Men's Rights & Anti-Feminism; Counterproductive?

the_syco

Last I checked, fighting for mens rights make you anti-feminist, and as feminists are "cool", you must be a neanderthal :rolleyes:

LeeHoffmann

Last I checked, fighting for mens rights make you anti-feminist

funnily enough, fighting for women's rights apparently makes you a man-hating feminazi. I guess the solution is that nobody should fight for anyone's rights

Zulu

or rather fight for human rights. everyone wins

The Corinthian

si_vis_pacem wrote: »

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.

Which part of the site is not bull, out of interest?

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

funnily enough, fighting for women's rights apparently makes you a man-hating feminazi. I guess the solution is that nobody should fight for anyone's rights

No, fighting for women's rights makes you someone who fights for women's rights. But this is not to be confused with fighting for equality. Same goes for men's rights.

Fighting for women's rights to the detriment or exclusion of men's rights, where women's rights are greater than men's does make you a man-hating feminazi. And the same can be said for the reverse.

si_vis_pacem

@Corinthian: Judge for yourself, excrement is in the eye of the beholder I recommended it since it has a fairly wide range of views. Most other sites I've come accross are fairly strict about what is and isn't in accordance with their ethos (aka, echo-chambers). On good men project you just have to be reasonably polite and don't make personal attacks.


@Lee Hoffman/the_syco: Yeah, pretty much. It'd be nice to see the two sides meet in the middle a little more.

CDfm

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

funnily enough, fighting for women's rights apparently makes you a man-hating feminazi. I guess the solution is that nobody should fight for anyone's rights

I used to get weirded out by some gender arguments and was introduced to a Canadian academic who describes herself as a "capitalist feminist".

But now I have been defragged man-hating feminazi translates into "gender feminist".

There are a whole lot of women writers who are themselves classed as anti-feminist . Christina Hoff Sommers , Camile Paglia & the pop singer Pink.

Even the US womens ezine Jezebel gets a bashing and makes its own criticisms of the British model-here is an extract

The Guardian's Sunday magazine, the Observer, devoted almost every article this past weekend to the state of feminism in Britain, and the picture they paint is pretty bleak. The lead essay, by 39-year-old Rachel Cooke, claims that the gains made by earlier feminists are quickly losing ground. "Are we going backwards? Are we not waving but drowning? Yes, in a word," Cooke writes. It's not that Cooke doesn't offer good examples of this feminist regression —
Sure, she has one brief quote from 27-year-old Jess McCabe, the woman behind the excellent UK Feminist website The F Word, but of the eight articles about women in the Observer special, not a single one is written by an emerging feminist or speaks in depth to a woman under 35..

http://jezebel.com/5104025/british-feminism-is-totally-effed-says-uk-observer

And we may have our own Anti-Feminist Joanna Tuffy

Tuffy to boycott first women-only meeting for TDs


MARY MINIHAN
LABOUR TD Joanna Tuffy is boycotting a meeting of women TDs and Senators tonight being facilitated by Fine Gael’s Mary Mitchell-O’Connor on the grounds that men are not invited.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1109/1224307250653.html

I suspect what people are anti is Feminism with a capital "F" - a political movement - as opposed to feminism meaning equality, respect and equal rights.

si_vis_pacem wrote: »

Yep, applying marxism to gender roles has enormous flaws.

Why on earth would anyone want to engage with people who hold such views or propose such theories ?

After all this gender political posting I need a hug .

LeeHoffmann

or rather fight for human rights. everyone wins

No, fighting for women's rights makes you someone who fights for women's rights. But this is not to be confused with fighting for equality. Same goes for men's rights.

Fighting for women's rights to the detriment or exclusion of men's rights, where women's rights are greater than men's does make you a man-hating feminazi. And the same can be said for the reverse.

wow, I'm surprised you all missed my point. I thought the sarcasm and irony would have come across.

si_vis_pacem

@Hoffman: I was about to point it out, then I had self doubts and wondered if you and syco were serious. Glad to hear you weren't

@CDfm: As opposed to marxist feminist? She may have a point.

Thanks for the link to that article. I have enormous suspicion of exclusive equality movements, the whole "women together" thing is a little problematic when it translates as "men keep out." Maybe they should build a treehouse on merrion square with "No boys allowed" painted on the side of it.

CDfm

si_vis_pacem wrote: »

@CDfm: As opposed to marxist feminist? She may have a point.

Something like that, I can't explain it but it is more value driven than politically driven. I haven't had to look up words like "epistemologies" in the dictionary since.

The articles are the business and jezebel is a great site for a balanced point of view.

iptba

si_vis_pacem wrote: »

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

Haven't read this thread yet. But just to point out that gay men can lose out because of some feminist initiatives. For example, when gender quotas are introduced.

They are currently bringing in quotas for election candidates for political parties - initially the quota will be 30% and after 7 years, 40%. What has followed in other countries is gender quotas on the boards of companies.

CDfm

iptba wrote: »

Haven't read this thread yet. But just to point out that gay men can lose out because of some feminist initiatives. For example, when gender quotas are introduced.

Has any country ever had an LGBT quota.

iptba

CDfm wrote: »

Has any country ever had an LGBT quota.

Never heard of one (for a national parliament anyway).

CDfm

iptba wrote: »

Never heard of one (for a national parliament anyway).

Well we do have several openly gay TD's and one at the cabinet table and I would hope that our politicians would be wise enough when they get elected to have views on others rights.

I have an idea that the constituents of those TD's feel they can adequately represent them irrespective of their orientation.

Are there positives to the quota proposals.

I have often thought that the theory behind the Seanad was it being really representative of sectoral interests and that it got hijacked by the political parties.

So maybe we have to appreciate others needs as equal to our own and maybe there is not enough of it.

iptba

CDfm wrote: »

Well we do have several openly gay TD's and one at the cabinet table and I would hope that our politicians would be wise enough when they get elected to have views on others rights.

I have an idea that the constituents of those TD's feel they can adequately represent them irrespective of their orientation.

Are there positives to the quota proposals.

I have often thought that the theory behind the Seanad was it being really representative of sectoral interests and that it got hijacked by the political parties.

So maybe we have to appreciate others needs as equal to our own and maybe there is not enough of it.

One can certainly argue there are positives with quotas. Whether they override the negatives is the relevant question. Also, it is the opposite of moving to a gender-blind approach.

And of particular relevance to the discussion, is what approach would feminists, in their varied forms, take to gender quotas that advantaged men (I would be particularly interest in seeing what would happen if such a proposal was close to become reality rather than a hypothetical discussion). It would seem like almost a core issue to disagree with discrimination against women based on their gender.

CDfm

I sort of thought the system disadvantaged smaller parties because they can loose deposits and funding for not fielding women candidates.

Just say a group of TD's like set up their own party like the PD's did years ago -they may neither have the resources or candidates to reach the quotas whereas the big parties would.

So how fair is the proposal ?

Da Shins Kelly

Like someone said already, I think for the most part men's issues are ones that tend to be trivial and men choose not to get involved until it affects them on a personal level. Fact is, there is no brotherhood among men. Women have a great way of coming together and actually sympathising and empathising with each other in a way that men don't seem to do very often.

The feminists of the past were great, great women and I will forever look up to them for what they did for women. It's all well and good to say there should be human rights groups to deal with these issues rather than minority organisations, but the fact is if it's not affecting you directly you're less likely to get involved. In the past, women were being affected quite badly by inequality and most men probably couldn't sympathise with their position given they were considered "superior". Granted, in this country (and most of the Western World) women are not as discriminated against now as they were before, but there are still women in other countries that are. I still think there is a need for feminism in some parts of the world where patriarchy is considered better and women are treated as second-class citizens.

Yes, I agree that there are people who abuse feminism and use it as a guise to have a go at men, but I think it's just as bad for men to say something offensive about women, using the word 'feminist' as some sort of insult. I'm a feminist in the sense that I believe women everywhere should be treated equally to men in terms of voting rights, wages and salaries, employment, freedom of expression, freedom of dress, the choice to work outside the home and access to education. I also think that women everywhere should be allowed the choice to have an abortion if they so wish, and I really think that that is a women's issue (although, that may be a different discussion). I still think that there is much good that can be done by the feminist movement for women in other parts of the world where equality just doesn't exist.

As far as men's rights go, I do believe that something needs to be done in terms of men's rights to access their children anyway, and there needs to be some brotherhood on that front. Ye need to get together and support men in that situation, for sure. On the other hand, on the grand scale of things, globally, the issues facing men are just not comparable to the issues facing some women in some parts of the world, and for that reason I think feminism is still something that serves a purpose and should not be just dismissed out of hand as something that is just a medium for women to express their dislike for men. Much good can be done in the name of feminism for women who are still suffering just because they are women.

Zulu

I hope to god that's a troll.

CDfm

Zulu wrote: »

I hope to god that's a troll.

*shudders*

I was feeling a bit marginalised after reading that.

Doc Ruby

Zulu wrote: »

I hope to god that's a troll.

How so, seemed like a fairly well balanced and thought out post to me.

CDfm

Doc Ruby wrote: »

How so, seemed like a fairly well balanced and thought out post to me.

@Da Shins Kelly

I had a quick flick and as AFAIK women is not a generic group and the post implies a global condition and neither is it homogenous in terms of social class or orientation or culture.

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Like someone said already, I think for the most part men's issues are ones that tend to be trivial and men choose not to get involved until it affects them on a personal level. Fact is, there is no brotherhood among men. Women have a great way of coming together and actually sympathising and empathising with each other in a way that men don't seem to do very often.

A tad patronising .

I'm a feminist in the sense that I believe women everywhere should be treated equally to men in terms of voting rights, wages and salaries, employment, freedom of expression, freedom of dress, the choice to work outside the home and access to education.

So this equality of which you speak, do you want men to have some of it ?

Zulu

Doc Ruby wrote: »

How so, seemed like a fairly well balanced and thought out post to me.

Balanced? Thought out??

Most mens issues are trivial, apparently. That's neither balanced or thought out.

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

...for the most part men's issues are ones that tend to be trivial

most men probably couldn't sympathise with their position given they were considered "superior".

Do you think this is well thought out?

I'm a feminist in the sense that I believe women everywhere should be treated equally to men in terms of voting rights, wages and salaries, employment, freedom of expression, freedom of dress, the choice to work outside the home and access to education.

That makes me a "feminist" too so, but I'd never consider myself a feminist, as I believe all the above should be also available to all people regardless of sex, race, wealth, colour or creed.
I consider myself egalitarian.

I also think that women everywhere should be allowed the choice to have an abortion if they so wish

Should men be allowed to have a say in this? or will you hold that decision sacrosanct to only one sex?

Feminists are great at side-lining & marginalising the fathers in this issue in particular. Fathers rights??? pffftt.

and I really think that that is a women's issue

Nothing to do with the father then? or the child?? no???

I still think that there is much good that can be done by the feminist movement for women in other parts of the world where equality just doesn't exist.

Perhaps; every cloud has a silver lining.

As far as men's rights go, I do believe that something needs to be done in terms of men's rights to access their children anyway, and there needs to be some brotherhood on that front.

THIS is exactly why I hope this is a troll. If it's not it's the perfect example of what I abhor with "feminism". It's not "brotherhood" that’s required. This issue doesn't just impact men. Daughters are impacted; sisters are impacted; grandmothers are impacted. It's a massive social problem. It'll only be resolved if we as a society pull together. It's doomed if it's girls vs boys.

Ye need to get together

Ye?!? WE!

Da Shins Kelly

CDfm wrote: »

A tad patronising .

Not really. It's true. That's what sparked the feminist movement - women actually pulling together. That's not something that has happened among men yet.

CDfm wrote: »

So this equality of which you speak, do you want men to have some of it ?

Of course. However, when I speak of those things, I'm talking about parts of the world where women are not given access to any of those things and men are.

Zulu wrote: »

Balanced? Thought out??

Most mens issues are trivial, apparently. That's neither balanced or thought out.

I think that lack of access to education, not being allowed to work outside the home nevermind earn any money even approaching what some men earn, not being allowed to vote, not being allowed to wear certain clothes or express themselves in certain ways are pretty big issues compared to some of the issues that have been brought up in this thread. It's no secret that women in certain parts of the world are not treated with any kind of respect.

Zulu wrote: »

That makes me a "feminist" too so, but I'd never consider myself a feminist, as I believe all the above should be also available to all people regardless of sex, race, wealth, colour or creed.
I consider myself egalitarian.

Well, good for you. However, the fact remains that regardless of whether you think everyone should be equal regardless of race, sex, etc. (and I think most reasonable people are of that opinion anyway), the fact remains that people are more inclined to pull together with their own. Yes, maybe that's divisive, but it tends to be the way it is. People that are being treated the same, or are in the same positions are more likely to sympathise with each other, and thus more likely to actually create movements. In theory, most people are feminists, whether you object to the term or not.

Zulu wrote: »

Should men be allowed to have a say in this? or will you hold that decision sacrosanct to only one sex?

Feminists are great at side-lining & marginalising the fathers in this issue in particular. Fathers rights??? pffftt.

Nothing to do with the father then? or the child?? no?

It's a women's issue. Individual women may want to consult with the fathers about aborting a child if they so wish, but ultimately it's their body. I don't believe anyone has any right to dictate to someone else what they should do with their body. The woman is the one who has to carry the child for nine months, go through labour and nurse it afterwards. If a woman doesn't want to put her body through that, then I don't see why anyone else should be in any position to influence her and tell her to do otherwise. It may be harsh, but I think it's pretty harsh for someone to be made to go through with something that they really don't want to go through with.

Zulu wrote: »

Perhaps; every cloud has a silver lining.

:rolleyes:

Zulu wrote: »

THIS is exactly why I hope this is a troll. If it's not it's the perfect example of what I abhor with "feminism". It's not "brotherhood" that’s required. This issue doesn't just impact men. Daughters are impacted; sisters are impacted; grandmothers are impacted. It's a massive social problem. It'll only be resolved if we as a society pull together. It's doomed if it's girls vs boys.

Ye?!? WE!

Like I said before, that's all well and good, but the only way these things take off is by some camaraderie, and that isn't going to happen in society at large. It might be divisive, but I think it's serious wishful thinking to hope that every section of society is going to agree with you and pull together. You need to get some harmony and togetherness in your own group before you can expect others to get behind you on it.

strobe

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Like someone said already, I think for the most part men's issues are ones that tend to be trivial and men choose not to get involved until it affects them on a personal level. Fact is, there is no brotherhood among men. Women have a great way of coming together and actually sympathising and empathising with each other in a way that men don't seem to do very often.

See now here is the thing. There is plenty of 'brotherhood' amongst men. There is an utterly gigantic backlog of myths, literature, movies, music etc which are based on the concept going back thousands of years. It's one of the most celebrated and romanticised themes around. Whether it's soldiers of Easy Company risking their lives for each other in Band of Brothers, or Cloud, Barrett and co standing side by side to bring down Shinra in FFVII, or Charlie and Itchy being there for each other even on to death in All Dogs Go to Heaven.

The difference, of course, is that the concept of 'brotherhood' isn't one of 'males siding with males ("we'll show those females what's what")' which would be the direct ideological equivalent of the 'you go girl!' sisterhood idiocy.

Well you know what, I think I'll pass. The current concept of brotherhood doesn't by design exclude anyone, and it facilitated rather than obstructed Anne-Marie in joining Charlie and Itchy in their bond so that they could all work together towards their common goals.

The sisterthood you'd advocate only obstructs true gender equality and I'd rather not release the 'brotherhood' strain of the virus into the environment.

Zulu

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

It's no secret that women in certain parts of the world are not treated with any kind of respect.

It's no secret that men aren't either.

Well, good for you. However, the fact remains that regardless of whether you think everyone should be equal regardless of race, sex, etc. (and I think most reasonable people are of that opinion anyway), the fact remains that people are more inclined to pull together with their own.

And this is good because? The KKK is a group of like minded people pulling together. You see if you isolate yourself with like minded people, you create a breeding ground for bigotry & ignorance.

Yes, maybe that's divisive, but it tends to be the way it is.

And it's wrong. It's from this very kind of attitude that the oppression of women was born!

In theory, most people are feminists, whether you object to the term or not.

No, they aren't. Where are you getting this from?

It's a women's issue.

No it's not. Fathers are impacted, so are the lives of children.

Individual women may want to consult with the fathers about aborting a child if they so wish, but ultimately it's their body.

...and if they choose not to abort the father will be forced to support said child.
So lets get this straight, the woman can "choose" if they want to hold the man to economic ransom? The woman can "choose" whether or not the man will be a father? Wow, for a womans issue, it sure impacts men.

I don't believe anyone has any right to dictate to someone else what they should do with their body.

Of course they do. You have the right to prevent me from harming myself, you have the right to prevent me from harming anyone else with my body.

woman is the one who has to carry the child for nine months, go through labour and nurse it afterwards.

...not entirely true, the child also goes through the labour don't forget. There is a child involved in all of this also.

If a woman doesn't want to put her body through that, then I don't see why anyone else should be in any position to influence her and tell her to do otherwise.

So would you allow the men to "opt out" of child support should the woman decide to keep the child?

It may be harsh, but I think it's pretty harsh for someone to be made to go through with something that they really don't want to go through with.

I think it's really harsh to force someone into 18 years of financial support, & I also think it's very harsh to kill another person because you don't want to go through 8 months of labour.

:rolleyes:

Good point, well made. :rolleyes:

It might be divisive, but I think it's serious wishful thinking to hope that every section of society is going to agree with you and pull together.

You think it's wishful thinking? Newsflash, this is the fundamental principle of democracy! You only need the majorities support, and currently most people like the notion of equality for all.
Now of course, if you wish to actively suppress that idea, then sure be divisive, get everyone fighting each other as opposed to working together.

You need to get some harmony and togetherness in your own group before you can expect others to get behind you on it.

You are right, but "my group" is our society as a whole, that's who I care about. Not some limited exclusive elitist group based on genitalia.

strobe wrote: »

The sisterthood you'd advocate only obstructs true gender equality and I'd rather not release the 'brotherhood' strain of the virus into the environment.

+1

CDfm

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Not really. It's true. That's what sparked the feminist movement - women actually pulling together. That's not something that has happened among men yet.

So I have a son & a daughter and which side should I be on.

Plus , my mum a retired teacher had my Dad & her Dad's support back in the day when she was active in the INTO .

The campaign she was involved in predated feminism in to the suffrage movement and the Sheehy-Skeffingtons and the Haslams. Hanna's equality at work for women teachers had the support of lots of men.

There was colonialism, sectarianism, racism , civil rights , independence and a whole pile of stuff.

My mother moved from being a principle of a small school to being a resource teacher for boys and her views on how the education system fails small boys are too radical for here.

I haven't a notion how I am supposed to be responsible for other generations, cultures and countries. Nothing to do with me really.

So why would I want to be part of a group based on gender conflict ?

iptba

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Like someone said already, I think for the most part men's issues are ones that tend to be trivial

That may be what some people want everyone to think. I think pages such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism show the issues aren't necessarily trivial at all. Our education system lets men down on this as do other systems in society.

Maguined

I doubt many father's who have no rights to see their own children would consider that a trivial matter.

CDfm

Maguined wrote: »

I doubt many father's who have no rights to see their own children would consider that a trivial matter.

And their mothers, fathers , grandmothers, grandfathers , sisters and brothers and children of whatever gender would not consider it trivial either.

Pace2008

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Women have a great way of coming together and actually sympathising and empathising with each other in a way that men don't seem to do very often.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'll have to ask you to to explain what you mean by this jump down your throat, but there's a good chance you've lost me right here, along with most men reading this thread, I'd warrant.

strobe wrote: »

S or Cloud, Barrett and co standing side by side to bring down Shinra in FFVII,

What, did Tifa and Yuffie have nothing to do with it, you misogynistic bastard? :mad:

The Corinthian

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Like someone said already, I think for the most part men's issues are ones that tend to be trivial and men choose not to get involved until it affects them on a personal level.

This is largely due to education. The lack to this education leads men to believe that these issues are trivial, as you put it, when in reality the are anything but a lot of the time and thus not bother to do anything about it until it's too late.

That you suggested that "men's issues are ones that tend to be trivial" is an example of the disinformation that is being disseminated and the reason why several posters referred to what you wrote as condescending.

I still think there is a need for feminism in some parts of the world where patriarchy is considered better and women are treated as second-class citizens.

We're not discussing "some parts of the world where patriarchy is considered better and women are treated as second-class citizens" though. Applying the logic of "Saudi women are discriminated against, ergo equality issues for Western women" should be promoted, makes little logical sense. It actually reminds me of this:

As far as men's rights go, I do believe that something needs to be done in terms of men's rights to access their children anyway, and there needs to be some brotherhood on that front.

Only access?

I'm a feminist in the sense that I believe women everywhere should be treated equally to men in terms of voting rights, wages and salaries, employment, freedom of expression, freedom of dress, the choice to work outside the home and access to education.

What I find rather amusing is that whenever Feminists list out where they want to see equality they tend to omit those areas where they have more rights or other advantage to men; such as parenting, divorce, differing treatment (both de jure and de facto) in law, the choice to work inside the home, conscription and (hazardous) employment - to name a few.

Surely you want to see equality in those areas too?