Jarvik7 Wrote:..but women are different from men physically, emotionally, sexually and experientially.

Different does not directly lead to inferior. The denial of women and men being different is a major thing that makes men "fear" feminism (it's not all just reactions to feminazism/man-hate), because many men actually like their gf/wife to be feminine just as much as many women like masculine men.

I mean different as in, we get treated as if we're a different species. I actually had someone who used to tell me that all women were liars, and it was inherent in our 'species'. Or people who assume that all women can't do math, or that we need to be taken care of, as is were were children. Even small things like women don't like fixing cars, or the idea that all women love nothing more than hanging out at the mall. I don't want someone to treat me a certain way based on my gender, I want them to treat me as a fellow human being.
Also, there are women out there who lean more to the masculine side and men who behave in a feminine manner. Speaking for myself, I dislike a lot of 'feminine' things - I don't like shopping, I don't want to waste my time fussing with my hair and makeup, have no interest in wearing fashionable, but uncomfortable (and in some cases, unhealthy) clothing, and am not interested in romance, or having children. And this isn't because of my being a feminist - I've never had these interests. But on the flip side, I like some feminine things like cooking, or doing crafts.
Also, some men may want us all to act in a way that they like, but it's an unfair expectation. I don't want to be boxed into being someone I'm not just to make some guy happy. If they've got issues with my sailor mouth, or with the fact that I'd rather spend time with my hobbies or studying than being pretty, that's fine. There will be someone out there who does like those things about me.
Trying to shoehorn people into some kind of traditional gender identity is what makes a lot of people miserable and unhappy.

I wouldn't call cooking and crafts feminine...

There are a lot of people who interpret feminism to mean giving women all the privileges that men have traditionally held, and then conveniently forget to mention all the privileges women have over men. I've known females who are on board with the whole equal wages concept (so am I), but then turn around and say "But it's still a man's job to pay the tab when we're out on dates, buy me flowers and expensive jewelery, blah blah blah." All I can say to that is


I once knew a woman who thought that MFF pornography was repugnant because it was degrading to women, but that MMF, or MMMMMMF pornography was fine (provided the female is in a dominant role), because it's "more progressive." That's just hypocrisy, plain and simple.

[Zgarbas]

...surely you can understand the difference between hypocrites using a movement as an excuse and that said movement?

I once dated a guy who in 2 years of our relationship (and we basically got together during my nervous breakdown) never once believed that I might be crazy, because "all women are". Though it was somewhat liberating to not be judged for the constant panic attacks, anxiety and all the gazillion issues I had, I always thought he was kidding. But nope. Ran into him after our relationship had ended and I told him I finally signed up for therapy and he was genuinely confused. He really thought that my behavior was normal since I was a woman.

Zgarbas Wrote:...surely you can understand the difference between hypocrites using a movement as an excuse and that said movement?

Of course I do, but these hypocrites I'm talking about do genuinely identify themselves as feminists. And who's to say what "true feminism" is when everyone has their own definition for it? I'm fully in support of people seeking gender equality, but my point is that you can't just throw out the word "feminism" and expect everyone to interpret it the same way. Maybe the word shouldn't be haphazardly used as a blanket term and something more descriptive (like "gender equality") would be preferable.

I have yet to see someone truly wanting gender equality. It requires so much willpower to break the inherent bias of being a certain gender that it would truly be remarkable if someone manages to do it.

That is why I don't like modern feminism. It is a movement of mainly the female population wanting more rights for women, while more or less ignoring the opposite gender. The only way to balance out the bias is to make a similar movement for men run by men. However, it is so easy to twist it into chauvinistic movement that it would probably not get much support. Women truly have the upper hand here. They can be as extreme about feminism as they want and still get away with it, somewhat.

We have presidential elections coming up this month, and one candidate is a serious women's movement-zealot (she isn't winning though, thank god). Yesterday she was once again talking about giving women more rights...then she was asked how she felt about the fact that in Finland men are forced to serve in the military while women aren't... "Oh, that's okay, I don't think that needs to change at all."

Sigh.

This video covers a lot of the issues many have with the feminist movement I think.

EDIT: Again, I realize that many of the women claiming to be part of the feminist movement and not see many of the points that TAA brought up, are "femninazis." However, if the moderates and logical people actually looking for real equality can't speak louder than the femninazi's, then the movement will simply continue to be painted as merely a bunch of radiaclists not actually looking for gender equality, but simply more benefits for their gender while treading over the other. This has happened to numerous movements through out time.

vix86 Wrote:

This video covers a lot of the issues many have with the feminist movement I think.

Funny that that video should mention the patriarchy so much. I just encountered that term for the first time a few hours ago while reading the comments on a HuffPo article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11...99260.html

A very vocal commenter seems to think that Girl Scouts of America admitting a 7-year-old transgender girl into their ranks is clear proof that the "patriarchy" is running the show. Completely baffling.

Gaijinme Wrote:
The Type of Men that Women Like
。。。snip 。。。
[i]"It was adorable. He put cat ears on, brandished some chopsticks and started crying."

My best advice for the OP is to become the kind of man that is attractive to the women you want to be with. BECOME kinder. BECOME more considerate. BECOME more supportive (or at least know what that means). BECOME employable/gainfully employed.

Even if you don't attract someone at first, the personal improvement will please yourself and astonish everyone who already knows you

JimmySeal Wrote:There are a lot of people who interpret feminism to mean giving women all the privileges that men have traditionally held, and then conveniently forget to mention all the privileges women have over men.

Yep, and a big area is legal custody of children, etc. The law in many countries is still pretty much "She gets them, you have to pay for them", unless you can prove pretty clearly that she's negligent and you were the primary carer. If it was anything close to 50-50, sorry, you lose. Is this a big issue for feminist groups striving for gender equality? Nope.

Feminists who will happily laugh at a horribly sexist joke directed towards men would be deeply offended and humourless if you made an equivalent joke about women. Many consider it payback... because... there were a lot of sexists jokes decades ago. Yes, i've even had women say that excuse to me. I'm 27. WTF.

I'm in no way claiming that women got a fair deal in traditional western society, but i've met precious few feminists who were really after gender equality. If you are one, then great, there needs to be more of you. The truth is though that most women are every bit as much a gender-centric pig as most men are. Most don't realise it until you point out their hypocrisy.

Edit: Just watched the youtube video. He pretty much nails it.

Choice youtube comment quote:

Quote:Men are not being overpowered in domestic violence! They know retaliation is out of the question, because if men defend themselves in any physical way, the law will throw their ass in jail. Many females use this fact to their advantage.

Something like 5% of reported domestic violence is female-on-male (i forget which country that stat is from), but that ignores the fact that it is deeply, deeply shameful for a man to admit to the cops that his wife beats him. Much like how cases of men being raped by women is unheard of. It's unheard of because it's unheard of and therefore not taken seriously, not because it doesn't happen. Hell, both the simpsons and family guy have made outright jokes about the husband getting straight-up non-consentually raped by their spouse. That's funny right? How many cases do you reckon there are of female bosses exploiting subordinates sexually? He's just lucky right? Certainly no grounds to complain, even if she's twice his age? </rant>

zigmonty Wrote:Most don't realise it until you point out their hypocrisy.

In my experience, most will just accuse you of not caring about women's issues when you point out their hypocrisy.

Well, i dislike the idea of feminazis as much as anyone, but i've never actually met one. Perhaps it's only in America...?

But look, saying that these feminazis destroy the cause of feminism is a bit ridiculous. There are extremists and idiots in every cause. There are groups of extreme anti-racists who are even worse than a feminazi, does that make you think that racism is ok? Do you think it undermines the concepts, really?

Also, yeah, there are horrible inequalities for men too, but i don't think it's really a reason to put down feminism either. A lot of it is that it takes a lot of time and resources to argue for a cause. Would you put down e.g. black equality movements because they aren't arguing for jewish equality too? It's usually not going be that any specific feminist dosn't agree that men should have those equalities, it's just not under their jurisdiction to fight for those things, as they're quite different inequalities from the ones women have.

It is a big problem that mens equality isn't being fought for strongly atm, but men need to organise pressure groups and fight for it, not knock down feminism because they don't do it for them.

Quote:A lot of it is that it takes a lot of time and resources to argue for a cause.

If you don't have time or care for my problems, I don't have time for yours.
It's not as time-consuming as you want to spin it to be. You simply need to give a damn.

Quote:It's usually not going be that any specific feminist dosn't agree that men should have those equalities, it's just not under their jurisdiction to fight for those things, as they're quite different inequalities from the ones women have.

So men can't and shouldn't fight for women's rights as much as their own? If you say so. That makes them all kinds of sexist pigs though.

The society rejects similar movement for men. Both sides have history behind them that skewes the mindset of today (even though the world is vastly different from those days).

huh? It's a different thing to care about someones problems and treat people as equal in your personal life than it is to argue for it as a job, and get laws changed, work out media strategies etc.

Part of arguing for it as a job involves tons of research and evidence finding. This is the reason that causes are usually seperate. For instance, the history of Black inequality is different from, say, colonial India's inequality. These different histories have often led to different ways in which the different groups are unequal. So, in order to fight those inequalities specifically, it makes sense to be split into different groups for research purposes, even though the end cause is the same... equality for all races.

The same is true of men and women. The histories of inequality are very different. There's wildly different ways in which this shows itself in society. So again, the research and arguments are different. That has nothing whatsoever to do with caring about equal rights on a personal basis, and carrying that out in your own relationships with people. It just means that when you do see someone in the media arguing for a cause, it's probably going to be either for women or for men, but not both at the same time.

Hi! First post, I'm a little distressed to have already found discussions like this on this forum, but I've learned a lot already from this community just lurking so I don't mind engaging in some meaningful debate I suppose.


Anyways, I think a few of you might be seeing things in the wrong way. It's not that women who care about the issues women face don't care about the issues men face, it's simply that they are different issues. If someone spends their life working to feed the hungry in the United States is it wrong of them because they aren't working to feed the hungry in Africa? Should you not donate to a "cure disease 1" charity that means a lot to you when there's "disease 2" that also needs help?

If you care about a certain topic (like men who are facing injustice in the court regarding child custody) then fight for it! However, don't let anyone tell you "no, you can't fight for this until you start thinking about cause X and cause Y and cause Z". It's a method of silencing and derailing the topic at hand, even if you don't mean it to be.

If you're interested in the issue I'd google search "Oppression Olympics".

IceCream Wrote:Part of arguing for it as a job involves tons of research and evidence finding. This is the reason that causes are usually seperate. For instance, the history of Black inequality is different from, say, colonial India's inequality. These different histories have often led to different ways in which the different groups are unequal. So, in order to fight those inequalities specifically, it makes sense to be split into different groups for research purposes, even though the end cause is the same... equality for all races.

The same is true of men and women. The histories of inequality are very different. There's wildly different ways in which this shows itself in society. So again, the research and arguments are different. That has nothing whatsoever to do with caring about equal rights on a personal basis, and carrying that out in your own relationships with people. It just means that when you do see someone in the media arguing for a cause, it's probably going to be either for women or for men, but not both at the same time.

It has everything to do with caring about equal rights on a personal basis, because that's where the whole movement starts from. You can't just say "oh, but in a job environment it should be divided" when the overall attitude towards men's rights is indifferent or negative. Getting to the point where men could honestly research and make a difference requires an attitude change from the society, with feminists in the frontline (those making a career of it especially).

Fighting hunger is seen as a positive activity no matter where you do it. "Men's rights" has a stigma today like women's rights had one yesterday. Everyone needs to participate, not just men.

you seem to be missing the point. please reread my, and Nagaoka's post.

Yes, of course it requires a change in attitudes in society. But it makes no sense to say that those fighting for equality of women should be at the front line of that in pressure groups and in the media.

IceCream Wrote:you seem to be missing the point. please reread my, and Nagaoka's post.

Yes, of course it requires a change in attitudes in society. But it makes no sense to say that those fighting for equality of women should be at the front line of that in pressure groups and in the media.

Those fighting for the equality of women should be far more supportive for those fighting for the equality of men. They are the front line of the 'equality' movement (at least in theory). They are responsible for what men or can't do to make a difference. They have the power to influence. Whether they use said power or not determines whether men's rights can be put on a pedestal as much as women's rights are.

It's too bad that on a personal level too many of these feminists are chained by the bias of gender.

Another problem of "research" and "studies" in the movement is that it is inherently biased. One day I hope to see a research in gender equality which did not come to a conclusion in favor of women in one way or another. How is that scientific?

IceCream Wrote:A lot of it is that it takes a lot of time and resources to argue for a cause. Would you put down e.g. black equality movements because they aren't arguing for jewish equality too? It's usually not going be that any specific feminist dosn't agree that men should have those equalities, it's just not under their jurisdiction to fight for those things, as they're quite different inequalities from the ones women have.

I read this article about racism from a different perspective the other day, which I thought was interesting. I'd like to think these groups could choose their own 'jurisdiction'. If you're fighting for gender equality, then why not across-the-board gender equality? The same could go for race.

See, society expects guys like me to act instantly hostile towards any men holding sexist views (real sexist views i mean, such as suggesting we shouldn't hire a girl because "she wouldn't fit in" or silliness like that). In fact, it's possible to indirectly get in trouble in a workplace for not shutting down someone being sexist. This is absolutely how it should be. That sort of behaviour should *not* be tolerated.

Yet many women just tolerate feminazi wackiness, thinking it's ok because they don't personally agree. They're just a radical fringe. The problem is if normal women remain silent, they *will* speak for you (they love speaking on behalf of all women, like most zealots do).

It's the same as with all other forms of discrimination, the radical idiots *must* be ostracised or you are complicit. If you have a friend who is a feminazi and you just silently tolerate it because it doesn't really affect you, you are condoning her behaviour. I support equal rights for women. I don't think we should discriminate on race, sexual orientation or religion either. I'm a white, straight male. I'm expected to care about discrimination regardless. Women often don't seem to see it that way (screw them, we have our own problems?). I'm not saying you should necessarily be actively campaigning for men's rights (i can't say i've personally campaigned for any anti-discrimination stuff), but publicly agreeing with the men who *are* campaigning for those rights rather than silently agreeing with the feminazis who knock it down would be nice.

(i have no idea how you personally react in those circumstances, so please don't consider this an attack on you if this is actually how you already behave)

IceCream Wrote:you seem to be missing the point. please reread my, and Nagaoka's post.

Yes, of course it requires a change in attitudes in society. But it makes no sense to say that those fighting for equality of women should be at the front line of that in pressure groups and in the media.

I'm not sure if i said that, i certainly didn't intend to. I believe feminists should continue fighting for the remaining inequalities women suffer. You have my full support. In fact, to the extent i have free time, i'm happy to help. I'm not actually any more passionate about men's rights than i am about women's. Neither directly affect me at present (no... i didn't get raped), they're just stuff i believe in.

I think maybe we haven't done the best job explaining our point. There are several comments on that youtube video that are similar to yours... seems to be a common problem. Please don't see our attack on feminisim as an attack on feminisim (ok, maybe i see why you're confused ). Please don't think our perceived injustices in any way are intended to overshadow those that women perceive. It's not a competition. We're just arguing that true equality should be fought for, not just fixing the problems you personally encounter. No, you don't have to go hold placards in front of government buildings. Just keep in mind that silence is effectively agreement and choose carefully what you are willing to agree with.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" -- Edmund Burke

^^ ah, sorry, i was replying to Betelgeuzah specifically with that post.

On a personal level, i think that standing for equality of everyone is very important!!! So, should i ever get married, have children, and get a divorce, i'll act on those concepts. If i encounter sexism in any real form in real life, i'll stand against it, whoever that is directed against. (well, assuming i'm in that sort of mood on that particular day lol)

But on a wider level where professionals work, i can understand why causes are fought for seperately, and so why it seems that they're only interested in women's rights. And so often, a discussion that starts off with a defense of feminism (usually against a specific sexist comment about women that someone's made) degenerates into a feminism bashing session full of talks about these feminazis and about how male rights aren't fought for by feminists (i.e. they're not really interested in equality). It'd annoy me if it was the other way round equally, like if someone brought up men's rights in divorce cases, and people started chiming in with maninazis and how men don't care about womens rights.

@Javizy... yeah, it's not necessarily an ideal situation in all regards. The main point i was making was that the fact that feminists don't fight for men's rights as well as womens doesn't make it ok to dismiss women's rights, or that these feminists are wrong or whatever... there are reasons for why they treat them as seperate causes.

Some of them are economic, like the research thing. Other's are about branding and marketing... it often makes sense to fight for a smaller area to get a clearer message across.

One other thing to think about though is that often the struggle for equality ends in a bargaining process, and that if you're fighting 2 causes, you're not going to be able to argue both as effectively. There was an article posted recently on this forum about how Asian kids with high grades are getting squeezed out of the top schools because there are soooo many of them with top results. It's going to be hard to argue their cause and for trying to get more black kids into top schools (because of education inequality) at the same time, for example. So, it makes sense for different groups to fight for each of them.

IceCream Wrote:And so often, a discussion that starts off with a defense of feminism degenerates into a feminism bashing session full of talks about these feminazis and about how male rights aren't fought for by feminists.

This is a great line because it allows me to point out the thing that nags at me in the whole feminist narrative.

If feminists were running on a rhetoric of just "bringing equal rights to women" then that would be one thing. But as I've grown up and been exposed to the media concerning the movement over the years, there is this rhetoric that they are "the movement for gender equality." You can take this to mean whatever you want; be that they are the umbrella movement for also equalizing the the injustices against men, or simply that they believe that men are not wronged or unfairly disadvantaged at any area in society.

Maybe I'm naive in believing that a movement shouldn't have any problem in encompassing other issues outside their original tenants of the movement, especially if the movement is about bringing more power to women. Sure, in an parallel universe where the mainstream (US) media isn't polarized and PC; there would be no problem with a "masculanism" movement. However, thanks to the work of the feminist movement, the mere thought of this to even some the most rational people provokes a knee-jerk response which conjures thoughts of chauvinism. The movement doesn't have to expand to fight inequalities that men now face as a result of their actions, be they intended or not, but by ignoring it it makes them hypocritical in my books. Especially when you consider my prior paragraph about them trumpeting their movement as the "fight for gender equality."

But who am I kidding. The Black civil rights movement didn't explicitly mobilize for other minorities in the US as well, nor has anyone else prior to recent decades mobilized for the LGBT, or any other group that has ever had to centralize into their own group to get anything done. So I guess I shouldn't expect the feminists to actually equalize things, but simply empower a group.

As an aside, I do find it amusing that we derailed yet another thread into a discussion on feminism.

Edit Note: I realize this post comes off sounding exactly like what you said; "bashing the feminist movement." But I do want to explicitly state that I do believe that there were and still are injustices against women in society that need to be rectified. However the consequences of the movement, be they intended or not, has brought about some other pretty serious inequalities as well that have become nigh impossible to discuss on any open large-scale operation because of the cultural influence the movement has had on the society. It is because of this that I have trouble getting behind the movement or seeing it as 100% good, because they don't want to step up and rectify a mess they made. Without their intervention, bringing REAL inequality to the genders probably won't occur for decades.

vix86 Wrote:As an aside, I do find it amusing that we derailed yet another thread into a discussion on feminism.

Are you serious? Can't we just forget the original thread ever existed?

zigmonty Wrote:Are you serious? Can't we just forget the original thread ever existed?

I keep coming back hoping the OP responded on some point