Men's Rights & Anti-Feminism; Counterproductive?

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.

CDfm

si_vis_pacem wrote: »

The area of feminism and masculism is generally heteronormative simply because most of the issues are irrelevant to homosexual relationships.

I disagree. In Ireland the women's movement has gotten to own domestic violence with the model defining the issue as female victim/male perpetrator stereotype.

Even if you avoid female on male DV, what about female perpetrator and female partner, female perpetrator and female child(child abuse) and female perpetrator and older female relative (elder abuse)

DV is DV and orientation is irrelevant and 2 of the examples above there can have a heterosexual perpetrator.

How many different support groups would you need to tackle the variety of perpetrator models ?

Gender roles can't be fixed and predecided within same gender relationships

One of my closest friends is a lesbian mom who has been in a monogamous relationship for years. There are lots of lesbian moms on account of it being lots easier for a lesbian to become a mum legally and practically.

Denise Charlton ex head of Womens Aid is a Lesbian mom.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2011/0118/1224287749988.html

Her daytime gig is CEO of the immigrant council.

. 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.

Denise Charlton heads a group called Marriage Equality in her spare time.

So how is marriage equality going to deal with DV or the rights/reponsibities of the non biological (lesbian) parent or non resident biological parent. How is that any different to heterosexuals in similar situations ?

You do not need gender movements for lots of issues .

I have a daughter, why would I not want the same rights for my son as her ?

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.

And, while neither of my children is homosexual or LGTB , if they were why should I treat the partners or children any different to those in a heterosexual relationship.

It seems a very convoluted method of service delivery if we handle everything in terms of special interest groups.

I am a heterosexual man, and I don't speak for all men, divvying up rights etc based on a gender normative stereotype would by definition leave lots of people out and be too complex for me.

What is so wrong with trying for a holistic approach and trying to be inclusive of everybody ?

si_vis_pacem

@CDfm

I said most issues, far from all. Domestic violence is unfortunately something that can touch anyone.

When I said that gender roles aren't predecided for same sex couples I meant that theres no clear "you go to work, you keep house" as there often is in heterosexual relationships. There can't be distinct gender roles if they're both the same gender.

I'm not sure what you mean by that paragraph, sorry. And yes, there are plenty of issues that are gender blind, I'd agree that domestic violence is one of them.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not in favour of different rights based on orientation. I don't see how having a movement that examines problems with gender roles means that LGBT people get left out. Or having a separate movement examining how LGBT people are discriminated against leaves anyone else out. It makes sense for communities to come together to fight for issues that affect them, it doesn't mean that they have to opress or ignore another community. I don't think having one central movement for everything would work, if nothing else it would be impossible to get everyone to agree.

CDfm

si_vis_pacem wrote: »

@CDfm

I said most issues, far from all. Domestic violence is unfortunately something that can touch anyone.

I don't think you can exclude it.

In Ireland the womens groups have a near monopoly on dv state funding and it forms a major part of their income, possibly "subsidizing" other campaigns.:eek::eek::eek:

When I said that gender roles aren't predecided for same sex couples I meant that theres no clear "you go to work, you keep house" as there often is in heterosexual relationships. There can't be distinct gender roles if they're both the same gender.

Maybe it was so in the 1960's but its not so today.

There can't be distinct gender roles if both parents work in a heterosexual relationship or if the guy stays at home.

So is follows for many theres no clear "you go to work, you keep house".Those days are gone.

I'm not sure what you mean by that paragraph, sorry. And yes, there are plenty of issues that are gender blind, I'd agree that domestic violence is one of them.

Ah but, the women's movement in Ireland has promoted a gender, orientation & relationship blind perpetrator stereotype that has been adopted as part of public policy.

One of the casualty groups has been lesbians in DV situations.

There are a whole load of women excluded by the women's movement.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not in favour of different rights based on orientation. I don't see how having a movement that examines problems with gender roles means that LGBT people get left out. Or having a separate movement examining how LGBT people are discriminated against leaves anyone else out. It makes sense for communities to come together to fight for issues that affect them, it doesn't mean that they have to opress or ignore another community. I don't think having one central movement for everything would work, if nothing else it would be impossible to get everyone to agree.

I still can't see how you can be against a holistic approach. I am against discrimination based on gender and orientation. IMO we are the one community.

There are some issues that are outthere on the spectrum, like gay men parenting, but that is at the extreme end and it should not stop progress in other area's. In many area's ,as we all know with lesbian mothers, that we are already there even if we don't recognise it.

The idea of universal rights is that they apply to everybody.

You haven't explained how we are all different communities or indeed what rights you don't see as going into the holistic mix.

Some social activities have their own freedom of association.

The organisers of the King of the Culchies competition & charity fundraising group have a novel take on it, their rules allow for a woman king once the Irish Countrywomens Association allow men in.

Though the Culchie Cailin title does spread the love

http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/culchie-cailini-172030.html

So people can be realistic and accomadating but arent allowed to be so.

Pepe LeFrits

liah left? That's a bummer.

CDfm

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

liah left? That's a bummer.

+1

si_vis_pacem

@CDFm

I can't help but feeling we're arguing about different things. What was I excluding? I'm not being smart, I'm just not sure what you're referring to.

As for feminist groups wrongly focusing public funding on female victims of domestic abuse, I couldn't agree more. Best intentions in the world and all of that, but it needs to be addressed.

Regarding gender roles, they're nowhere near as strict as the 1960s, but they still influence hetero relationships in ways that don't apply to homosexual ones.

Yep, and thats very wrong. But theres no reason women's groups can't take on issues that apply to LGBT women. All groups are somewhat prejudiced.

I'm not sure I follow, LGBT rights groups form to campaign for LGBT rights because they aren't being addressed by other groups, not because they think that LGBT rights are the only ones that matter. Many of them are also campaigners for rights in other areas.

Even if there was one huge, general, rights group there would still have to be compartmentalisation and subsections dealing with specific issues, otherwise nothing would get done. Also theres the issue that different rights groups often don't agree with each other, just look at Christian rights groups vs. Secular rights groups. I don't think putting the two under the same aegis would help, in fact quite the contrary.

We are all members of all kinds of different communities, I'm not sure how I can demonstrate that other than to ask you to think of the people you know and how you associate with them. It probably breaks down by some catagory, even if only by the fact that you mostly live in Ireland.

I'd never suggest that different rights should apply to different people, but some communities are denied different rights to others. Thus it makes sense to form specific organisations to fight for the bits that are missing. I'd agree that feminism has this wrong at the moment, but I don't think thats an argument against specific intrest groups so much as an argument about becoming too entrenched. Anyone can be wrong.

Hehe I like that.

CDfm

si_vis_pacem wrote: »

@CDFm

I can't help but feeling we're arguing about different things. What was I excluding? I'm not being smart, I'm just not sure what you're referring to.

Have I misunderstood. I just think the world does not need an entrenched gender biased men's movement. Especially since the feminist movement is getting it so wrong.

As for feminist groups wrongly focusing public funding on female victims of domestic abuse, I couldn't agree more. Best intentions in the world and all of that, but it needs to be addressed.

Are you suggesting that we take the funding away from them and spend it properly on gender & orientation free program's ?

Regarding gender roles, they're nowhere near as strict as the 1960s, but they still influence hetero relationships in ways that don't apply to homosexual ones.

Not at all. The traditional family is gone .The model is dated. The workplace has also changed , by 2040 if current trends continue primary teaching will be exclusively female and, many of the professions are well on the way to a 50% gender split.

Maybe the real issue's now are often class and poverty issues .

And, the feminist movement may even be seen as patronising to the women they seek to "help" as the victorian middle class women were back in the day.

Yep, and thats very wrong. But theres no reason women's groups can't take on issues that apply to LGBT women. All groups are somewhat prejudiced.

But why would they want to join , if their needs aren't being catered for in the now by a grouping that is heteronormative and prejudiced against them.

A fundamental issue for the feminist movement would be that women can be violent. I can't imagine it would go down well if the feminist movements position was " Women can be violent but these are usually LGBT "

Nope, that would be a hard sell.

I'm not sure I follow, LGBT rights groups form to campaign for LGBT rights because they aren't being addressed by other groups, not because they think that LGBT rights are the only ones that matter. Many of them are also campaigners for rights in other areas.

I don't know about that. I don't like self appointed representative's.

My lesbian friends and lesbian activists/academics that I know are a fairly well rounded & savvy bunch.

Even if there was one huge, general, rights group there would still have to be compartmentalisation and subsections dealing with specific issues, otherwise nothing would get done. Also theres the issue that different rights groups often don't agree with each other, just look at Christian rights groups vs. Secular rights groups. I don't think putting the two under the same aegis would help, in fact quite the contrary.

I don't know about that.

Don't the Christian Right Women's Movement and Secular Women unite for anti-pornography , as an example, and might usually be found at opposite ends of the abortion debate.

IRL , there are some very strange alliances.

We are all members of all kinds of different communities, I'm not sure how I can demonstrate that other than to ask you to think of the people you know and how you associate with them. It probably breaks down by some catagory, even if only by the fact that you mostly live in Ireland.

My values do not change depending on the company and to say that and on Saturday night I had a text from one of the Mom's asking about how my daughter was after a break up.

I'd never suggest that different rights should apply to different people, but some communities are denied different rights to others. Thus it makes sense to form specific organisations to fight for the bits that are missing. I'd agree that feminism has this wrong at the moment, but I don't think thats an argument against specific intrest groups so much as an argument about becoming too entrenched. Anyone can be wrong.

That is a biggie. It is fairly big chunk of the philosophy doncha think to recognise the rights of others ?

Could feminism be egalitarian ?

Hehe I like that.

Release your inner culchie.

si_vis_pacem

Ah, I see And yes, I've seen alot of self interest and misogeny in men's rights activists too. I think we can get it right though. Working together would be good.

Yep, I don't blame feminists for coming to that conclusion, but I think they're wrong.

I think the ultimate goal of any gender egalitarian movement should be to deconstruct gender roles entirely. Hopefully that will happen on its own (as it seems to be doing) but I've no problem with people giving it a push. I still see alot of young families with women as the primary caregivers and men as the primary earners, its not quite obliterated yet.

I see what you mean, but again I think the separations of humans rights groups is something of a necessity. LGBT people are always going to be the experts on LGBT issues, it makes sense that they'd fight for their rights through their own organisation.

Er, not sure what you mean about that. Aren't all rights campaigners self appointed representatives? Not that they can't get it wrong of course:
http://www.family-men.com/

True, there are some areas of overlap between generally opposed groups. But its the areas of general opposition that mean that a feminist/christian right advocacy group would just be a bit of a joke. Its probably better that they make their arguements seperately and let everyone else decide whos making more sense.

Neither do mine, I'd hope, but nonetheless, I'd assume as a father you might be aware of issues that I wouldn't be. and possibly might have more in common with other fathers. Isn't that community? I don't think community has to be divisive or exclusive. Its just about recognising that some people have something in common.

I'm sure feminism as a movement is capable of picking up its breeches and moving on. Its on its third wave afterall and over a hundred years old. Lets give them the benefit of the doubt and keep prodding them in the right direction

-pulls on wellies-

CDfm

I suppose what I am saying is that whatever men's groups I have seen don't do it for me.

As for a fathers groups, I came across a few during my divorce but really they should not be needed. I can understand why they occur but I prefer more balance.

And, why would a fathers group have interested me either as an action group or a community?

Deconstructing gender roles , well I shall protest to the Toronto Zoo.

http://animaltracks.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/14/8802899-love-conquers-all-gay-penguins-will-reunite-in-spring

I don't really buy into a lot of the Nietzschean and Marxist style analysis. Some of the roles are free choice.

I imagine that the resistance to change by feminist organisations is that they have become the establishment and justify their own existence.

si_vis_pacem

Yep, applying marxism to gender roles has enormous flaws.

As for men's movements: I wasn't aware that there was one in Ireland (apart from the above christian right site which I don't think really counts.) Is there anyone else?

If you want to see a decent dialogue on men's rights I'd really recommend this site: http://goodmenproject.com/ Its not all good: theres alot of bull. But it all gets a fair and open hearing and I respect the body politic there more than I do most places.