Her caricature of the "Male Feminist" who wouldn't go to an abortion clinic with his girlfriend doesn't exist: it's a strawman she created to "make her argument" i.e. enable her whine.

She also mis-equates the (acutally disappointingly low) 82% support for 'the idea that men and women are social, political and economic equals' as reported by the Huffington Post/YouGov poll as support for Feminist ideals.

This is a total nonsense as feminism doesn't care about men being equal citizens: it's not their problem to campaign for.

Even more bafflingly, she seems to think that this "support" is only a recent phenomenon. While our laws have lagged (and continue to lag in respect of men's rights and access to abortion) behind popular consensus, the concept of men and women being equal is hardly modern. I may be only 35 but it's only in the past five to ten years that I've heard anything other than universal positivity about the feminist movement. And even when you do hear it criticised, it's coming from a position of egalitarianism rather than one of misogyny (though modern feminists don't seem capable of recognising either).

zeffabelli

Sleepy wrote: »

Apologies for my lack of clarity: I was referring to the author of the piece posted by smash. Her caricature of the "Male Feminist" who wouldn't go to an abortion clinic with his girlfriend doesn't exist: it's a strawman she created to "make her argument" i.e. enable her whine.

She also mis-equates the (acutally disappointingly low) 82% support for 'the idea that men and women are social, political and economic equals' as reported by the Huffington Post/YouGov poll as support for Feminist ideals.

This is a total nonsense as feminism doesn't care about men being equal citizens: it's not their problem to campaign for.

Even more bafflingly, she seems to think that this "support" is only a recent phenomenon. While our laws have lagged (and continue to lag in respect of men's rights and access to abortion) behind popular consensus, the concept of men and women being equal is hardly modern. I may be only 35 but it's only in the past five to ten years that I've heard anything other than universal positivity about the feminist movement. And even when you do hear it criticised, it's coming from a position of egalitarianism rather than one of misogyny (though modern feminists don't seem capable of recognising either).

Well I dunno...where is she writing from? I remember a lot of college aged feminist men, whatever that even means outside of self identifying, who did not go with their girlfriends to clinics, because they dumped them first. I think it has become a character people will recognise... You know sensitive new age pony tail guy...talking the talk about how wonderful vaginas are... yeah yeah.... I feel your oppression types...pass the bong...

Tbh Irish feminism confuses me...I don't really get it. It seems lost in something because the men are somewhat feminised too by being post colonial yadda yadda...so I don't think it has sorted out where the lay of the land is...in its identity politics, which is all the left is now.

But it does have a religious flavour....fervor...feminism, egalitarianism...whatever the morale du jour is.

py2006

zeffabelli wrote: »

I remember a lot of college aged feminist men, whatever that even means outside of self identifying, who did not go with their girlfriends to clinics, because they dumped them first. I think it has become a character people will recognise... You know sensitive new age pony tail guy...talking the talk about how wonderful vaginas are... yeah yeah.... I feel your oppression types...pass the bong...

:rolleyes:

Not sure what I just read.

Sleepy

What does "feminist" mean when applied to anyone, male or female, beyond someone self-identifying as whatever they conceive to be a feminist?

It's moronic to accuse someone of not being a feminist on the sole basis that they didn't support a girlfriend when she was having an abortion. There are large numbers of feminists who are pro-life and there's almost certainly no more people who identify as feminist that are simply selfish arseholes than there are in the general population.

But, like you say, there's a religious fervour amongst many feminists so it's probably akin to a Bible Belt Christian decrying someone as being "unchristian" or "unamerican": the person making the statement can think of no higher insult whilst us saner folk might actually consider it a compliment

zeffabelli

Sleepy wrote: »

What does "feminist" mean when applied to anyone, male or female, beyond someone self-identifying as whatever they conceive to be a feminist?

It's moronic to accuse someone of not being a feminist on the sole basis that they didn't support a girlfriend when she was having an abortion. There are large numbers of feminists who are pro-life and there's almost certainly no more people who identify as feminist that are simply selfish arseholes than there are in the general population.

But, like you say, there's a religious fervour amongst many feminists so it's probably akin to a Bible Belt Christian decrying someone as being "unchristian" or "unamerican": the person making the statement can think of no higher insult whilst us saner folk might actually consider it a compliment

This is the same with all ideologies...."s/he not really a Christian...' "that's not islam.." "that's not Marxism.." That's not a real {insert whatever}.....

Carlos Orange

Sleepy wrote: »

But, like you say, there's a religious fervour amongst many feminists so it's probably akin to a Bible Belt Christian decrying someone as being "unchristian" or "unamerican": the person making the statement can think of no higher insult whilst us saner folk might actually consider it a compliment

I used to think calling someone unamerican was such a strange thing to do. It seemed very unamerican.

mariaalice

This is possibly a bit of odd view. My husband would be very supportive of everyone he would not say he was a feminism nonetheless he would say the best reaction when someone make an off colour joke about women is to not laugh along or react in any way, the person telling the 'joke' soon gets the message.

This has led me to speculate that if it has become socially unacceptable to make misogynist, racist, or homophobic jokes and comments in the public space. Has that led to outpouring of vitriol you get on the internet as the anonymity of the internet has given them the space to express themselves with out censure.

Sleepy

I think there's almost certainly an element of that these days, but it would include feminism and misandry too.

JPNelsforearm

mariaalice wrote: »

This is possibly a bit of odd view. My husband would be very supportive of everyone he would not say he was a feminism nonetheless he would say the best reaction when someone make an off colour joke about women is to not laugh along or react in any way, the person telling the 'joke' soon gets the message.

This has led me to speculate that if it has become socially unacceptable to make misogynist, racist, or homophobic jokes in the public space. Has that led to outpouring of vitriol you get on the internet as the anonymity of the internet has given them the space to express themselves with out censure.

I wouldnt say the two are related, it should always be acceptable to make any sort of a joke. Spewing venom and vitriol is distinct from that.

Potatoeman

mariaalice wrote: »

This is possibly a bit of odd view. My husband would be very supportive of everyone he would not say he was a feminism nonetheless he would say the best reaction when someone make an off colour joke about women is to not laugh along or react in any way, the person telling the 'joke' soon gets the message.

This has led me to speculate that if it has become socially unacceptable to make misogynist, racist, or homophobic jokes and comments in the public space. Has that led to outpouring of vitriol you get on the internet as the anonymity of the internet has given them the space to express themselves with out censure.

That makes him sound very dry. Jokes don't have to be malicious. When you draw the line with certain groups you are treating them differently.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Yeah I can see that side of it but the porn industry/community is usually a sieve and many are a law unto themselves when it comes to grudges and the like. And the porn industry now is very connected and pretty small. For it to flip so quickly, especially with the studios just seems strange, again because this is an industry where people can be easily blackballed for anything. Some of the accusations are coming from women who have actor/director partners and seemingly none said anything to them nor the female studio heads etc. yet everyone seems happy to believe it as if confirmation of something they heard before, in which case why only now while allowing him access this whole time?

mariaalice

Potatoeman wrote: »

That makes him sound very dry. Jokes don't have to be malicious. When you draw the line with certain groups you are treating them differently.

There is a difference between offensive jokes and jokes in general. He has a find sense of the ironic and is witty in a way only people who are good with words can be.

I think jokes are very interesting as way of looking at issues.

When it becomes unacceptable to say something, the issue then move on to jokes.

When it becomes unacceptable to make comments and jokes about the issue in the public sphere that's when it moves on to the internet as the person has no other uncensored outlet for their views.

Saipanne

mariaalice wrote: »

There is a difference between offensive jokes and jokes in general. He has a find sense of the ironic and is witty in a way only people who are good with words can be.

I think jokes are very interesting as way of looking at issues.

When it becomes unacceptable to say something, the issue then move on to jokes.

When it becomes unacceptable to make comments and jokes about the issue in the public sphere that's when it moves on to the internet as the person has no other uncensored outlet for their views.

This is why I am grateful for South Park. They provide a great public service, by holding a mirror up to society. It is human nature to laugh at the misfortune of others. I think it is a coping mechanism. Surpressing that mechanism can only lead to bad outcomes.

mariaalice

Saipanne wrote: »

This is why I am grateful for South Park. They provide a great public service, by holding a mirror up to society. It is human nature to laugh at the misfortune of others. I think it is a coping mechanism. Suppressing that mechanism can only lead to bad outcomes.

I am not disagreeing with you as such, but if you were right what you are saying is that people need an outlet for their racism and homophobia ect and that suppressing it only leads to worse outcomes.

Saipanne

mariaalice wrote: »

I am not disagreeing with you as such, but if you were right what you are saying is that people need an outlet for their racism and homophobia ect and that suppressing it only leads to worse outcomes.

True racism and homophobia is based on hatred, not laughter. I wouldn't squirm if someone told a homophobic joke, so long as the context was acceptable. For example, a gay friend of mine was posting homophobic jokes on Facebook. Everyone thought it was hilarious.

Potatoeman

mariaalice wrote: »

There is a difference between offensive jokes and jokes in general. He has a find sense of the ironic and is witty in a way only people who are good with words can be.

I think jokes are very interesting as way of looking at issues.

When it becomes unacceptable to say something, the issue then move on to jokes.

When it becomes unacceptable to make comments and jokes about the issue in the public sphere that's when it moves on to the internet as the person has no other uncensored outlet for their views.

Are jokes offensive by intention or by result? It's a slippery slope thats very subjective.

newport2

mariaalice wrote: »

This has led me to speculate that if it has become socially unacceptable to make misogynist, racist, or homophobic jokes and comments in the public space. Has that led to outpouring of vitriol you get on the internet as the anonymity of the internet has given them the space to express themselves with out censure.

Sleepy wrote: »

I think there's almost certainly an element of that these days, but it would include feminism and misandry too.

I think a key difference here is that misogynist, racist, or homophobic jokes and comments are now generally socially unacceptable, whereas misandrist jokes and comments are not.

But I think the main reason for abuse on the internet is the convenience of not being face to face. It's like driving a car, a lot of drivers curse at other drivers whereas they wouldn't say boo if they were within earshot. That and general trolling to get a reaction.

JPNelsforearm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/every-swedish-16-year-old-is-getting-a-copy-of-chimamanda-adichi/
"Feminism is becoming a solid part of education in Sweden "
Sweden lol, usual wage gap nonsense etc etc..

Sleepy

I wonder how long it will be before Swedish men just decide to leave the women to it and begin to emmigrate en masse?

zeffabelli

newport2 wrote: »

I think a key difference here is that misogynist, racist, or homophobic jokes and comments are now generally socially unacceptable, whereas misandrist jokes and comments are not.

But I think the main reason for abuse on the internet is the convenience of not being face to face. It's like driving a car, a lot of drivers curse at other drivers whereas they wouldn't say boo if they were within earshot. That and general trolling to get a reaction.

That is because if you are of a dominant group - male, white, or rich, then you don't have moral status.

We have a framed morality around not being dominant...being a victim..and we can't even look at how a victim might be complict in their own victimisation because we have framed that as moral failure...so we have a lot of new taboos and are breeding a lot of lies.

silverharp

Sleepy wrote: »

I wonder how long it will be before Swedish men just decide to leave the women to it and begin to emmigrate en masse?

Wasn't that TV show Robots made in Sweden originally? Shots fired!

JPNelsforearm

Sleepy wrote: »

I wonder how long it will be before Swedish men just decide to leave the women to it and begin to emmigrate en masse?

That must be the reason for the mass importation of muslim men, one of the side effects of feminism, the male population either flee or become eunuchs.

ancapailldorcha

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

That must be the reason for the mass importation of muslim men, one of the side effects of feminism, the male population either flee or become eunuchs.

This sort of comment is unwelcome here. Please read the charter before posting again.

Sleepy

silverharp wrote: »

Wasn't that TV show Robots made in Sweden originally? Shots fired!

Which show?

Saipanne

Saipanne wrote: »

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.

Are there any feminists here who could comment on the above?

ancapailldorcha

Sleepy wrote: »

Which show?

Maybe it's this?

silverharp

Sleepy wrote: »

Which show?

..I couldnt have got the name more wrong, I meant Humans , it was based off a Swedish TV show , Im curious to watch the Swedish version now to see if it brings up any issues around men and feminism in Sweden?

ancapailldorcha

silverharp wrote: »

..I couldnt have got the name more wrong, I meant Humans , it was based off a Swedish TV show , Im curious to watch the Swedish version now to see if it brings up any issues around men and feminism in Sweden?

Yep, that's the one whose Wikipedia article I linked to. I've only seen one episode of the UK version. Seemed somewhat plain.

Saipanne

I spotted this on Facebook, just now. Seriously, when did feminism change from a movement about liberty for women, to a pseudo cult intent on wiping out individual thought? Does everything have to be labeled like this? Where is the logical conclusion of all this, its like they want newspeak to become reality...

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/12/focusing-on-her-pleasure/?utm_content=buffer93209

Sleepy

silverharp wrote: »

..I couldnt have got the name more wrong, I meant Humans , it was based off a Swedish TV show , Im curious to watch the Swedish version now to see if it brings up any issues around men and feminism in Sweden?

I watched the Channel 4 version but I'm not sure what relevance it had to equality issues? The mother of the family seemed to be the primary earner whilst the father did more of the kids stuff and there were definitely some themes explored around the mother not being able to be as close to her young daughter as she wanted (due to having a high pressure career) but I'm not sure I see much relevance to Feminism in the show?

Saipanne

This seemed fitting.

py2006

Saipanne wrote: »

This seemed fitting.

Who teaches those things to be fair? I was never thought to be any of those things or not to cry etc. Its just natural. I do have a sensitive/caring side and it has been noticed.

*walks down to the hall door to see if a queue of ladies is forming...*

silverharp

Sleepy wrote: »

I watched the Channel 4 version but I'm not sure what relevance it had to equality issues? The mother of the family seemed to be the primary earner whilst the father did more of the kids stuff and there were definitely some themes explored around the mother not being able to be as close to her young daughter as she wanted (due to having a high pressure career) but I'm not sure I see much relevance to Feminism in the show?

In terms of the alleged "sexodus" and feminists losing their sh1t over sex robots and wanting them banned. ie if robots were as good as suggested would men start throwing in the towel and go with the robot over the real thing. In the UK version they had robot brothels and the husband and teenage son having or wanting to have sex with the robot character Anita.
So given that Sweden is the supposed feminist capital of the world might the show delve into the issue a bit more and either take the feminist position or hint that men might be getting p1ssed off and will turn to alternatives?

Wibbs

py2006 wrote: »

Who teaches those things to be fair? I was never thought to be any of those things or not to cry etc.

That's a far more American based thing IMH Py. As much of the "gender war" guff is. The whole US jock culture sorta thing. Add in ivory tower "leftie" feminism and we are where we are, or more they are.

silverharp wrote: »

So given that Sweden is the supposed feminist capital of the world might the show delve into the issue a bit more and either take the feminist position or hint that men might be getting p1ssed off and will turn to alternatives?

From what I recall of the original Swedish version it examined all sorts of philosophical and psychological aspects of the idea of robot humans, but nothing I recall with any feminism stuff along for the ride. If anything the UK version had more of that going on and even then it was minimal enough. IMH the Swedish version(Real Humans) was superior and went beyond just one family and examined more around the subject of identity and humanity. Their androids were (mostly) less human and more obviously artificial than the UK androids.

Potatoeman

py2006 wrote: »

Who teaches those things to be fair? I was never thought to be any of those things or not to cry etc. Its just natural. I do have a sensitive/caring side and it has been noticed.

*walks down to the hall door to see if a queue of ladies is forming...*

It depends on how sensitive you mean. I have heard that there is a phycological barrier, where too sensitive is seen as weak by women. That it doesn't suit their traditional expectations of men and it is something they are not even aware of. Unconcious bias is not easy to prove one way or the other.

the evasion_kid

Potatoeman wrote: »

It depends on how sensitive you mean. I have heard that there is a phycological barrier, where too sensitive is seen as weak by women. That it doesn't suit their traditional expectations of men and it is something they are not even aware of. Unconcious bias is not easy to prove one way or the other.

"thou goest to women?do not forget thy whip" - nietzsche

silverharp

Potatoeman wrote: »

It depends on how sensitive you mean. I have heard that there is a phycological barrier, where too sensitive is seen as weak by women. That it doesn't suit their traditional expectations of men and it is something they are not even aware of. Unconcious bias is not easy to prove one way or the other.

At the end of the day you are who you are, but I think some guys make the mistake of thinking that being right on with women's issues or trying to feminise themselves will get them more attention from women which is mostly incorrect.