Men's Rights & Anti-Feminism; Counterproductive?

liah

Alright. This has the potential to go pretty badly, so I'm going to clarify a few things off the bat:

1) I am supportive of men's rights, particularly in relation to child custody, paternal leave, legal abortion, divorce settlements/pre-nups, etc.
2) I am not trying to make any statements against anything to do with Men's Rights, simply a certain subset of people who use a certain style of argument. Please read everything in an entirely neutral tone.
3) I do not want this to turn into a massive argument. I just want people to consider using a different tactic in their arguments.
4) Please take the gender of myself and any other posters COMPLETELY out of the equation, and focus on the words rather than who's saying them.

A common theme I've noticed not only here on boards, but on other large social communities (reddit, for example), is a rather worrying undercurrent of vitriol among some men when claiming to stand for Men's Rights. In any discussion regarding men's or women's rights, "feminism" is commonly thrown about as an insult, and instead of simply speaking about Men's Rights themselves, many adopt the tactic of explaining what is wrong with feminism.. and unfortunately, not much else.

This strikes me as counterproductive, for two reasons:
1) The issue of human rights, be they men's or women's, is very serious, and ideally should require some level of solidarity and positive communication. Tearing apart the "other side" by way of generalizations about feminists and women serves no purpose other than to be divisive and lose you any female support you would have had that you sorely need.
2) It's ignoring the actual rights themselves. If every statement made about Men's Rights is surrounded by anti-feminist rhetoric, people aren't going to be focusing on improving Men's Rights, they're going to be focusing on the offensive rhetoric. In doing so, their opinion of Men's Rights advocates goes down, and then, subsequently, so too does their opinion of Men's Rights themselves.

I understand the basic tenents of the anti-feminism argument. Genuinely. I am not a feminist myself and have never identified myself as anything other than an advocate of equal rights. I can understand the argument for why it's dangerous to promote one gender over the other. I am empathetic when I hear of men who have been messed up by certain sections and aspects of the feminist movement. But I am equally disconcerted when what was originally a force for equal rights is now being bandied about as an insult by those claiming to want equal rights themselves. Fighting fire with fire is never a productive solution to the very real concerns these human rights issues present.

Something seems to have been lost in these debates, and that is simple human solidarity. Sympathize with someone's story of lost human rights, don't default immediately to "well, my group has it worse because..". Everyone else can have their turn, too. It's not either or. Human rights aren't a competition, but there has been an observable trend of people with an agenda in the wake of the new Men's Rights movement trying to turn it into such. There's a very real subtext of, for lack of better phrase, "stickin' it to the man," a sort of sneering, jibing revenge for all the things they were made to suffer as a result of some subset of feminism. Does this really seem like the most mature way of handling things and does it do anything to further their cause? I don't think it does.

Obviously my criticism is centered around the current Men's Rights movement, but please do not make the mistake of thinking that I believe that it is only Men's Rights advocates who behave this way, or that I believe all of them do - certainly, it is a minority, albeit an unfortunately loud one. I recognize it is a subset, and I recognize this subset exists equally in the feminism movement. The reason I am not addressing the feminism movement in this post is simply because I'm seeing more of the Men's Rights ones than the reverse, and would like men's thoughts on the matter as I'm already aware of how many women feel about it.

It does a disservice to anyone's movement when it is reduced to mud-slinging from one side to another, reduced to competition about who has it worse. It solves absolutely nothing. So why has it become so common? Why has it been turned into a war? Where is the satisfaction in that, and where is the progress?

Can we not extend an olive branch to one another and try to achieve one goal - equality? And can we not recognize that neither Men's Rights or feminists are trying to destroy the other gender, but simply make sure they have the same rights as the other?

Can't we all just have a little solidarity?

For any men who have thrown about the word feminist or feminazi intended in a derogatory manner while discussing rights, can you please explain what you feel this accomplishes for your movement?

Galvasean

liah wrote: »

For any men who have thrown about the word feminist or feminazi intended in a derogatory manner while discussing rights, can you please explain what you feel this accomplishes for your movement?

'Feminazi' is a word is use for those who are simply sexist women posing as feminists as a means of shielding themselves from criticism. I tend not to use the word 'feminist' at all as a large portion of so called 'feminists' are simply what I define as being 'feminazis'.
'Feminist' has become something of a dirty word thanks to the 'feminazis' ruining it for everyone and taking credibility away from actual feminism.

liah

Galvasean wrote: »

'Feminazi' is a word is use for those who are simply sexist women posing as feminists as a means of shielding themselves from criticism. I tend not to use the word 'feminist' at all as a large portion of so called 'feminists' are simply what I define as being 'feminazis'.
'Feminist' has become something of a dirty word thanks to the 'feminazis' ruining it for everyone and taking credibility away from actual feminism.

The thing is, it's often used against anyone who's female and has an opinion, nevermind whether or not the person's actually a feminist. I've been called a feminist and a feminazi countless times here on boards, despite never having related to the concept or been apart of it, or anything other than an equal rights advocate.

I just don't understand the value in denouncing one rights movement while trying to gain support for another rights movement. Particularly when it's, factually, only a small subset of feminists that any of their comments legitimately apply to (and vice versa).

Delirium

I don't get the whole feminists are to blame for 'x' (usually something relating to a negative situation for men.)

For example, this story broke last week in the UK, David Willetts blames feminism over lack of jobs for working men.

At first glance, I thought it was an April Fools, as it read to me as something along the lines of 'damn women taking jobs from men'.

This does nothing to answer why is it that women were 'taking' the jobs from working class men. No tackling of the subject as to why more men than women drop out of education earlier. Or that women seem to perform better in exams.

Much easier to say, 'Hey men of the UK, it's the womens fault you don't have a job.'

I definitely agree with the comment that mud-slinging on either side generally gains nothing for both parties, as it can, for example, alienate people that might be sitting on the fence as to whether to join one of the groups.

Sonics2k

I live and breathe on a single idea.

People are equal through and through. I have never thought of someone differently based on Gender/Religion/Sexuality/Race and so on.

As it stands for the last 5 years I have been an active supporter of Unmarried Fathers Rights, and spoke at a conference in 2007 at Croke Park on the matter, have been in direct contact with the likes of Eamonn Gilmore on the issue.

The idea that an Unmarried Father has virtually no rights to their own child sickens me, and after 5 years I have finally won joint-guardianship of my own children, but will continue to fight for a change to the law.
For this reason I have actively taken a huge interest in Family Law and will hopefully be attending UCC in September.


As for "Feminazi's", I honestly find them to be nothing more than Sexist females or women who feel the need to blame men for every single issue that crops up in life.

On a personal note, over the years I've found that more women do damage to the ideals of Feminism than a lot of men do.

Count Duckula

I may be wrong, but I thought that gender equality was feminism. Women who ask for equal rights but distance themselves from the term "feminist" are doing a disservice to the feminist of the past who put a lot on the line to get them that far.

metrovelvet

Liah,

I don't think there is a MENS rights group in Ireland is there? Is there a Mens movement other than the GAA? Wasnt the GAA used to establish IRish masculinity in the post colonial Marian mother Ireland to ammend the castrated feeling the men had as having been conquored by the Brits and then by the Virgin Mary?

There are father's rights groups but when I think of them I think of that guy out of Conrad's "Secret Agent" who tried to blow up the prime meridian and are fighting griffins in the air.

liah

Count Duckula wrote: »

I may be wrong, but I thought that gender equality was feminism. Women who ask for equal rights but distance themselves from the term "feminist" are doing a disservice to the feminist of the past who put a lot on the line to get them that far.

I don't like the term "feminist" because it is, by its nature, exclusive, regardless of the inherent qualities of the movement itself. Which is probably why it's been (wrongly) picked up as an insult and railed against as a movement. I'm a humanist, not a feminist. Though I do understand what you're saying, and believe me, I have endless amounts of respect for what feminists have done for me and all women in the past. I just think humanism is more fitting now, in the interests of equality.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Liah,

I don't think there is a MENS rights group in Ireland is there? Is there a Mens movement other than the GAA? Wasnt the GAA used to establish IRish masculinity in the post colonial Marian mother Ireland to ammend the castrated feeling the men had as having been conquored by the Brits and then by the Virgin Mary?

There are father's rights groups but when I think of them I think of that guy out of Conrad's "Secret Agent" who tried to blow up the prime meridian and are fighting griffins in the air.

I'm not talking about specific groups, just men who support Men's Rights. Also, as I'm not in Ireland I'm thinking more internationally than simply Ireland - the issues mentioned in my OP are not restricted to Ireland, but North America and parts of Europe, too.

Nhead

metrovelvet wrote: »

Liah,

I don't think there is a MENS rights group in Ireland is there? Is there a Mens movement other than the GAA? Wasnt the GAA used to establish IRish masculinity in the post colonial Marian mother Ireland to ammend the castrated feeling the men had as having been conquored by the Brits and then by the Virgin Mary?

There are father's rights groups but when I think of them I think of that guy out of Conrad's "Secret Agent" who tried to blow up the prime meridian and are fighting griffins in the air.

That is a brilliant take on the GAA, Declan Kiberd would be proud:D but the GAA was established when we were part of the UKoGB&I and its aim was to promote a distinctive Irish culture which, they believed was being undermined by the baser elements of British culture such as the penny-dreadful etc. As for the anti-feminism point, having studied English I feel that feminist cultural theory and criticism is vital for an understanding of our society and that a lot of people blame feminism, wrongly imo, for x,y and z problem. I thought the term feminazi was used to describe someone that stuck rigidly to man bashing.

metrovelvet

liah wrote: »

I don't like the term "feminist" because it is, by its nature, exclusive, regardless of the inherent qualities of the movement itself. Which is probably why it's been (wrongly) picked up as an insult and railed against as a movement. I'm a humanist, not a feminist. Though I do understand what you're saying, and believe me, I have endless amounts of respect for what feminists have done for me and all women in the past. I just think humanism is more fitting now, in the interests of equality.

Its an exlcusive term because women were excluded and arguably still are.

liah wrote: »

I'm not talking about specific groups, just men who support Men's Rights. Also, as I'm not in Ireland I'm thinking more internationally than simply Ireland - the issues mentioned in my OP are not restricted to Ireland, but North America and parts of Europe, too.

Do you mean rights like the right not to pay child support for kids you dont want?

Paternity leave? [Maternity leave isnt a right in the US. New mothers have to save up their vacation days so this is a moot point in terms of US equality.]

If people want to dismiss your opinion by labelling it feminist clap trap they are going to do that anyway with or without feminism in existence and just find another way to demote your point of view.

metrovelvet

koth wrote: »

I don't get the whole feminists are to blame for 'x' (usually something relating to a negative situation for men.)

For example, this story broke last week in the UK, David Willetts blames feminism over lack of jobs for working men.

At first glance, I thought it was an April Fools, as it read to me as something along the lines of 'damn women taking jobs from men'.

This does nothing to answer why is it that women were 'taking' the jobs from working class men. No tackling of the subject as to why more men than women drop out of education earlier. Or that women seem to perform better in exams.

Much easier to say, 'Hey men of the UK, it's the womens fault you don't have a job.'

I definitely agree with the comment that mud-slinging on either side generally gains nothing for both parties, as it can, for example, alienate people that might be sitting on the fence as to whether to join one of the groups.

Feminism paved the way for women to enter the workforce. That doubled the supply of the potential employees so employers could be pickier. It also doubled consumers, it also made women less dependant on marriage so they could divorce easier, which then of course increases demand on housing and utilities, so more room for profit that way too.

SugarHigh

metrovelvet wrote: »

Do you mean rights like the right not to pay child support for kids you dont want?

Probably an issue for another thread but would this be so wrong? If women have the option of abortion(unofficially) why shouldn't the man? Now obviously I'm not suggesting he makes a woman have an abortion but if we wants to disown the child why shouldn't he have the option?

If he does disown the child he forfeits any rights to that child and cuts off any responsibility. I suppose maybe they do have this option unofficially but I don't really know.

Paternity leave? [Maternity leave isnt a right in the US. New mothers have to save up their vacation days so this is a moot point in terms of US equality.]

I actually believe neither parent should be entitled to any leave. They should be able to claim unemployment benefit but I don't think a company should have to pay you to stay home and raise your kid.

If people want to dismiss your opinion by labelling it feminist clap trap they are going to do that anyway with or without feminism in existence and just find another way to demote your point of view.

This is true. If someone doesn't want to listen to a certain opinion then they won't. Does it really matter what excuse they use?

metrovelvet

SugarHigh wrote: »

Probably an issue for another thread but would this be so wrong? If women have the option of abortion(unofficially) why shouldn't the man? Now obviously I'm not suggesting he makes a woman have an abortion but if we wants to disown the child why shouldn't he have the option?

If he does disown the child he forfeits any rights to that child and cuts off any responsibility. I suppose maybe they do have this option unofficially but I don't really know.

It's very much an issue for this thread if you are talking men's rights and in terms of consolidation with women's rights.

The other side of the equality argument mightn't be if a woman has the right to an abortion and adoption,, then why shouldnt a man, but also if a man doesnt have the right to them, why should a woman?

[Im not advocating either, just pointing out what the blind pursuit of equality can lead to.]

Mrmoe

In your agrument you make a claim that Mens rights groups attack feminism, however, you believe that this is the wrong attitude to have and that solidarity and unity is the productive avenue to take. This is an entirely rational approach to take.

My main problem with this, is that "mens rights groups" are not an exact but opposite enitity to feminism or feminist groups. I see them more as being about equality , a level playing field regardless of gender. From my point of view feminism in my mind has always been more about rights for women than equal rights for everybody. I have never heard or come across a feminist group campaigning for mens rights. As long as this is the case I would always be hostile towards feminism as I see it in my eyes.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I think specific issue groups can be a force for good, eg groups against domestic violence against men, father's for justice etc

Groups for general men's rights - terrible divisive idea. They'll become just like typical feminists and become hypersensitive over anything. Like that f*cking manflu thread for example.

What's needed is an egalitarian group to rationally criticise discrimination against either gender and challenge baseless gender roles.

Bottle_of_Smoke

liah wrote: »

For any men who have thrown about the word feminist or feminazi intended in a derogatory manner while discussing rights, can you please explain what you feel this accomplishes for your movement?

I don't use feminazi because I hate all things Godwin

I oft criticise those who describe feminism as striving for equality of genders because it is such a loaded term.

If women were treated really badly compared to men then I could accept it. The reality however is that some things are sh*t for men, some for women. Overall it would be pretty difficult to decide who has it better.

So when I hear people coming out and saying they are a feminist because they want equality whilst rarely (if ever) speaking out against injustices toward men I cannot take them seriously

Wolfe Tone

Men and women arent equal so treating them as such is foolish.

Fremen

Liah, do you think you could provide some examples of what you're talking about? I'd like to make things a little clearer in my head.

One issue is that the internet is a double-edged sword. On a site like Boards, everyone has a more or less equal say. to change the emphasis, everyone has a more or less equal say. Even ill-informed people who routinely use conversational terrorism without realising it.

On sites that have a voting system like reddit, as long as you can express a sentiment that has mob appeal in a snappy way, people will listen.

The interplay between men's rights and women's rights is a politically charged issue. Most other arenas of politics fall foul of similar problems. Lowbrow American news outlets use tactics like the ones you described all the time - look at Fox news when they mention athiests or democrats. You certainly see the same kind of thing happening in the "law and order" vs. "personal freedom" threads in AH.

What you wrote about is something to aspire to, but I suspect an inevitable side effect of the democracy of the internet is that we have to listen to ill-founded arguments from Joe Average, who never learned to debate properly.

milehip1

liah wrote: »

A common theme I've noticed not only here on boards, but on other large social communities (reddit, for example), is a rather worrying undercurrent of vitriol among some men when claiming to stand for Men's Rights. In any discussion regarding men's or women's rights, "feminism" is commonly thrown about as an insult, and instead of simply speaking about Men's Rights themselves, many adopt the tactic of explaining what is wrong with feminism.. and unfortunately, not much else.

Those people who use those term over the net probably wouldnt be so quick in real life,
you make some very valid points OP and seem to have noble intentions,

Only recently I was thinking the same about how womens groups can ailenate men and therefore lose their support,
perhaps someone should doctor your post to a mans point of view and post in The ladies lounge(I would but I'm lazy).

I've read several posts there from somewhat irate female posters angry at men who had dared to basically suggest what you suggested.

''For any men who have thrown about the word feminist or feminazi intended in a derogatory manner while discussing rights, can you please explain what you feel this accomplishes for your movement?'

Obviously its serves as much as calling a man sexist or chauvinist,it exposes the users lack of anything constructive or intresting to say, so they restort to name calling and jibes, signaling that its time to back away, safe in the knowledge you've won.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Liah

I don't think there is a MENS rights group in Ireland is there? Is there a Mens movement other than the GAA? Wasnt the GAA used to establish IRish masculinity in the post colonial Marian mother Ireland to ammend the castrated feeling the men had as having been conquored by the Brits and then by the Virgin Mary?

There are father's rights groups but when I think of them I think of that guy out of Conrad's "Secret Agent" who tried to blow up the prime meridian and are fighting griffins in the air.

There is a group called AMEN which supports male victim of domestic violence.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Feminism paved the way for women to enter the workforce. That doubled the supply of the potential employees so employers could be pickier. It also doubled consumers, it also made women less dependant on marriage so they could divorce easier, which then of course increases demand on housing and utilities, so more room for profit that way too.

WWII did more for paving the way for women entering the workplace.

Dravokivich

Sonics2k wrote: »

I live and breathe on a single idea.

People are equal through and through. I have never thought of someone differently based on Gender/Religion/Sexuality/Race and so on.

This is my opinion also. I can't comprehend the idea of branding (for lack of another way of putting it) an entire group of people based on trivial labels with regards to their gender/opinion/race.

With regards to Koth's post above, I find attitude being brought forward in that quite discomforting. It's taking a prod at social classes as much as it is gender. Even with that, the comments being made are generalisations with no clear idea of figures or verified reports put forward to show any trends. Then again if they had the figures, how would it make "women" the villain they are being painted as?

Right, now to OP. no intention of digging into ya here meself by the way.

liah wrote: »

This strikes me as counterproductive, for two reasons:
1) The issue of human rights, be they men's or women's, is very serious, and ideally should require some level of solidarity and positive communication. Tearing apart the "other side" by way of generalizations about feminists and women serves no purpose other than to be divisive and lose you any female support you would have had that you sorely need.
2) It's ignoring the actual rights themselves. If every statement made about Men's Rights is surrounded by anti-feminist rhetoric, people aren't going to be focusing on improving Men's Rights, they're going to be focusing on the offensive rhetoric. In doing so, their opinion of Men's Rights advocates goes down, and then, subsequently, so too does their opinion of Men's Rights themselves.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights wrote: »

Article2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

The idea of Human Rights should be as simple as pen pushing bureaucracy and should not be swayed because someone is a man, or someone is a woman. The fact that we have an idea set as "pro mens rights" and "pro womens rights" itself is counterproductive to the idea of Human Rights which doesn't take gender into account.

liah wrote: »

I understand the basic tenents of the anti-feminism argument. Genuinely. I am not a feminist myself and have never identified myself as anything other than an advocate of equal rights. I can understand the argument for why it's dangerous to promote one gender over the other. I am empathetic when I hear of men who have been messed up by certain sections and aspects of the feminist movement. But I am equally disconcerted when what was originally a force for equal rights is now being bandied about as an insult by those claiming to want equal rights themselves. Fighting fire with fire is never a productive solution to the very real concerns these human rights issues present.

There's quite a lot in this particular paragraph, but to me, the main issue being highlighted here is, "What is equality and what does it mean for him/her?"

As far as I'm aware (and I'm not aware of much), there were two key issues with womens rights when the idea of gender equality was first being brought out. 1) Right to vote. 2) Equality in the workplace.

From what I can see, in most of society this is the norm now.

With this, there's only 1 real issue I can see with mens equality and that's as Sonics2k mentioned above. Access to their children defaulting to the mother. This is an inequality as blatant as the 2 key issues previously for womens equality. Access should be based on proven suitability more so then the stereotypical idea that the mother knows what's best for their children.

liah wrote: »

It does a disservice to anyone's movement when it is reduced to mud-slinging from one side to another, reduced to competition about who has it worse. It solves absolutely nothing. So why has it become so common? Why has it been turned into a war? Where is the satisfaction in that, and where is the progress?

The competition and trying to show who has it worse I recon is more so due to nature, but would have very little in a way of showing it... If does seem odd to me that be instinct we are meant to show ourselves as superior, but in turn it seems Men/Women are advertising their portrayed weaknesses overall. The only way there can be progress is if we make our gender irrelevant as per the excerpt from the Declaration of Human Rights I quoted above.

I believe gender is only relevant for the physicality of it. By that I mean the body parts and our traditional mating rituals... (Sidenote: I've no issue with homosexuality)

liah wrote: »

For any men who have thrown about the word feminist or feminazi intended in a derogatory manner while discussing rights, can you please explain what you feel this accomplishes for your movement?

I've never been one to throw out the "feminazi," remark. To be honest I think adding "nazi" onto to something and trying to make a point about how stupid it is, is pretty lame in itself.

With regards to using the phrase "feminist." If there is an equality issue as blatant as right to vote or equality in the workplace, I've no issue with it.
With that though, I've often said "feminists are sexist too." I take issue with "feminists" who push forward stereotypical ideas of men, or stereotypical ideas of women stereotypically held by men... And "feminists" who's goal isn't equality, but in turn to oppress men as a form of vengance...

The Corinthian

When viewing the question of men's rights, it is important to identify the problems before one can explain the vitriol that many men express in this area.

To begin with Ireland is particularly bad where it comes to men's rights. Compared to other EU, or even Western, countries, men have significantly fewer legal rights and protection compared to women. Probably as a result of history, where women had significantly fewer legal rights and protection compared to men up until the last twenty or so years, you have a situation whereby there is an almost exclusive political emphasis on servicing women's rights and protection and practically none for men that has led to a plethora of laws geared towards women, either explicitly or in practice, while men end up getting the short end of the stick.

Secondly, again in the Irish context, those 'traditional privileges' that women 'enjoy' remain untouched - constitutionally women are protected if they choose to remain at home, for example, men are not. Now, while many Feminists may claim that such 'traditional privileges' are offensive to women, in practice they have made no effort to reverse them.

Thirdly, few men (or women) accept that women are really being discriminated against any more. More correctly, where it exists it comes down to the above 'traditional privileges' rather than discrimination of men against women. An example of this is the salary gap, which is trotted out by the Irish Times and other sectors of the media on a regular basis with the implication that it is down to discrimination. Problem with that is that it does not take long to figure out that it's not as simple as that; women in their twenties out-earn men and the gap forms as a result of women sacrificing their careers in favour of family.

And that sacrifice cannot really be put on the shoulders of the patriarchy, because 'feminism' has made no effort to encourage equality in family roles - largely because this would mean sacrificing some of those aforementioned 'traditional privileges'. Give a man paternity leave to help out the mother, sure, but give him rights to his children, that he is looking after, and you'll suddenly get silence from the feminist camp.

However, the emphasis on feminism above is also down to the fact that there is very little on the other side of the argument and this is really a failing on men ourselves. Men's rights appears to be largely treated in the same way as men's health is - we don't bother until it affects us. Even where we might rant online about it, once we step away from the PC, we're going to forget about it. Much of the reason for this is we simply do not like the idea of being victims.

This is not altogether our fault. There's practically no education on these issues for men. We have expensive marketing campaigns on diseases for women or for their 'options' in the event of a crisis pregnancy, and little or nothing for men. Men are additionally bombarded with increasingly dubious propaganda about how we're still oppressing women and this further conditions us not to 'complain'.

As a result, 99% of those involved in men's rights are those directly affected by it. The guys dressing up as batman outside the courts or even licking envelopes for fathers rights campaigns are the ones who are not only fathers, but those who are adversely affected. If childless or if we have no problems with the mother, we just don't care. I'm all right Jack.

It would be like the breast cancer movement being supported only by women with breast cancer - in reality, many women who have never and will never have breast cancer get actively involved. Or the pro-choice movement being composed solely of women who have had or want to have abortions. Men have failed to adopt the same form of "brothers are doing it for themselves" comradeship that women achieved.

A combination of the two sides of this problem has resulted in a lot of frustration and anger in men, who feel increasingly impotent against a system that is increasingly marginalizing and discriminating against them. Some of this anger is warranted; feminism is seen by many to really represent choice for women, rather than equality, and men are increasingly seen to have to pay for that choice, with people like Ivana Bacik representing the most disgusting examples of such gynocentric bias in Ireland today.

However, much of it is our own fault too and so to an extent lashing out at 'femnazis' is a means of avoiding the fact that we've allowed the situation to become so extreme.

liah

Fremen wrote: »

Liah, do you think you could provide some examples of what you're talking about? I'd like to make things a little clearer in my head.

On Boards all you have to do is go to any thread that has anything to do with gender in AH and it's bound to come out eventually. Doesn't happen as much here as thankfully the mods here clamp down on it pretty well.

On reddit, well, all you have to do is scan the first page: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/

Large amount of vitriol and bitterness, nothing much constructive actually going on. It's an absolute shame, as I would love to support them and discuss those topics, but it's such an incredibly hostile environment I (and probably many other women) just don't want to get involved.

The focus always seems to be on why whatever women are doing is bad, rather than how to actually change what needs to be changed. I just don't understand the point.

liah

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Men and women arent equal so treating them as such is foolish.

They are, insofar as they balance out. Men's strengths balance out women's weaknesses, and women's strengths balance out men's weaknesses. In that respect, genders are equal. Insofar as them being identical to one another in both mind and body, well, I don't believe anyone was trying to claim such.

Do you have anything more constructive to add about, perhaps, why it's foolish to pursue equality? And your theories as to which gender is "superior"?

Earthhorse

I'm not one of the men either involved in men's rights groups or in decrying feminists so I can't really speak for either but I would say it's down to a lot of what TC said.

Furthermore, I think that, compared to the inequalities that launched the feminist movement the inequalities effecting most men are trivial. To rehash what TC said, we only become involved when we're affected.

But I would also question whether such tactics are counterproductive. The idea that logic and rationality should be our companions on the road to equality is indeed a noble one, but is it true? Anger and outrage are often more powerful policitical forces than reason and debate. If you think about the feminist movement, who are the women that are quoted and debated most? Is it the reasonable, middle ground, hard to disagree with quarter? Or is the more emotional, radical, jaw-dropping statement quarter?

Saying things like "all sex is rape" may be patently untrue but it gets people talking and specifically it starts them rethinking what rape is because they need to do so in order to know what it's not. Such an exercise is wasted on many in this thread because we are already logical, rational thinkers, people interested in thinking (and dashingly handsome too) but it is useful to shock people who don't think about such issues out of their slumber and into the debate.

The Corinthian

Earthhorse wrote: »

But I would also question whether such tactics are counterproductive. The idea that logic and rationality should be our companions on the road to equality is indeed a noble one, but is it true? Anger and outrage are often more powerful policitical forces than reason and debate. If you think about the feminist movement, who are the women that are quoted and debated most? Is it the reasonable, middle ground, hard to disagree with quarter? Or is the more emotional, radical, jaw-dropping statement quarter?

I would broadly agree with this. As I mentioned in my previous post, one of the problems is that we are still force fed a diet of supposed patriarchal oppression on a regular basis, which other than being increasingly dubious is at this stage simply serving to socially censor any mention of discrimination against men. As a case in point of how little debate there still is, terms such as masculism and misandry are still unrecognized by most spell checkers - feminism and misogyny, on the other hand, have no such problem.

Ultimately, only by highlighting such inequities can one raise awareness and effectively kick-start debate - this thread being a case in point.

Of course, that is not to suggest that blatantly misogynistic propaganda is constructive - it's not and serves only to discredit masculism in much the same way that SCUM is used to discredit more rational feminism. However, I don't believe that this extreme represents any more than a tiny fraction of masculist thinking.

donfers

metrovelvet wrote: »

Is there a Mens movement other than the GAA? Wasnt the GAA used to establish IRish masculinity in the post colonial Marian mother Ireland to ammend the castrated feeling the men had as having been conquored by the Brits and then by the Virgin Mary?

are you for real or are you on a wind-up?

sensibleken

I remember my girfriend who used to be a teacher in leeds was telling me that the majority of girls thought it was a great idea to get pregnant because you get a council house, that people like jordan and the other one were good role models and looking for boob jobs for their 16th birthday.

I then realised Feminism should be a compulsory subject in schools to counteract the shíte the media is portraying as what is a 'successfull woman'.

That some men use the word feminism as an insult just shows what idiots some people can be in trying to raise any natural difference and portray it as some sort of natural advantage, be they racist, sexist or homophobe

SugarHigh

sensibleken wrote: »

I remember my girfriend who used to be a teacher in leeds was telling me that the majority of girls thought it was a great idea to get pregnant because you get a council house, that people like jordan and the other one were good role models and looking for boob jobs for their 16th birthday.

I then realised Feminism should be a compulsory subject in schools to counteract the shíte the media is portraying as what is a 'successfull woman'.

That some men use the word feminism as an insult just shows what idiots some people can be in trying to raise any natural difference and portray it as some sort of natural advantage, be they racist, sexist or homophobe

So feminism should decide what constitutes a successful woman?

If a young girl wants to grow up to be like Jordan who is a feminist to tell her she's wrong?

my girfriend who used to be a teacher in leeds was telling me that the majority of girls thought it was a great idea to get pregnant because you get a council house

How many of them actually do this? There was a discussion on this a while back and it was found to be pretty much bullsh1t because you really don't financially benefit by having kids in the vast majority of cases. It's along the same lines as claiming the government is giving foreigners free cars.

Dravokivich

sensibleken wrote: »

I remember my girfriend who used to be a teacher in leeds was telling me that the majority of girls thought it was a great idea to get pregnant because you get a council house, that people like jordan and the other one were good role models and looking for boob jobs for their 16th birthday.

I then realised Feminism should be a compulsory subject in schools to counteract the shíte the media is portraying as what is a 'successfull woman'.

That some men use the word feminism as an insult just shows what idiots some people can be in trying to raise any natural difference and portray it as some sort of natural advantage, be they racist, sexist or homophobe

I think what's there lacking is personal responsibility, nothing else.

sensibleken

SugarHigh wrote: »

So feminism should decide what constitutes a successful woman?

If a young girl wants to grow up to be like Jordan who is a feminist to tell her she's wrong?

How many of them actually do this? There was a discussion on this a while back and it was found to be pretty much bullsh1t because you really don't financially benefit by having kids in the vast majority of cases. It's along the same lines as claiming the government is giving foreigners free cars.

This was England I should point out. I have no idea if its true or not and whether it is or not is not the point, it is the sentiment expressed.

Feminism doesnt decide anything like that, its not a code of conduct or a set of definitions. A feminist has no right to tell another as in dictate if thats what you mean, the point is that these girls saw an extremely limited set of options for themselves. The idea of a strong independant woman, competing on the same level as a man seemed alien to them

The Corinthian

sensibleken wrote: »

Feminism doesnt decide anything like that, its not a code of conduct or a set of definitions. A feminist has no right to tell another as in dictate if thats what you mean, the point is that these girls saw an extremely limited set of options for themselves. The idea of a strong independant woman, competing on the same level as a man seemed alien to them

I think you're jumping to a number of conclusions based upon limited hearsay.

To begin with that "these girls saw an extremely limited set of options for themselves" probably had very little to do with their gender and far more with the socioeconomic background they found themselves in. And if so, boys would not have options either and the idea of 'competing' within the framework of civil society would be just as alien to them too - or did your ex tell you how all the boys went on to college?

On that basis, I would reject what you're saying as presumptuous.

sensibleken

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you're jumping to a number of conclusions based upon limited hearsay.

To begin with that "these girls saw an extremely limited set of options for themselves" probably had very little to do with their gender and far more with the socioeconomic background they found themselves in. And if so, boys would not have options either and the idea of 'competing' within the framework of civil society would be just as alien to them too - or did your ex tell you how all the boys went on to college?

On that basis, I would reject what you're saying as presumptuous.

1. yes, although this was an all girls school they had a much lower rate of kids going to uni than the local boys school, something of an oddity nationally aparantly
2. not my ex
3. the fact they cited their sex as a reason they had extremely limited set of options for themselves

reject it if you want, it hardly matters

donfers

sensibleken wrote: »

This was England I should point out. I have no idea if its true or not and whether it is or not is not the point, it is the sentiment expressed.

Feminism doesnt decide anything like that, its not a code of conduct or a set of definitions. A feminist has no right to tell another as in dictate if thats what you mean, the point is that these girls saw an extremely limited set of options for themselves. The idea of a strong independant woman, competing on the same level as a man seemed alien to them

people from working class backgrounds often see a limited range of options in front of them, it's not about being a strong independent woman operating on the same level as a man, it's about PEOPLE from dodgy areas and poor backgrounds being able to compete on the same level as those from more priviliged backgrounds.

for every woman who sees her only viable role rodel as Jordan, there is a guy whose only viable role model is some football player..........so be careful not to reduce prejudices based on social class into a specifically gender-based issue as you will only succeed in alienating the male kid from the dodgy poor area even further.........why not work together and find common ground with him instead?

sensibleken

donfers wrote: »

people from working class backgrounds often see a limited range of options in front of them, it's not about being a strong independent woman operating on the same level as a man, it's about PEOPLE from dodgy areas and poor backgrounds being able to compete on the same level as those from more priviliged backgrounds.

for every woman who sees her only viable role rodel as Joran, there is a guy whose only viable role model is some football player..........so be careful not to reduce prejudices based on social class into a specifically gender issue as you will only succeed in alienating the male kid from the dodgy poor area even further.........why not work together and find common ground with him instead?

Ok, clearly I should have stated that the girls said that their sex was a the main factor that they felt they had less options than boys. Not in a 'oh its a mans world and theres prejudice out there' it was for a much more deep seated reason that they thought themselves intrinsicly unable to compete on the same level as boys because of their sex.

Working together of course would be the best thing to teach all kids no matter where their from that no door is closed to them because of their economic back ground. But if an issue has been shown that these girls feel their sex is a handicap in addition to their socio economic background then that needs to be tackled also. its not about valuing one sex over the other

The Corinthian

sensibleken wrote: »

1. yes, although this was an all girls school they had a much lower rate of kids going to uni than the local boys school, something of an oddity nationally aparantly

If it was an oddity, then you can hardly cite it as a representative example.

2. not my ex

Your present girlfriend. Sorry, my mistake.

3. the fact they cited their sex as a reason they had extremely limited set of options for themselves

Given that they were still in school, it is unlikely that they would have had first hand experience of such a disadvantage, or that a disadvantage actually existed.

reject it if you want, it hardly matters

You brought the point up, TBH.

sensibleken wrote: »

That some men use the word feminism as an insult just shows what idiots some people can be in trying to raise any natural difference and portray it as some sort of natural advantage, be they racist, sexist or homophobe

That doesn't really make a lot of sense. Feminism has become an insult because it has lost it's original sense of a movement seeking equality for women and has become one of seeking choice for women.

"Do not do battle with monsters, lest ye become a monster".

cantdecide

There are some brainy people on boards!

I do agree that both genders can't be "equal", yet very generally compliment each other. There are some quite obvious inequalities that have already been mentioned. IMO, the more extreme examples may be now on the side of men. Put that aside.

One of the fundamental differences between the sexes, in my experience is the way that women can more naturally rally around each other, socially. IME, women can form a 'we' with greater ease than men, who, I think, always revert more instinctively to an 'I' on social issues. This is just my experience.

I think this is may be somewhere near the root of the feminism v maculinism issue. As the TC mentions, men have a tendency to be uninterested in these types of social issue unless directly affected. With this in mind, in response to the OP's question, my suspicion is that you may find a more outspoken minority being anti-feminist having possibly been radicalised by their experiences with regard to father's rights, maybe.

Knasher

cantdecide wrote: »

One of the fundamental differences between the sexes, in my experience is the way that women can more naturally rally around each other, socially. IME, women can form a 'we' with greater ease than men, who, I think, always revert more instinctively to an 'I' on social issues. This is just my experience.

I'd actually consider that something that was born out as part of the feminist movement than a fundamental part of the female psyche. I wasn't alive prior to the feminist movement so this is all based on my interpretation of the depiction of women in history. Prior to feminism the only way for a women to really express her opinions was through her husband, giving rise to the whole "behind every great man is a woman" saying.

It was only at the birth of feminism that women realised that the could gain power by banding together.

strobe

liah wrote: »

Alright. This has [......] your movement?

I feel kind of guilty giving such a short response after you went to all the trouble to type that out but....

Some men use the cloak of mens rights simply to have a go at women. Some women use the cloak of feminism simply to have a go at men. They do this deliberately to try and guilt (not sure if that's the word I want there) people they feel should be in their camp to be in their camp, and the annoying thing is so many people fall for it constantly. Often women that are blatantly just anti-male and have no interest in equality will begin "I am a feminist and I think......(attack on men)" and men that dislike women will do the same "Mens right are.....(attack on women)". The problem is because these people exist there are also other people that will try and label you one of them. Someone expresses a genuinely egalitarian opinion and are tagged feminazis or misogynists to try and discredit them.

I have separate issues with special interest groups in general, mens/womens/black/Jewish rights groups. I have some very very limited sympathy (?) for the actions of significant minority groups but none at all for mens or womens groups and the like. I think they are divisive by their very nature and attract all the people I spoke of in the above paragraph like flies to sh1t. What's wrong with human rights groups? The ones that say, "we don't care if you are black, white, male, female, gay, disabled. If your human rights are being compromised we will work together to help you." Rather than the "you need help? you a girl? Ok, let her through. What have the men been doing to you?" groups.

irishh_bob

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I don't use feminazi because I hate all things Godwin

I oft criticise those who describe feminism as striving for equality of genders because it is such a loaded term.

If women were treated really badly compared to men then I could accept it. The reality however is that some things are sh*t for men, some for women. Overall it would be pretty difficult to decide who has it better.

So when I hear people coming out and saying they are a feminist because they want equality whilst rarely (if ever) speaking out against injustices toward men I cannot take them seriously

IMO , being a feminist is about believing women are and should always be the main benifactor in any given situation or scenario

CDfm

Liah , it is an interesting thread.

Equality is great and many people men & women support support it.

High profile gender based feminist campaigns are populist .

If you take domestic violence campaign's they don't represent all women or children. Women in same sex relationship's , elder abuse or younger females in abusive or violent relationships.

Do you know of any support groups for female victims of women ??

I am very friendly with 2 lesbians in relationships who have children. Fantastic & supportive people and I am lucky to have them as friends & I am a divorced dad.

Are their relationships supported ?

So the campaigns and the policies they generate thru stereotyping are real and affect real people women and men.

The use if the term MCP (male chauvinist pig) was very common until the term feminazi came into common usage.

So being pro-rights for other groups does not make someone anti-feminist or anti-equality.If feminist groups misrepresent reality and if people are pissed off with their campaigns maybe it is because the campaigns are unfair or untruthful and cause harm too. People have become cynical & sceptical of claims made by womens groups but there are valid reasons for that.

I used to engage in these type of gender debates but got out of it and I imagine now I have a lot more relaxed and even radical take on things.

sensibleken

The Corinthian wrote: »

If it was an oddity, then you can hardly cite it as a representative example.

I didnt cite it as a representative example, there may have been some crossed wires that I am saying this is representative of women as a whole. I am not trying to say that. Im saying this is thankfully a minority view of themselves that was once more widespread and it is a minority view that was tackled by feminists (male and female) and these girls would benifit from learning about that

The Corinthian wrote: »

Given that they were still in school, it is unlikely that they would have had first hand experience of such a disadvantage, or that a disadvantage actually existed.

The actual disadvantage doesnt exist, thats the point. They can have every success that a middle class boy can have but expressed the opinion that it was pointless even trying because they are female. Not because of the opinion that 'its a mans world and theres too much prejudice', it was much more deep seated than that and thought they were intrinsically unable to be as successful as boys because of their sex

The Corinthian wrote: »

That doesn't really make a lot of sense. Feminism has become an insult because it has lost it's original sense of a movement seeking equality for women and has become one of seeking choice for women.

"Do not do battle with monsters, lest ye become a monster".

Women seeking a choice, how dare they!

Setun

strobe wrote: »

I feel kind of guilty giving such a short response after you went to all the trouble to type that out but....

Some men use the cloak of mens rights simply to have a go at women. Some women use the cloak of feminism simply to have a go at men. They do this deliberately to try and guilt (not sure if that's the word I want there) people they feel should be in their camp to be in their camp, and the annoying thing is so many people fall for it constantly. Often women that are blatantly just anti-male and have no interest in equality will begin "I am a feminist and I think......(attack on men)" and men that dislike women will do the same "Mens right are.....(attack on women)". The problem is because these people exist there are also other people that will try and label you one of them. Someone expresses a genuinely egalitarian opinion and are tagged feminazis or misogynists to try and discredit them.

I have separate issues with special interest groups in general, mens/womens/black/Jewish rights groups. I have some very very limited sympathy (?) for the actions of significant minority groups but none at all for mens or womens groups and the like. I think they are divisive by their very nature and attract all the people I spoke of in the above paragraph like flies to sh1t. What's wrong with human rights groups? The ones that say, "we don't care if you are black, white, male, female, gay, disabled. If your human rights are being compromised we will work together to help you." Rather than the "you need help? you a girl? Ok, let her through. What have the men been doing to you?" groups.

Totally agree with the above. If one group is so righteous in their beliefs for fairness and equality for a demographic in society, why stop there? Why discriminate between the people that need help by specifying gender, or skin-color, or religion? Obviously for many support groups and charities it is perhaps easier for them to make a difference within a smaller demographic of society, but there is seemingly a lack of willingness to collaborate with other groups. Similarly, we see it with male or female posters on boards who attach those who disagree or do not understand their beliefs with various lazy terms such as "Feminazi" etc - they are more interested in defending their own "team" than actually looking at the situation and admit that there are quite serious issues on both sides. A defensive post from one side generally leads into a defensive reaction from the other, which further isolates their individual arguments. This for me is where it is goes wrong: the idea that there are two teams fighting a battle of the sexes, and that there must be a winner, instead of recognising that the concept of male and female is no longer a simple binary in physiological and psychological terms, and that the social problems we face re equality and gender are too complex to separate exclusively by sex. Of course we'd do much better to encourage open debate about gender issues around boards and in real life without the lazy and defensive anti-sentiment often mistaken for a considered opinion.

The Corinthian

sensibleken wrote: »

I didnt cite it as a representative example, there may have been some crossed wires that I am saying this is representative of women as a whole. I am not trying to say that. Im saying this is thankfully a minority view of themselves that was once more widespread and it is a minority view that was tackled by feminists (male and female) and these girls would benifit from learning about that

That is not how what you wrote read though.

The actual disadvantage doesnt exist, thats the point. They can have every success that a middle class boy can have but expressed the opinion that it was pointless even trying because they are female. Not because of the opinion that 'its a mans world and theres too much prejudice', it was much more deep seated than that and thought they were intrinsically unable to be as successful as boys because of their sex

I understand now that you are raising this as the exception to the rule, but I'm not really certain why.

Women seeking a choice, how dare they!

I didn't say women, I said feminism - please do not confuse the two - and it really depends on what that choice is and whom pays for that choice.

The point I made is that when the priority, largely thanks to post-feminism, became one of choice rather than equality, then equality was sacrificed to this greater goal. This means that if you want to maximize choice and equality is a secondary consideration, you will do the former to the detriment of the latter.

This is why the 'traditional privileges' that women retain (the virtual monopoly on home and child care) have been ignored by feminism. Instead, modern feminism has largely sought to maximize choice, so that women may keep the traditional female roles and also have the male ones.

It's where things such as quotas in politics come in - that politics is not a family friendly occupation is pretty much accepted by both sides of this debate as the principle reason for this. Yet feminism has shied away from perusing a course of sharing it's traditional roles (rights and responsibilities) and instead has taken on a course whereby it wants society to compensate, via quotas, for a woman right to hold both roles.

So if feminism wants to promote an unequal choice for women where they can have both roles and that men must effectively pay for their right to have both roles, while being denied a similar, or any, choice, then yes - shame on feminism for this.

sensibleken

The Corinthian wrote: »

That is not how what you wrote read though.

I understand now that you are raising this as the exception to the rule, but I'm not really certain why.

I didn't say women, I said feminism - please do not confuse the two - and it really depends on what that choice is and whom pays for that choice.

The point I made is that when the priority, largely thanks to post-feminism, became one of choice rather than equality, then equality was sacrificed to this greater goal. This means that if you want to maximize choice and equality is a secondary consideration, you will do the former to the detriment of the latter.

This is why the 'traditional privileges' that women retain (the virtual monopoly on home and child care) have been ignored by feminism. Instead, modern feminism has largely sought to maximize choice, so that women may keep the traditional female roles and also have the male ones.

It's where things such as quotas in politics come in - that politics is not a family friendly occupation is pretty much accepted by both sides of this debate as the principle reason for this. Yet feminism has shied away from perusing a course of sharing it's traditional roles (rights and responsibilities) and instead has taken on a course whereby it wants society to compensate, via quotas, for a woman right to hold both roles.

So if feminism wants to promote an unequal choice for women where they can have both roles and that men must effectively pay for their right to have both roles, while being denied a similar, or any, choice, then yes - shame on feminism for this.

If you want me to agree gender quotas is bull then of course it is. Some feminist may want both roles, others dont. I guess we just know different feminists. Personally none of the ones i know would argue for anything other than equality (yes in the family too), there isnt a bible of feminists that all of them must agree on.

The Corinthian

sensibleken wrote: »

If you want me to agree gender quotas is bull then of course it is. Some feminist may want both roles, others dont. I guess we just know different feminists. Personally none of the ones i know would argue for anything other than equality (yes in the family too), there isnt a bible of feminists that all of them must agree on.

If that is the case, the feminists you know are not exactly vocal about such issues. This is the problem with claims of feminism representing equality - there's actually very little evidence of it.

Is it that they are a tiny minority or that they choose to remain silent?

sensibleken

The Corinthian wrote: »

If that is the case, the feminists you know are not exactly vocal about such issues. This is the problem with claims of feminism representing equality - there's actually very little evidence of it.

Is it that they are a tiny minority or that they choose to remain silent?

PM me your address and ill send them around to you. How vocal do you want them to be exactly, theyre not exactly shouty people and I think its unreasonable to expect them to shout from the rooftops just to satisfy you.

the ones I know who are organised publish pamphlets that get circulated, put on benifits etc and get some really good charitable stuff done. Others just believe in equality of the sexes but may not actively get involved because their too busy with work or family or whatever, not all are senators.

But if your determined to believe that all feminists want men to be servants to woman kind then theres very little I can do about that.

The Corinthian

sensibleken wrote: »

PM me your address and ill send them around to you. How vocal do you want them to be exactly, theyre not exactly shouty people and I think its unreasonable to expect them to shout from the rooftops just to satisfy you.

the ones I know who are organised publish pamphlets that get circulated, put on benifits etc and get some really good charitable stuff done. Others just believe in equality of the sexes but may not actively get involved because their too busy with work or family or whatever, not all are senators.

I'm sorry, but they're hardly representative of Irish feminism are they? They're not exactly getting their message across in the media or getting their polieics adopted? Can you show us any evidence that such a brand of feminism even exists in Ireland, let alone is representative of mainstream Irish feminism?

But if your determined to believe that all feminists want men to be servants to woman kind then theres very little I can do about that.

I never said that. Why are you attempting to dismiss what I am saying with straw men rather than address it?

I have simply pointed out that mainstream Irish feminism - as evidence in both the media and in campaigns - does not have equality as a principle aim. You claim that this does not represent all feminists and that could well be true, but if so those you describe apparently make little impact to either the media or in campaigns. If this is incorrect, please show me how.

If correct however, it is either because they form an ineffectual minority of the Irish feminist movement or because they choose to be silent on such issues. And if the latter, they're frankly no better than the Ivana Baciks of Ireland.

CDfm

What I do not like about these debates is they exclude people.

Is it fair to say that a lesbian mother with a son in an abusive relationship with a heterosexual female partner will be very marginalised ?

What about homosexual men who want to marry will the mens movement represent them ?

It is often said that societies are judged with reference to their treatment of minorities.

When you think of it discussing rights for men vs women and "human rights " is incomplete if you do not factor them in.

Or an example I gave earlier of families headed by lesbians ?

Like, how can you have a reasonable discussion about single parents allowances etc if you do not know how many same sex relationship mothers there are ?

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

What I do not like about these debates is they exclude people.

Well, you might want to start off a broader debate then in a new thread; the topic of this one was pretty specific.

What about homosexual men who want to marry will the mens movement represent them ?

I can't see why homosexual men would not be covered by the umbrella of men's rights.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, you might want to start off a broader debate then in a new thread; the topic of this one was pretty specific.

The topic is very specific but feminism is not a unified theory so while Liah the OP is sympathetic as to what she supports - she still seems a bit miffed with about why lots of men are negative about feminism.

She seems to say its like the scene in the Wild Ones with Marlon Brando -

Mildred: What're you rebelling against, Johnny?

Johnny: Whaddya got? ...

But its not like that really is it.

Feminism as we know it in Europe is based on Marxist Theories with men & women replacing the capitalist & worker. Oppressor and oppressed. So the model assumes an adversorial relationship.

The other part of it for me is that the "movement" is overtly political and anyone who rejects the marxist style analysis is guilty of being anti-feminist.

So while not being a unified theory , nonetheless, politically the movement has huge power.

While an individual like the OP can come out and say I support X,Y & Z you do have weird coallitions. For example, you can have "anti-abortion" and "pro-abortion" feminists campaigning as anti-pornography.

So when you have a definition of "anti-feminist" it rejects the marxist style analysis of society too. For examples anti-feminists may say relationships are mutual and not unequal and are cooperatative.

They may also may say that class or sexual orientation should be included in analysis. The Suffrage issue was as much about class as gender but men not having the vote gets airbrushed out.

The OP could be defined by some as anti-feminist with her post by some.

The things the OP doesn't like might be reactions to the nasty side of the feminist movement.

So Cor , if you dont like the gender driven system surely you want it to change.Why not a more inclusive model.

I can't see why homosexual men would not be covered by the umbrella of men's rights.

My take on it is that the current prevailing theories are "hetero-normative" and if you refine these by making them "gender" you still buy into this gender war.

So by going that bit further and saying right lets get inclusive you deal with the issues in a holistic way.

The gender theories are full of holes - DV both genders are at it - abuse yup that too. LGBT also get in on the act too. In fact, all elements of society have vices but the majority of us are fairly well balanced and good people.

There is no reason why we should accept the marxist socialist feminist analysis of society or the political solutions that go with it.

So I can be totally against DV in all sectors of society without looking at it in a gender way. Marriage too irrespective of orientation. And there are family relationships too that get a short shift with this analysis.

Gender may be one of the criteria but its not the only criteria by a country mile and society is too diverse to use it as the standard.

Rights should be human rights and stereotypes thrown away as they have little use.

si_vis_pacem

The area of feminism and masculism is generally heteronormative simply because most of the issues are irrelevant to homosexual relationships. Gender roles can't be fixed and predecided within same gender relationships. I would assume that any self respecting men's rights movement would fight all forms of male opression, regardless of the orientation of the person in question.

While I heartily agree that solutions to human rights issues should be holistic, its still useful to separate the issues in terms of who the affect on the basis that focusing on one set of issues at a time is more effective. I support men's rights, nothing says I can't support women's rights and LGBT rights too.