Masculism - what are your thoughts on it?

simu

We get many posters complaining about feminism on here but you hear very little about masculism (the male version of feminism). Well, it's a bit more complicated that that - see here for more info. So, would people here who are annoyed about feminism "going too far" or "creating advantages for women at the expense of men" (to mention two common criticisms levered at feminism on these boards) be interested in setting up or getting involved with a masculinist group? Or is it better to go for pure egalitarianism? Is that even possible? Any other thoughts on masculism?

bizmark

Plenty of good anti feminist pro men sites and blogs springing up all over the place if men are interested personally i read a large number of them every day.

simu

bizmark wrote:

Plenty of good anti feminist pro men sites and blogs springing up all over the place if men are interested personally i read a large number of them every day.

linkehs?

Dirk Gently

is it better to go for pure egalitarianism? ----> YES,
with equality meaning the celebration and acceptance of difference (not between sexes but between all individual humans)with no barriers put up against any individuals personal development based on sexual stereotypes. Equality meaning there is no such thing as male and female outside of the boundaries of biology

My opinion on Masculism is the same as that on Feminism, down with this sort of thing.

No matter how noble the original intentions of both forms of these elitist attitudes they end up just being mouthpieces for sexist propaganda. Just as Feminism was born out of female inequality so too is Masculism born out of discrimination and negative stereotyping against males. Both movements put the promotion of their own sex as priority by their very name and do little to promote equality.

Dirty Feminist cnuts:
I am sick to death of women going on about multi-tasking and giving themselves the monopoly on emotions and sensitivity. Social engineering I reckon. Why is it that women have no accountability for their actions. Everything they do is justified as girl power (remember that lot ) and they accept no criticism for what they do( while criticising everything male). What’s with all these urban myths about women being the more compassionate sex, the more caring and understanding sex, while men are labeled as mono emotional retards incapable of having feelings (or at least not on the same level as our female superiors).

From my own experience I find that there is no such thing as a male or female mindset, only men and women behaving the way they feel they should behave because of the influences of their environment. I have met plenty of women who are closed books and have no idea how to communicate beyond following the lead their popular friends give. I also know loads of blokes who are emotional in the extreme and never shut up talking about their feelings( usually because some woman was insensitive and trampled all over his feelings). The point is that people left to themselves without pressure from either the pro-male or pro-female groups will pretty much form their own unique personality which doesn’t fall into the stereotypical male or female brackets.

Society has changed from the past where we were dominated by an anti-woman church and when men worked long hours in physically demanding jobs. This environment polarized men and women into the bread winner man beast and the feeble only good for making babies and cleaning woman. Today, with equal access to education, training and career choices it is more likely that you will find groups of like minded men and women within the circles of their interests.

From personal observation of society and how little cliques and groups work I reckon the differences between the sexes are a lot more to do with environment and promotion and discouragement of certain attitudes rather than a natural difference. Feminism and Masculism are the lowest common denominators which scrape the barrel of humanity and keep HUMANS ignorant of their true individual nature by creating an artificial divide between the sexes.

Why Feminism or Masculism, why not just promote equality and not try to attribute certain positive and negative characteristics to a certain sex. Just let people develop naturally.
I don’t except that because I’m a man I am not up to the female standard when it comes to emotions / sensitivity / multi tasking / communication / feelings. I do except that some women may be better skilled in some of those areas than I am just as I accept that some women are a lot less skilled in those areas than me also.

Remember that Mary black song……my heart is low, so low, only as low as a womans heart can be. Mary Black is a feminist cnut oppressing the male population by stating that men can’t feel as deeply as women do. How’s that for an overreaction, stick that in your vibrator and smoke it.

Equality ftw

metrovelvet

clown bag - are you sure your not a feminist? THere are many who would agree with a lot of what you say.

BTW a man using the word **** is like a white person using the word ******.

lostexpectation

is masculism about equality?, i agree that men's role is changing and this needs to be addressed I don't the change as bad thing


BTW a man using the word **** is like a white person using the word ******.

really, I've always used cnut in a equal opportunity way.

Dirk Gently

If the word in question is cnut, I believe that word has lost all significance with it’s over usage such as how the word b!tch has being reclaimed as meaning powerful woman. I use cnut in a gender nutral way to describe a person who annoys me. Why is a man using the word more unacceptable than a woman?

Why do you assume I’m a feminist just because I favour equality. The problem feminists have is a lot of women deviate from the party line and use feminism as an excuse to bash men and justify their own sexist attitudes. I’m sure a lot of pc feminists would agree with what I have to say but the point is feminism has been hijacked by extremists and the only policy a person needs to advocate is equality. Why call yourself something which refers to only one sex. why not recognise the futility of labeling people and reject outdated stereotypes. Is Jordan spread naked over page 3 a symbol of female power or does she degrade women by institutionalising women as sex objects.

My personal opinion is that she is neither, she is simply one individual human making her own choices and I don't feel she owes women anything and I don't feel she deserves to be put under pressure by anyone who claims she is disgracing her sex. She is only degrading herself and only doing so if she feels herself that she has degraded herself. I am recognizing Jordan’s right to exercise her own decisions without the stigma of her having to represent a higher ideal. I don't like claims being made on people by certain groups.

Only when people stop referring to themselves as feminists or masculinists will the artificial differences engrained in people disappear.

Feminist-masculinist
Republican-unionist
Catholic-protestant
Religious-atheist

All of the above divide people and artificially create inequality and superiority, with those claiming to belong to a particular group discriminating ( a lot of the time unaware that their group discriminate) against the opposing group even though that was not the intention on the formation of each group.

Ironically I would call myself a humanist (which is in itself a group) as I don’t believe in labels and prefer to be self sufficient. I believe my own logic, reason and heart should determine my actions and attitudes towards others. This logical process points in only one direction- equality, because if I was to discriminate against anyone I would be creating the conditions for those I discriminated against to oppose me. If I accept each person as they are and don't impose my will on them they would find it very hard to in turn oppose me as I am not a threat to them.



*exception to the rule is women paying for things in shops, cnuts

fly_agaric

simu wrote:

So, would people here who are annoyed about feminism "going too far" or "creating advantages for women at the expense of men" (to mention two common criticisms levered at feminism on these boards) be interested in setting up or getting involved with a masculinist group?

Smells like yet more "look - I'm a poor, poor victim" BS to me. It's not pretty, and it is a dead-end IMO. Look at NI for examples of two opposed groups playing a zero-sum game and engaging in an "I'm the bigger oppressed victim" píssing contest!

lostexpectation

well there is a difference between masculism and masculists. one needs to study and regonise maleness.

Sleepy

Clown Bag, I think I just heard a hammer hit a nail on the head.

And metrovelvet: it is not a man's fault if some women have issues with a slang name for part of their anatomy being used as an insult. It's no different from calling someone a 'dick' or a 'knob' tbh. Trying to liken it to a derogatory word used to describe an entire race is sensationalism as only an American can sensationalise tbh.

metrovelvet

Why do you insist on pinning things down to blame?

I dont understand what you are trying to say here. What I was trying to say is that some theorists liken to to tribal permission, where its ok for example for black americans to say nigga but has a different charge than when I white person says it. It has a different resonance when a woman says it. Oh and are you trying to degrade my nationality with the latter part of that statement?

Trying to liken it to a derogatory word used to describe an entire race is sensationalism as only an American can sensationalise tbh.

clown bag - IM not assuming your a feminist. I said you share a lot of similar opinions with them. Take it easy.

Black Swan

Like what do the French say? Long live the difference? There are some good things about the differences between the sexes. So while we are doing battle here, let's not forget this!;)

Dirk Gently

metrovelvet wrote:

clown bag - IM not assuming your a feminist. I said you share a lot of similar opinions with them. Take it easy.

Some of the more rational feminists might share my opinions alright however I don't choose to aline myself with an ideology which advocates that males need challenging in order to have equality. People who discriminate need challenging, not males (the category I conveniently fall into). Feminists discriminate against me because they can't look past my sex as a consequence of their polar view of the sexes as a competing phenomenon. We are not competing, we simply exist and I for one wish to nullify any promotion of either males or females as a collective consciousness. We as males or as females are not a collective consciousness, we are all different and think and feel differently from our fellow males and females.

Down with artificial defensive alliances!
Up with personal freedom unhindered by restrictive ideals which we must conform to.
also down with sticking it to the yanks sleepy head. ( I always appreciate when people point out what an excellent point I just made though. You earned a few brownie points there and are on my safe list now)


Again on the word cnut, offense is in the ear of the receiver. Most people would accept that cnut is a gender free word in the context its used here in Dublin, if you took offence its a cultural difference between us rather crude Dubs who have been desensitised to it and you who still view the word as derogatory. It wasn't meant as an insult; look at it as me being a black person using the N word in the company of other black people.


p.s. I always take it easy, just had a Cadburys caramel a few minutes ago in fact.

to blue lagoon - I’m not doing battle against any particular sex here, I'm only pointing out the futility of partaking in a battle between the sexes. (except when it comes to women paying for things, see thread in AH for truth)

I believe in the possibility of equality. I'm all for it, and I "try" to apply it every day. Which is why I wonder why it has to be a battle for men to gain the same level of rights that women have, while throwing out the extreme double standards that are being applied across the board from the Law, to social conditioning.

Why is it that when a man talks about equality its assumed we're attacking womens rights? Whereas when a woman talks about equality (not fem-nazi) its whats being withheld from them all these centuries?

And the awful thing is that my desire to treat women as equals is being erroded. I see constant discrimination against men in custody laws, sex laws, car insurance, and very little happening to address these issues. If a woman complains about a situation its perfectly acceptable, whereas if a man complains about this, he's either unfair or a wuss.

And this is the problem I see. As new laws are brought in and society changes to accomadate female superiority, men are being relegated to a "lesser" role. And this is generating more anger, and frustration than before.

Personally I believe the time has come for men to stop accepting the way things are. Its not as if things will get better if we stay quiet, they haven't so far. In fact they've gotten worse because we've accepted everything, even the guilt for holding women back a century ago (regardless of our ages). Things need to change, and soon.

simu

Deleted User wrote:

Why is it that when a man talks about equality its assumed we're attacking womens rights?

I'd say it's because ordinary men don't talk about it that much - there seem to be a lot of bitter extremists out there!

lostexpectation

Deleted User wrote:

And this is the problem I see. As new laws are brought in and society changes to accomadate female superiority, men are being relegated to a "lesser" role. And this is generating more anger, and frustration than before.

female are superior?

Personally I believe the time has come for men to stop accepting the way things are. Its not as if things will get better if we stay quiet, they haven't so far. In fact they've gotten worse because we've accepted everything, even the guilt for holding women back a century ago (regardless of our ages). Things need to change, and soon.

the idea that women are now equal (in Ireland) is ridiculous!

simu

simu wrote:

I'd say it's because ordinary men don't talk about it that much - there seem to be a lot of bitter extremists out there!

The most I've seen from any males, friends or otherwise, is loads of bluster about the subject. How its wrong. How it interferes with our lives etc. I haven't met or heard these male extremists you mention.

lostexpectation wrote:

female are superior?

No. But they currently have superior rights.

the idea that women are now equal (in Ireland) is ridiculous!

Never said they were.

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote:

And this is the problem I see. As new laws are brought in and society changes to accomadate female superiority, men are being relegated to a "lesser" role. And this is generating more anger, and frustration than before.

What "new" laws?

fly_agaric

Simu wrote:

I'd say it's because ordinary men don't talk about it that much - there seem to be a lot of bitter extremists out there!

Eh, nice bit of circular reasoning there Simu.
So if ordinary men start talking about that stuff would that mean they have all become "bitter extremists"? Why the hell did you start this thread anyway, I wonder?

Was is so you could "out" what you consider to be "bitter extremists" - somewhat like a boards version of Mao's 100 flowers program?
Give an example of bitter extremism on this thread?

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote:

Why is it that when a man talks about equality its assumed we're attacking womens rights?

Because most of the time it is talk along the lines of "women have to much", and the answer seems to be take it back, rather than give men more. You even mention this a number of times in this very post :rolleyes:

For example, any time a body for women (BrestCheck, Minster for Women (in Austrialia I think)) is brought up the answer seems to be get rid of these, rather than provide men with similar services. Or the idea seems to be that women have enough and they should just stop campaigning now. Or men just want to complain about them

BreastCheck is great. There should be way way more BreastCheck clinics. Breast cancer should be cured.

I would love to have a discussion on Boards.ie that focuses purely on what men need, rather than what women have and shouldn't be allowed have :rolleyes:

Deleted User wrote:

If a man complains about this, he's either unfair or a wuss.

When women first started "complaining" they were arrested and beaten .... I think men can put up with being called a wuss by other men and women.

That is of course if they actually want to get things done, rather than just complain about how better it is to be a women.

God its like some men want this all to just happen, for someone else to do it, so they don't have to put up with any battles are hardship. I've even heard calls on other threads that the feminists themselves shoudl be doing it, presumable so the men can put the feet up and watch the game.

Deleted User wrote:

Personally I believe the time has come for men to stop accepting the way things are.

I agree ... go do something about it ... start a legal challange to the insurance schemes, join a campaign to get transparency in parental hearings.

metrovelvet

There are extremists and there are moderate views also in every advocacy group. THe extremists tend to get the most attention because they know how to demand it. They serve also to make the moderates look good.

clown bag - you seem to be advocating an androgynous world? Would that be right?

There are men like John Waters who's bugbear is things like fathers rights and domestic violence and then there's Robery Bly who [Iron Man] who wanted to reinstall masculinity [or at least his version of it] as a genuine viable option for men. The way I see it is there are two ways to talk about this: about legalities and rights or about identity.

To look at masculinity in an Irish context is particularly interesting, given their history, "mother Ireland," the dominace of the virgin Mary as an icon, the castration which comes from colonialism and matriarchy, and how Irish machismo works.

IMO it is impossible to talk about these things without taking nationhood into account. For example in the US, macho is back with a vengeance in this post 911 world, and its not such a bad thing imo. Applying the same paradigms to American machismo, English effimancy [cultural bias from an American perspective as thats how they seem through my frame of refernce -probably dont seem that way to English women], or Irish masculinities doesnt seem all that productive imo.

fly_agaric

lostexpectation wrote:

the idea that women are now equal (in Ireland) is ridiculous!

Okay. It is.

I wonder though, what exactly will it take to acheive this mystical state of "equality of the sexes" that feminists aim for?
I suppose the typical feminist daydream wish-list would read something like:

1. An end to male violence of all types against women.
2. Equal numbers of men and women, (or greater numbers of women) in politics.
3. Equal numbers of men and women (or greater numbers of women) in all high-power, high status careers (incl. top level sports, entertainment) which are male dominated.
4. Men and women controlling equal amounts of money (or women having more if thats how things work out).
5. Women should be free to choose to do whatever they like (some feminists may like to exclude the choice of being a housewife!).

As an example for 5, if you have a baby. Daddy should do his fair share with the children and help out about the house so you can pursue your career too. Eminently fair.

But if you prefer, he can disappear off into the wild blue yonder and limit his contribution to money for the child freeing you to find a new disposi-partner who can act as your preferred disposi-father to your children - its all your choice, on your terms! Or you could use some joy-juice from a clinic to cut pesky men out of the loop enirely - again - your choice!

And about that baby - if you want to have it, no expense should be spared for you and the precious baby-to-be healthcare-wise. Excellent.
But of course if you decide you don't want it - hey-presto, it becomes an inanimate cluster of cells to be disposed of all the way up to the start of the 3rd trimester if you take your time making your mind up, or you find out that it is not perfect in some way! It's all your choice. Have it your way.

Afaics, Feminists reason that because we haven't got anywhere close in all of these areas it is because of the "patriarcy"/male oppression of women or the fact that "male and female gender roles imposed by our evil society need to be changed" or whatever. However, the biggest reason we haven't got close enough to satisfy the feminists IMO, even in Western countries, is because their program would require the brutality of a totalitarian state to implement fully. Going through the big wishlist:

For 1 - how the hell do they think they are going to achieve this without a eugenics program aimed at removing violence fom humanity. Violence is part of human nature - no?
The only other stopgap way as I see it would be laws where any act violence by men against women, verbal, physical, mental etc becomes part of some class of special offences with special punishments cf other acts of violence to deter and prevent reoffending and subject to special efforts on the part of the police.
Maybe women sould be free to retaliate against men who are violent towards them without ever fearing any legal consequences themselves. Or men could get some reward for punishing men (violently?:)) who are violent to women?

For 2, and for 3, intensive campaigns will be required to encourage women into politics and the male-dominated high-status careers, and maybe campaigns to encourage men into the "female" careers also.

But what happens to 2 and 3 if it turns out that there are strong innate reasons why men and women tend to be drawn to different career areas no matter what campaigns and elimination of sexism drives are launched?

Well, the only way to solve that little bump on the road would be to impose quotas and in the case of politics maybe try to somehow ensure that women never vote for male candidates.
How do you do that in a secret ballot?

4 could follow from 2 and 3.
However, if we can't get exactly equal numbers of men and women doing every single type of job (incl. staying at home) and working just as hard at them as each other (assuming any remaining wage discrimination within the fields is eliminated), we will have to have the govt. setting wage levels for every job so that overall stats come out that men as a group will not earn more than women!

For 5, If women attain infinite freedom of choice in all areas of their lives the result will be that noone else will have any rights at all in areas of their lives that impinge on women! The old rule about swung cats and neighbours noses applies here.

To repeat - the entire feminist project wishlist is not really achieveable except in a totalitarian state where men have been relegated to second-class citizens and in fact, everyone has their rights curtailed in some way or other by that state in pursuit of its gender-equality will 'o' the wisp.

How close can we get to the realisation of the feminist goals without democracies becoming totalitarian states?

Well, since feminist ideology is getting such a grip on govt. thinking in Western countries, and IMO, most of the extra women who will go into politics will be feminists (people who go for politics usually have some political axe to grind and political women's favourite axe is feminism), I think we will find out in the coming years!

As far as I'm concerned, the feminists can take it and shove it where the sun dont shine.

metrovelvet

Um. I thought this was about masculinism?

fly_agaric

metrovelvet wrote:

Um. I thought this was about masculinism?

"Masculinism"/(Masculism) is just an utterly pathetic "me-too" backlash/response to feminism, wailing on about unfairness in society to men - the very worst of which was around thousands of years before feminists came on the scene.

The success that feminism has had in winning more rights for women exposes some male-female double standards in society [many of which cannot ever be eliminated IMO] which didn't grate as much when men were compensated far more just for being men than they are today.

Masculinism has no power at present and IMO it never will have any real political clout as a movement in its current form.
As I said before, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the backlash turns quite nasty at some point and govt's classify these groups as terrorists. Maybe masculinism will have more clout then.

The only good thing about masculinism may be that it could throw a few wrenches in the feminist efforts towards attaining their nasty and dangerous "gender equality through better government" dream.

Anyway I think Simu was just using this thread as bait to sniff out so-called "extremists" anyway and couldn't really give a crap so I don't feel too bad going off topic.

lostexpectation

Deleted User wrote:

No. But they currently have superior rights.

I don't think you could call their rights superior, not at all.

They are unbalanced (unequal) in things like parentage etc but not superior...

I think it has its place.

even F4J do (although the're some unsavoury characters involved.)

metrovelvet

If you notice, the place where there is imbalance is around domestic issues, which is no doubt a bi product of the constitutional, thereby institutional sexism in the Irish consitution, which aligns a womans place in the home.

The only good thing about masculinism may be that it could throw a few wrenches in the feminist efforts towards attaining their nasty and dangerous "gender equality through better government" dream.

Why is it nasty and dangerous to want to see some women in government? Or to encourage girls to go into science and technology? To become athletes? To encourage sport for girls, to want your daughters to have more role models other than some tits and ass bimbo and to teach her to take ownership over her body and her sexuality? What is so wrong about restoring dignity to femininity? To learning how to respect and be respected? To be aware that women can and have accomplished things?

Your listings of 1-5 are not a problem with feminism per se, but more about big government. The less micromanaging powers national government has the less likely your paranoid fantasy of a feminist totalitarian state will come true.

Dirk Gently

metrovelvet wrote:

There are extremists and there are moderate views also in every advocacy group. THe extremists tend to get the most attention because they know how to demand it. They serve also to make the moderates look good.

clown bag - you seem to be advocating an androgynous world? Would that be right?

There are men like John Waters who's bugbear is things like fathers rights and domestic violence and then there's Robery Bly who [Iron Man] who wanted to reinstall masculinity [or at least his version of it] as a genuine viable option for men. The way I see it is there are two ways to talk about this: about legalities and rights or about identity.

To look at masculinity in an Irish context is particularly interesting, given their history, "mother Ireland," the dominace of the virgin Mary as an icon, the castration which comes from colonialism and matriarchy, and how Irish machismo works.

IMO it is impossible to talk about these things without taking nationhood into account. For example in the US, macho is back with a vengeance in this post 911 world, and its not such a bad thing imo. Applying the same paradigms to American machismo, English effimancy [cultural bias from an American perspective as thats how they seem through my frame of refernce -probably dont seem that way to English women], or Irish masculinities doesnt seem all that productive imo.

I highlighted your post above because of some good points you raise.

If by an androgynous world you mean a world where there are no preconceptions about a person’s personality or persons ability based on their sex then yes. I am not advocating that people lose sight of the biological fact of their own sex, I'm just saying that a persons sex is a physical thing (those of us with a womb and those of us with male genitalia). You are physically either a man or a woman and from there on it’s up to you as to how you develop your personality and attitudes. It is not a predefined rule that you must have certain characteristics because of the physical fact of your sex.


Advocacy groups such as in this case- Masculinists and Feminists by definition advocate issues favourable to one gender. This results in them becoming adversarial and contributes to public perception of irreconcilable differences between the sexes by excluding one sex forcing them to aline with the group which advocates their sex. If both groups wish to attain equality then a gender neutral approach to rights would be better than a gender exclusive approach which is ultimately counterproductive.
I prefer universal Human rights over women’s rights or men’s rights.

Your example of nationhood is also important but I would go further to saying that popular culture in society also plays an important part in polarisation of the sexes. Things like repressive religious attitudes, education, role models and government policy all play a part. These external factors influence people into behaving a certain way. With gender neutral government policy, education and marketing of products people would be more personality independent.

I can understand why groups form to campaign solely on male or female issues such as fathers rights or stronger women’s representation in certain professions. They are born out of inequality but to address the problem we need gender neutral Human rights and not gender specific rights which compete with the other sex.

The fact is that attitudes are neither male or female. Some people will be aggressive in nature. Some people will be sexually liberated and view sex as a physical thing while others will favour monogamy. Some people will be adventureous,conservative,selfish, caring,emotional,logical or whatever attitudes you care to list. The point is that none of these attitudes are gender specific. They only become gender specific when held up as an ideal for your own sex or as negative propaganda against what you see as the rival sex.

It is not right for a woman to tell a man he must be more sensitive and communicate his feelings more only for the next woman to come along and tell him he is not manly enough and should be more macho, just as it is unacceptable for a man to complain about a womans aggressive nature and tell her to be more gentile and compassionate only for the next man to tell her she should be more assertive. Certain women and men have strong sometimes selfish and individualistic attitudes. They are competitive and strong willed. It is an individual personality which dictates their actions and not their sex.
Any attempt to characterize personality traits and to have gender specific laws is sexist and promotes inequality and the stigmatisation of those members of each sex who don’t conform to the rule.

Unfortunately people are influenced by the society around them and the loudest critics, the dominant religious institution and best marketing techniques usually have an effect on the individual resulting in an artificial perception of the role they must play in that society.

Why the need to define men and women in any way other than the fact of biology?

Masculinists and Feminists both contribute to inequality and I reject them both. I don’t except any organization which tries to define my personality and actions while either competing against my rights or promoting my rights above the rights of others. I view both Masculinists and Feminists as reactionary and ultimately counterproductive and competing ideologies(or same ideology adopted by competing groups). There is no such thing as a typical man or a typical woman, only different attitudes displayed by many different people from both sexes.

Dirk Gently

metrovelvet wrote:

If you notice, the place where there is imbalance is around domestic issues, which is no doubt a bi product of the constitutional, thereby institutional sexism in the Irish consitution, which aligns a womans place in the home.

Ironically this sexist reality works both ways, by defining a womans role as in the home it undermines men’s rights concerning anything related to children or homelife. No doubt this unequal legislation is a result of heavy church influence in the wording of the constitution.(an artifical and biased influence on the indivdual)

All the more reason for gender neutral legislation to avoid discriminating against one sex which in turn balances itself out by coming full circle by discriminating against the opposite sex through the same sexist legislation.
Only through gender neutral policy, promotion and legal rights will inequality and as a result sexist attitudes fade away.

metrovelvet

clown bag wrote:

Advocacy groups such as in this case- Masculinists and Feminists by definition advocate issues favourable to one gender. .

Not always. Some yes, often no. Many are in collaborative discourse.

clown bag wrote:

I prefer universal Human rights over women’s rights or men’s rights..

Yes, except that globally, human rights tend to skip the female gender.[China, Africa, the Middle East etc etc]

clown bag wrote:

Your example of nationhood is also important but I would go further to saying that popular culture in society also plays an important part in polarisation of the sexes. Things like repressive religious attitudes, education, role models and government policy all play a part..

OF course. And every nation has its own pop culture which plays into this, from what you learn in school, to what you hear on the radio to advertising.

clown bag wrote:

I can understand why groups form to campaign solely on male or female issues such as fathers rights or stronger women’s representation in certain professions. They are born out of inequality but to address the problem we need gender neutral Human rights and not gender specific rights which compete with the other sex...

Like it or not, we are competing with each other now at least in the marketplace.

clown bag wrote:

Why the need to define men and women in any way other than the fact of biology?

Well, we are more than our genitals, aren't we?

Zombrex

clown bag wrote:

Masculinists and Feminists both contribute to inequality and I reject them both.

Rather unfortunately though, without them nothing gets done.

Who is going to campaign for more BreastCheck centres if a women group that does aren't suppost to? As soon as they do they are branded feminists demanding superior medical treatment for women over men, all because they aren't rushing around spending equal time demanding testicular cancer check centres.

As I said in an early post on another thread, at some point you have to specialise in what you are campaigning for otherwise everything states is wishy-washy general "ideals" and nothing ever gets done. Eventually you have to actually pick a cause to campaign for.

Women, naturally, will in general be interested in issues that effect themselves, women's issues (and traditionally children's issues). Not all women, plenty of women campaign for male issues (AMEN was started by a women after all).

Dirk Gently

To metrovelvet:

yes we are more than our genitiles, thats my point. We are indivdual human beings with our own outlooks and attitudes on life. Why try to link these attitudes and actions or inactions to our genitiles.

Gender nuetral human rights and legislation discriminate against no-one based on their sex. Gender specific human rights can disciminate against the opposite sex. Why do we have to compete in the work place. Co-operation and not competition. The reason you are competing is because you see someone who is different to you. If you didn't recognise that difference who would you be competing against?- other humans maybe instead of the other sex.

Wicknight:

Why is it necessary to pick a gender based cause. Would the women’s groups and men’s groups not better spend their time campaigning together for increased access to treatment for all cancer patients, demanding facilities to accommodate both sexes and not investment in one area at the expense of the other sex. why make it a breast cancer issue or a testicular cancer issue, why not make it a cancer prevention/treatment issue. Focusing on treatment for either men only or women only is nothing to do with equality, its about looking out for number 1. Campaigning for balanced investment to meet everybody’s needs would cancel out certain groups being marginalised and feeling discriminated against.