Is feminist ideology compatible with capitalism?

Alopex

A capitalist society ensures that businesses will use all means necessary to make profit. otherwise they will not survive in a market driven economy.

this means women will be objectified in advertising because sex sells. objectifying men doesn't sell to near the same extent. i am sick to my back teeth of a buxom 20 year old female being the major focus of so many advertisements. even in sport the other night i saw a female volleyball event surrounded by cheerleaders wearing underwear only slightly bigger than a thong

this means women will not be taken as seriously because people see their worth in how good they look and not in intellectual terms.

therefore women will be less likely to rise to top positions in business and government(this consistently happens in today's world)

i have noticed women in socialist organisations do not talk about feminism very much. it is as if feminist ideals are taken for granted in these organisations. they are often against positive discrimination citing it is another form of discrimination. their rhetoric is also anti-commercialism rather than anti-male

these organisations are always vehemently pro-equality and anti-sexism/anti rascism/anti homophobia etc. their membership is primarily made up of young men who also share these views.

therefore i am wondering if feminism in a capitalist world is a doomed effort. it is often observed when women rise to positions of power individually they become part of the patriarchy and show favoritism to men

taking away the free market would mean showing a woman in skimpy clothes would no longer be of commercial benefit. and women might start being seen as intellectual equals

rainbow kirby

Moved to Humanities.

RedXIV

In a truly capitalist state? No, I don't think feminism and its associated ideals would flourish as the basic premise of capitalism is that ANY advantage should and would be exploited for commercial gain. This would undoubtedly spread through more than just sexism, but ageism, racism and all the other -isms would be introduced again. We don't live in a truly capitalist state and perhaps we should be grateful for that.

In saying that, in a true capitalist state, the intelligent and hardworking would do well so it shouldn't matter what a woman looks like as long as she is capable of turning a profit, she will be successful.

The thing about this though is that sex sells. And that's what capitalism is interested in. And as such, markets aimed at men will have scantily clad women and markets aimed at women will have scantily clad men. Because this is proven as one of the most effective marketing techniques in the world. It hits our primal instincts.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm always really jealous of the guys in the diet coke ads (except the puppet, I reckon I may have an edge over him)

gargleblaster

I think blaming capitalism is a cop out. Companies used to use racist images to sell, but then society (for the most part) decided that racism was wrong, so the practice ended.

It's sadly not so easy to convey the idea that sexism is wrong. It seems impossible for some to understand the difference between using sexy women to sell lingerie and using sexy women to sell sports equipment, tools, cars, etc.

Eventually, I would hope that women themselves would manage to work out the difference between participation in something that legitimately expresses their sexuality and something that is basically the equivalent of a female Stepin Fetchit.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jack B. Badd

Alopex wrote: »

i have noticed women in socialist organisations do not talk about feminism very much. it is as if feminist ideals are taken for granted in these organisations. they are often against positive discrimination citing it is another form of discrimination. their rhetoric is also anti-commercialism rather than anti-male

these organisations are always vehemently pro-equality and anti-sexism/anti rascism/anti homophobia etc. their membership is primarily made up of young men who also share these views.

I'm a bit confused as to how this reference relates to your argument. Are you saying that socialist organisations ignore feminism or that they incorporate it to the extent that it is taken for granted by their members that is part of their mission statement (for want of a better phrase)?

How do positive discrimination and an anti-male attitude (or lack thereof) relate to socialism? And how does perceived predominantly male membership of socialist groups relate to feminism (assuming the stance that feminists are not exclusively female)?

Could you clarify this part of your argument? Many thanks.

Alopex

RedXIV wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

the difference is that objectifying men does not sell nearly as well as objectifying women. therefore objectifying women is far more prevalent and I believe this has an effect on attitudes to female worth (from both sexes)

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

indeed this is an interesting way of looking at it. do you know if similar patterns take place in other countries. perhaps the tables will turn iv the coming years.

i think i am somewhat biased because i recently finished work in a department of 50 people. 45 out of 50 were female. though the head of the department was male. 2 out of 3 of the sub department heads were male. i understand that is a sample of one but i believe similar patterns are observed in schoolteaching

The fact that some model might pose topless on Page 3 to sell newspapers, or some busty 20-year-old might appear in a TV commercial, does not negate the significant intellectual and professional achievements of other women.

i fundamentally disagree here. i think the constant use of busty women in advertising could very well have an effect on society's attitude toward women

An ever-increasing number of women are attaining high-level positions in the corporate world. Admittedly, the percentage of women in the Dáil is still disappointing, but if women want to see other women in government, surely all they have to do is vote for them. Women make up 50 percent of the electorate, after all.

admittedly i don't know the statistics on the corporate world or if any have been conducted.

You've set up a failsafe argument there. If a woman doesn't rise to a position of power, that just proves how oppressed she is. If she does rise to a position of power, she becomes part of the problem (i.e., the patriarchy).

no i was not saying she automatically becomes part of the problem. that would be a ridiculous comment. i was saying that it is often observed that is the case. feminists have a term "There's a special place in Hell for women who don't support other women" for this reason

You might want to look at the treatment of women in non-market societies before you jump to conclusions about how wonderful it will be once you get rid of capitalism.

i am not actually trying to push a socialist agenda. even if it did solve the sexual equality issues it has too many downsides to be worth it (IMO)

Jack B. Badd wrote: »

I'm a bit confused as to how this reference relates to your argument. Are you saying that socialist organisations ignore feminism or that they incorporate it to the extent that it is taken for granted by their members that is part of their mission statement (for want of a better phrase)?

this bit here in bold is what i mean

How do positive discrimination and an anti-male attitude (or lack thereof) relate to socialism? And how does perceived predominantly male membership of socialist groups relate to feminism (assuming the stance that feminists are not exclusively female)?

Could you clarify this part of your argument? Many thanks.

Well positive discrimination is a policy many feminists aspire too(erroneously in my opinion). I was arguing the attitudes you find among socialists are more fundamentally pro-equality. Therefore i believe socialism is more compatible with what feminism should really be about and positive discrimination is more an attempt to redress issues rooted from capitalism.

the predominantly male comment was that i think it odd they are predominantly male when they are so open to feminist ideals without even trying.

Alopex

gargleblaster wrote: »

I think blaming capitalism is a cop out. Companies used to use racist images to sell, but then society (for the most part) decided that racism was wrong, so the practice ended.

the images are not sexist. they objectify women. there is a huge distinction there. sexism is discrimination based on gender like racism is on race.

It's sadly not so easy to convey the idea that sexism is wrong. It seems impossible for some to understand the difference between using sexy women to sell lingerie and using sexy women to sell sports equipment, tools, cars, etc.

Eventually, I would hope that women themselves would manage to work out the difference between participation in something that legitimately expresses their sexuality and something that is basically the equivalent of a female Stepin Fetchit.

there will always be some(enough to continue the process) who participate for some easy cash

gargleblaster

Alopex wrote: »

the images are not sexist. they objectify women. there is a huge distinction there. sexism is discrimination based on gender like racism is on race.

You appear to be using a different definition of sexism than most feminists. I would obviously count myself among those who do consider objectification to be sexist.

Ostrom

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm not sure this is a fair representation; female average industrial wage levels consistently fall short of males. The achievements you mention are poor measures of equality if such outcomes fail to translate into similar material rewards across the lifecourse.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ostrom

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This skew merely represents womens participation in part-time employment.

When those figures are decomposed further by occupational category the wage inequality remains. The 2007 National Employment Survey recorded parity (even excess) in part-time retail and administration earnings, but across part-time education and health, and full-time retail, finance, education and administration categories, womens' earnings are at 82-86% of those of males (hourly earnings)*.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

For the moment, perhaps; there is little reason to expect (short of another demographic transition) that this current cohort will not experience the same life-course reductions. (Comparative studies are typically sketchy on the effects of welfare/policy intervention vs. proactive wage-setting). This esteem counts for nothing unless provisions such as gender-balanced leave entitlements and selection bias are addressed.

I do hope you are proven correct however.

*From CSO database direct

Sleepy

Your initial premise is flawed.

It assumes that the best thing a woman has to generate wealth is her looks. This simply isn't true. Very few of the world's most wealthy women have become so through their looks. JK Rowling has made billions out of her imagination, Oprah through her abilities as a presenter, Margaret Whitman through eBay, Marissa Mayer through Google.

The power of advertising is largely perception, the idea that incorporating sex into advertising actually "sells" is still totally unproven too btw.

Alopex

gargleblaster wrote: »

You appear to be using a different definition of sexism than most feminists. I would obviously count myself among those who do consider objectification to be sexist.

well you are incorrect. It is discrimination based on gender. Whilst people who happily objectify women are highly likely to be sexist there is still a huge distinction.

irishh_bob

Alopex wrote: »

the difference is that objectifying men does not sell nearly as well as objectifying women. therefore objectifying women is far more prevalent and I believe this has an effect on attitudes to female worth (from both sexes)




indeed this is an interesting way of looking at it. do you know if similar patterns take place in other countries. perhaps the tables will turn iv the coming years.

i think i am somewhat biased because i recently finished work in a department of 50 people. 45 out of 50 were female. though the head of the department was male. 2 out of 3 of the sub department heads were male. i understand that is a sample of one but i believe similar patterns are observed in schoolteaching



i fundamentally disagree here. i think the constant use of busty women in advertising could very well have an effect on society's attitude toward women



admittedly i don't know the statistics on the corporate world or if any have been conducted.



no i was not saying she automatically becomes part of the problem. that would be a ridiculous comment. i was saying that it is often observed that is the case. feminists have a term "There's a special place in Hell for women who don't support other women" for this reason



i am not actually trying to push a socialist agenda. even if it did solve the sexual equality issues it has too many downsides to be worth it (IMO)



this bit here in bold is what i mean



Well positive discrimination is a policy many feminists aspire too(erroneously in my opinion). I was arguing the attitudes you find among socialists are more fundamentally pro-equality. Therefore i believe socialism is more compatible with what feminism should really be about and positive discrimination is more an attempt to redress issues rooted from capitalism.

the predominantly male comment was that i think it odd they are predominantly male when they are so open to feminist ideals without even trying.

feminism isnt about equality , feminism is about ensuring that women always emerge on top in any given scenario , when is the last time you heard the national womens council complaining about the fact that a 15 year old boy can be prosecuted for having sex with a 14 year old girl yet the law is different for a 15 year old girl when it comes to a boy of 14

gargleblaster

Alopex wrote: »

well you are incorrect.

Simply asserting it as if it was a fact does not make it a fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism

Objectification

It is argued that sexual objectification is a form of sexism. Some countries, such as Norway and Denmark, have laws against sexual objectification in advertising. Nudity itself is not banned, and nude people can be used to advertise a product, but only if they are relevant to what is being advertised. Sol Olving, head of Norway's Kreativt Forum, an association of the country's top advertising agencies explained: "You could have a naked person advertising shower gel or a cream, but not a woman in a bikini draped across a car."[34]

Zombrex

Alopex wrote: »

A capitalist society ensures that businesses will use all means necessary to make profit. otherwise they will not survive in a market driven economy.

this means women will be objectified in advertising because sex sells. objectifying men doesn't sell to near the same extent. i am sick to my back teeth of a buxom 20 year old female being the major focus of so many advertisements. even in sport the other night i saw a female volleyball event surrounded by cheerleaders wearing underwear only slightly bigger than a thong

this means women will not be taken as seriously because people see their worth in how good they look and not in intellectual terms.

Er, why does it mean this?

When have you ever looked at a ridiculously handsome male actor in a TV commersial and thought "This ad makes me want to take him seriously, intellecturally"




Does that mean you don't think of men as intellectual creatures? I doubt it.

Alopex

gargleblaster wrote: »

Simply asserting it as if it was a fact does not make it a fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism

Sexism is simply discrimination based on gender. the waters shouldn't be muddied by adding objectification into it.

I have seen some clowns say criminalising abortion is sexism because it tells women what they can't do with their bodies.

That could only be sexism if men could have babies and were allowed abortions.

Its a similar thing here. Its objectification and completely wrong in my opinion - though that doesn't make it fit the definition of sexism

The Corinthian

Alopex wrote: »

therefore i am wondering if feminism in a capitalist world is a doomed effort. it is often observed when women rise to positions of power individually they become part of the patriarchy and show favoritism to men

The only prejudice that Capitalism has is for profit. It really doen't care what colour you are, gender, sexual orientation, whatever. It just wants to make money.

Car insurance companies will seek to charge men more - does that make them sexist against men? No, it makes them money.

And certainly women discriminate against other women when they rise to positions of power individually - but it's not so much to do with patriarchy as the bottom line. Women take time out to become mothers, while men still overwhelmingly concentrate on the 'provider' role in a family. As such if you're going to hire either a man or a woman of equal ability, who will you choose? The one who's more likely to cut down on work (or leave it altogether) to start a family or the one who'll work harder because they have to support their family?

So gender really is irrelevant to Capitalism. In reality, Capitalism loves Feminism; it creates a wider labour pool (driving down resource costs) and increases the size of the consumer market - women with incomes spend money on stuff that makes profits. Indeed, who actually buys most of these products that objectify or stereotype women? Last time I checked, men aren't big buyers of Cosmo.

Alopex

irishh_bob wrote: »

feminism isnt about equality , feminism is about ensuring that women always emerge on top in any given scenario , when is the last time you heard the national womens council complaining about the fact that a 15 year old boy can be prosecuted for having sex with a 14 year old girl yet the law is different for a 15 year old girl when it comes to a boy of 14

i agree that is often the case with feminism. the post was from a hypothetical position talking of feminism which actually does strive for equality for women.

irishh_bob

Alopex wrote: »

i agree that is often the case with feminism. the post was from a hypothetical position talking of feminism which actually does strive for equality for women.

feminists are no different from any other lobby group , they are not human rights activists , they are driven by idealogy and politics

Sleepy

Alopex wrote: »

i agree that is often the case with feminism. the post was from a hypothetical position talking of feminism which actually does strive for equality for women.

An organisation which strives for equality, strives for it for all, not just for one group of society.

The Corinthian

Alopex wrote: »

i agree that is often the case with feminism. the post was from a hypothetical position talking of feminism which actually does strive for equality for women.

That's a bit like suggesting that a business owners association or trade union both strive for equality between workers and business owners.

Partisan organizations can strive towards equality, but only when the group they represent are in the disadvantaged position - this is because they ultimately represent that group, not equality, and it is only at such times that the two agendas are aligned. When not aligned and they have to choose between equality and the group they represent, they will always choose the latter.

This can easily be demonstrated in Feminism where it comes to areas where women have an advantage over men - most notably in family law. At best they are largely silent, perhaps releasing a few positive sound-bytes on such topics, or will even promote some superficial rights that also benefit women. At worst they can be hostile towards any action that may dilute the rights (or privileges) of the group they represent, and this too is often seen.

Ultimately Feminism, by definition, cannot be about equality because it is partisan. If it was it would strive for equality for people, not women.

gargleblaster

Can anyone name any of these groups which strive for equality for all? We've had centuries of people stiving for equality. It took decades to get rid of slavery (in the countries where it is no longer practiced), decades more for women to be able to vote and own property, etc.

Which groups sought to redress all these issues back when it wasn't socially acceptable to do so? Are there any now?

I find it disturbing that what used to be the sole province of racists (the 'they're not for equality, because what about white people?' mantra in response to groups like the NAACP) has now become mainstream, and aimed at feminists.

prinz

Alopex wrote: »

i have noticed women in socialist organisations do not talk about feminism very much. it is as if feminist ideals are taken for granted in these organisations. they are often against positive discrimination citing it is another form of discrimination.

They often do. They also tend to push feminism to an extreme and actually encourage a backlash against women who don't subscribe to their own idealised version of what a woman should be/act/think etc.

Feminism can also be good for capitalism. Feminists look for more women in the workforce..... good news for capitalists, big increase in the pool of available labour results in lower wages for all.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

prinz

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes, win win all round. I hadn't paid full attention to The Corinthian had written, although I'd question the true value/amount of an excess of disposable income, when you factor in the costs of running two cars for example, childcare etc.

The Corinthian

prinz wrote: »

although I'd question the true value/amount of an excess of disposable income, when you factor in the costs of running two cars for example, childcare etc.

That's actually kind of the point - in economic terms it's all consumption. The cost of running two cars, childcare etc is all money spent on goods and services. They drive the wheels of Capitalism just as much as spending money on luxury goods.

Any society that encourages a maximization of consumption is good for profit. The traditional family unit doesn't, as it is more efficient with it's resources - shared domicile, goods are bought in bulk at a cheaper rate, as only one person is required to earn money, the others can turn to tasks that otherwise they would have to pay others to do (childcare, housework, etc).

Break them up into individuals and each has to spend separate (and aggregately more) amounts on accommodation, food, services, etc. To allow this, they have to each earn a living, thus creating a larger labour pool (which in turn is needed to handle the increased demand - although you're going into decreasing marginal utility territory there).

Overall, the emancipation of women was a godsend for Capitalism, which is reflected in the unprecedented expansion of the World economy in the last century.

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote: »

An organisation which strives for equality, strives for it for all, not just for one group of society.

Lots of feminists strive for equality for all, they simply focus their time on those with more challenges to achieve this.

For example I've a friend who works for a charity that helps poor urban kids in Detroit (and more recently Seattle) with their education.

The idea that she doesn't care about rich kids getting a proper education would, I'm sure, be rather insulting to her. It isn't that she doesn't care, it is that she feels her time is best spend helping poor urban kids.

Just because someone strives to help women gain equality does not mean they do not care about the rights of others. But it would be silly to pretend all people face exactly the same challenges when attempting to exercise those rights. If someone said my friend is "silent" on plans to introduce say a special needs teacher in Gross Pointe people here would no doubt think that is stupid. Why would my friend comment on such an activity, it is out side of the area she works in.

Yet when feminists organisations don't put their time and energy behind male issues people scream hypocracy. This seems more about feminist backlash than any genuine greivence with feminists groups.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote: »

Lots of feminists strive for equality for all, they simply focus their time on those with more challenges to achieve this.

At this stage it is difficult to deny that men increasingly face significant discriminated than women, so your argument does not really hold, unless it is by sheer coincidence that they can only find "more challenges" on the one side.

The idea that she doesn't care about rich kids getting a proper education would, I'm sure, be rather insulting to her. It isn't that she doesn't care, it is that she feels her time is best spend helping poor urban kids.

Except men aren't the 'rich kids' anymore.

Just because someone strives to help women gain equality does not mean they do not care about the rights of others.

It is of they ignore or even act against the rights of others as they typically do with men's rights.

Yet when feminists organisations don't put their time and energy behind male issues people scream hypocracy. This seems more about feminist backlash than any genuine greivence with feminists groups.

It is hypocrisy if they claim to be representing equality. To do so they would need to represent both and not simply one side - and they don't.

Sleepy

Is it "feminist backlash" to suggest that, in the context of Ireland and other non-third world countries at least, feminism has run it's course and that society would be better served by it's replacement with an "Egalitarian Movement"?

I've suggested such things before on this forum and believe such a movement would have significant benefits of scale over the myriad of lobby groups that currently exist and, while not legally trained, can only assume that legislation which ensured "equality of all persons" would be simpler to draft that legislation that allows blatant discrimination (such as current age-of-consent laws in Ireland).

The Corinthian

Sleepy wrote: »

Is it "feminist backlash" to suggest that, in the context of Ireland and other non-third world countries at least, feminism has run it's course and that society would be better served by it's replacement with an "Egalitarian Movement"?

The term backlash is typically used in these arguments in a dismissive manner, to portray opposition as emotive and without justification. In reality, backlashes can often be reactions to genuine cause, but this gets lost in the use of such a dismissive term.

What Wicknight suggested however is technically correct, as long as his premises are. As I already pointed out "partisan organizations can strive towards equality, but only when the group they represent are in the disadvantaged position - this is because they ultimately represent that group, not equality, and it is only at such times that the two agendas are aligned."

Where a group is distinctly disadvantaged against another group, one can serve both equality and partisanship - although the relationship is temporary and essentially coincidental.

The problem is that in the West it is difficult for anyone to genuinely suggest that women are distinctly disadvantaged against men - at least that such disadvantages are simply down to negative discrimination.

For example, report after report at this stage have highlighted that the single largest cause for the salary gap is that women take time off work, or leave altogether, to raise children. Yet when it comes to redressing the imbalance of rights with regard to children Feminism reacts either with silence, promotion of superficial rights (e.g. paternity leave, as long as the same man has no rights to the child he cares for) or even hostility.

The reality is that men at this stage have both de facto and de jure fewer rights than women. If you don't believe me feel free to quote any law that discriminates against women on the basis of gender and I'll reply with two or three that discriminate against men on the same basis. And that's de jure - de facto, and how the law is actually applied or enforced is an even bigger can of worms.

So one can call it a 'backlash' all one wants, but unless they're talking about the 1960's or the developing World, feminism has lost it's temporary claim to be seeking equality.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

Hey, I never suggested that Capitalism is sustainable

In reality, very few economists think that unrestrained Capitalism is sustainable or even a desirable system. It tends to think ahead in terms of quarters or, at best, a few years, for a start and thus rarely considers the generational implications. It also has a propensity towards monopolies, which is also not desirable. Capitalism is very good at what it does, but it is not without flaws and certainly not the single answer to everything.

The only people who tend to think that it is are those who tend to live in areas where scarcity of resources has historically not been a major issue. That's why the US Tea Party is so popular in the vast mid-West of America.

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote: »

Is it "feminist backlash" to suggest that, in the context of Ireland and other non-third world countries at least, feminism has run it's course and that society would be better served by it's replacement with an "Egalitarian Movement"?

That doesn't make any sense, feminism has run its course but people are still treated unequally so we need a egalitarian movement?

Are all those treated unequally men? If not then there is still a place for feminism.

Sleepy wrote: »

I've suggested such things before on this forum and believe such a movement would have significant benefits of scale over the myriad of lobby groups that currently exist and, while not legally trained, can only assume that legislation which ensured "equality of all persons" would be simpler to draft that legislation that allows blatant discrimination (such as current age-of-consent laws in Ireland).

Again unless the only problems of equality are faced by men then feminism still has a role to play in society.

This is such a blatantly obvious statement I really have to question the motivation of those who disagree. So yes this would probably fall under the feminist backlash.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

The term backlash is typically used in these arguments in a dismissive manner, to portray opposition as emotive and without justification. In reality, backlashes can often be reactions to genuine cause, but this gets lost in the use of such a dismissive term.

What Wicknight suggested however is technically correct, as long as his premises are. As I already pointed out "partisan organizations can strive towards equality, but only when the group they represent are in the disadvantaged position - this is because they ultimately represent that group, not equality, and it is only at such times that the two agendas are aligned."

Where a group is distinctly disadvantaged against another group, one can serve both equality and partisanship - although the relationship is temporary and essentially coincidental.

The problem is that in the West it is difficult for anyone to genuinely suggest that women are distinctly disadvantaged against men - at least that such disadvantages are simply down to negative discrimination.

For example, report after report at this stage have highlighted that the single largest cause for the salary gap is that women take time off work, or leave altogether, to raise children. Yet when it comes to redressing the imbalance of rights with regard to children Feminism reacts either with silence, promotion of superficial rights (e.g. paternity leave, as long as the same man has no rights to the child he cares for) or even hostility.

The reality is that men at this stage have both de facto and de jure fewer rights than women. If you don't believe me feel free to quote any law that discriminates against women on the basis of gender and I'll reply with two or three that discriminate against men on the same basis. And that's de jure - de facto, and how the law is actually applied or enforced is an even bigger can of worms.

So one can call it a 'backlash' all one wants, but unless they're talking about the 1960's or the developing World, feminism has lost it's temporary claim to be seeking equality.

That would only be true if women face no issues of equality in Ireland any more.

Saying men face more (how that is quantified I don't know) is not a justification to stop feminism. It is if anything a justification to start male rights movements.

Again this would be blatantly obvious applied to any other realm. No one says black civil rights is no longer justified because Latinos have it worse. No one says we should stop children's protection because old people are suffering too. No one says we shouldn't provide a hospital in a rich area because poor people are worse off.

But for some reason feminism is fair game, probably based on the stereotype that feminism is about screwing over men not equality for women. This is what I mean by backlash.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

Except men aren't the 'rich kids' anymore.

They aren't? Can you detail the rights men have lost since the 1960s?

The Corinthian wrote: »

It is hypocrisy if they claim to be representing equality. To do so they would need to represent both and not simply one side - and they don't.

Again that is nonsense, and would never be applied to any other realm. If you said you were interested in children's health so you donate money to a project helping inner city Dublin kids no one would turn around and say hypocrite, African kids have it much worse.

What you are saying only becomes true if one views feminism not in terms of equality and helping people, but in terms of a battle of the sexes, view every advance in terms of a loss on the other side.

That is what militant feminists did in the 70s and 80s, it would be a huge shame if men in this century started to take the same attitude. It is also not supported by the facts. Men may have areas of discrimination and inequality but this is due to historical reasons (such as child care), not because feminist are stealing your rights. Men are not actively losing rights, it is not a tug of war, giving women rights does not require that men lose some.

Sleepy

Wicknight wrote: »

That doesn't make any sense, feminism has run its course but people are still treated unequally so we need a egalitarian movement?

Are all those treated unequally men? If not then there is still a place for feminism.

Again unless the only problems of equality are faced by men then feminism still has a role to play in society.

This is such a blatantly obvious statement I really have to question the motivation of those who disagree. So yes this would probably fall under the feminist backlash.

Note, I asked would society be better served by an egalitarian movement, not would women. There are, no doubt, cases of inequality on both sides of the gender divide. It is my contention that the removal of the remaining inequality could be better lobbied for by a unified voice seeking equality for all rather than two diametrically opposed lobby groups dragging at a legislature.

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote: »

Note, I asked would society be better served by an egalitarian movement, not would women.

No you asked would it be feminist backlash to suggest such a thing.

Yes would seem to be the answer since the question itself admits that there is still a short coming with equality for women, irrespective of a short coming with equality for men. So why get rid of feminism?

Sleepy wrote: »

There are, no doubt, cases of inequality on both sides of the gender divide. It is my contention that the removal of the remaining inequality could be better lobbied for by a unified voice seeking equality for all rather than two diametrically opposed lobby groups dragging at a legislature.

Now that is backlash, the idea that feminism is "diametrically opposed" to male rights. As I explained to TC that is not born out by the facts and would look silly in any other context.

Feminism only becomes an issue when you view in terms of gains made by women equal loses made by males.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote: »

That would only be true if women face no issues of equality in Ireland any more.

That's false because you cannot measure equality in such a simplistic fashion. Equality is not a single scale, but a collection of rights and responsibilities, where one may be advantaged, disadvantaged or on equal footing - de jure or de facto.

Saying men face more (how that is quantified I don't know) is not a justification to stop feminism. It is if anything a justification to start male rights movements.

I've never really advocated stopping Feminism. I've merely pointed out that Feminism is not about equality, but a partisan ideology that represents only one side in that struggle.

It may however also be true that the World is ultimately better off without Feminism or Masculism and instead opting for a gender neutral approach to gender equality.

As for men having fewer rights; I already answered that with a question: name me any law that discriminates against women solely on the basis of gender and for every one I will name two that discriminate against men solely on the basis of gender.

Indeed, are there any such laws that discriminate against women solely on the basis of gender anymore? Serious question.

Again this would be blatantly obvious applied to any other realm. No one says black civil rights is no longer justified because Latinos have it worse.

But do black civil rights groups sell themselves as being about equality or about representing black civil rights?

But for some reason feminism is fair game, probably based on the stereotype that feminism is about screwing over men not equality for women. This is what I mean by backlash.

No, as I've already said, it is about the hypocrisy of claiming to be about equality when they are not. It is that they will choose women's rights over equality every time.

For example, where it comes to alleged rape cases (typically with the accused being male and accuser female), anonymity for the accused is dominantly opposed by such groups as the Campaign group Women Against Rape. Note that the anonymity, currently enjoyed by the accuser, would be there to protect the identity of an accused until found guilty, to to the lasting effects of stigma that an innocent accused would have to suffer even if acquitted.

Bizarrely, they their militant thirst for justice evaporates when the genders are reversed.

How can Feminism pretend to support equality with such hypocrisy?

Wicknight wrote: »

They aren't? Can you detail the rights men have lost since the 1960s?

False logic; to be disadvantaged in terms of rights, you don't actually need to lose rights, just have fewer rights.

Again that is nonsense, and would never be applied to any other realm. If you said you were interested in children's health so you donate money to a project helping inner city Dublin kids no one would turn around and say hypocrite, African kids have it much worse.

If you opposed people donating to African kids because you want the money to go to inner city Dublin kids and then claimed you supported all disadvantaged kids, then you would be a hypocrite.

And this is essentially what Feminism does; it promotes only one gender, at best to the exclusion of the other, and often to its active detriment.

That is what militant feminists did in the 70s and 80s, it would be a huge shame if men in this century started to take the same attitude. It is also not supported by the facts. Men may have areas of discrimination and inequality but this is due to historical reasons (such as child care), not because feminist are stealing your rights. Men are not actively losing rights, it is not a tug of war, giving women rights does not require that men lose some.

You asked about men losing rights earlier. Well in the last century we did - or more correctly privileges. Of course women had their privileges too; such as the assumption that 'mother knows best', yet somehow these were not redressed, only male privileges were.

Do you think that serves equality and if not, why has feminism, that claims to support equality remained silent, or even hostile, to their removal?

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's false because you cannot measure equality in such a simplistic fashion. Equality is not a single scale, but a collection of rights and responsibilities, where one may be advantaged, disadvantaged or on equal footing - de jure or de facto.

Well leaving aside the silliness of that statement (this is not a time for sound bytes ... I feel the hand of history on our shoulders), that point was you cannot say feminism is not looking for equality for women unless you can say women are all equal, which falls into your "non-sliding" scale under equal footing.

Otherwise there is a reason for feminism to exist that doesn't require that they are looking for advantages over men.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've never really advocated stopping Feminism. I've merely pointed out that Feminism is not about equality, but a partisan ideology that represents only one side in that struggle.

Again that is only true if feminism seeks to disadvantage men. I'm sure some feminists have but it is silly to say that about the movement in general.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It may however also be true that the World is ultimately better off without Feminism or Masculism and instead opting for a gender neutral approach to gender equality.

Well until that happens we will never know I guess. As it stands people seek to change the inequalities that are most important to them, people seek equality for black people, they seek equality for children, they seek equality for Catholics etc.

Perhaps one day this monolithic Equality for Everyone group will be formed, but in my experience such a general undirected movement would be a disaster. Purely for administration purposes it would probably be split into divisions and then we are back to people choosing which group to focus most of their time one (the women's divison, the black division, the children's division) which will just allow you and Sleepy to say they are clearly not interested in equality! :rolleyes:

The Corinthian wrote: »

As for men having fewer rights; I already answered that with a question: name me any law that discriminates against women solely on the basis of gender and for every one I will name two that discriminate against men solely on the basis of gender.

I didn't ask you for laws where men have fewer rights, as I asked for where men have had rights removed due to the feminist movement.

Areas where men have unequal rights is an issue for male rights campaigners. It is not a stick to beat feminism with unless feminism is causing this equality rather simply not fixing it.

The Corinthian wrote: »

But do black civil rights groups sell themselves as being about equality or about representing black civil rights?

Both. It seems to be only you see a significant difference between the two.

"I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, as I've already said, it is about the hypocrisy of claiming to be about equality when they are not. It is that they will choose women's rights over equality every time.

Can you give me examples of that?

The Corinthian wrote: »

How can Feminism pretend to support equality with such hypocrisy?

Google seems to only support this position being the opinion of a particularly deranged rape support worker, Lisa Longstaff. She seems to be repeatably quoted in news papers calling for this, but I can't see any support.

Can you provide any further evidence that this is a common position of feminist groups, rather than the opinion of one woman?

The Corinthian wrote: »

False logic; to be disadvantaged in terms of rights, you don't actually need to lose rights, just have fewer rights.

Yes I understand that. But again that isn't the claim. The claim is that men are no longer the 'rich kids'. So men have lost rights since feminism started? Men current have less rights than they did in say the 1960s?

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you opposed people donating to African kids because you want the money to go to inner city Dublin kids and then claimed you supported all disadvantaged kids, then you would be a hypocrite.

Again can you detail where feminists groups have campaigned to get the rights of men reduced?

The Corinthian wrote: »

And this is essentially what Feminism does; it promotes only one gender, at best to the exclusion of the other, and often to its active detriment.

You are going to have to support this 'at best to the exclusion of the other' claim a bit better than the ranting of a crazy charity worker.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You asked about men losing rights earlier. Well in the last century we did - or more correctly privileges.

LOL. So "more correctly" we didn't, since privileges are not rights.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Of course women had their privileges too; such as the assumption that 'mother knows best', yet somehow these were not redressed, only male privileges were.

I wasn't aware 'mother knows best' was a) a comment on fathers (the phrase is a warning not to argue with your mother, it isn't a comment to ignore your father) or b) a law :rolleyes:

Sorry TC but you are going to have to do a bit better than all that. At the moment apart from a few quacks at the edges feminism seems largely harmless to men or male rights.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote: »

Well leaving aside the silliness of that statement (this is not a time for sound bytes ... I feel the hand of history on our shoulders), that point was you cannot say feminism is not looking for equality for women unless you can say women are all equal, which falls into your "non-sliding" scale under equal footing.

Otherwise there is a reason for feminism to exist that doesn't require that they are looking for advantages over men.

There's nothing silly about what I wrote, so I've appreciate it if you would forgo your usual tactic of dismissing arguments as a means to discredit them.

Of course you can say that feminism is not looking for equality for women, regardless of whether everyone is equal or not. If your purpose it to represent your group and in doing this also serves equality, all well and good. But it doesn't mean that you're looking for equality - it just means that your aims and those of equality are aligned for the time being.

Again that is only true if feminism seeks to disadvantage men. I'm sure some feminists have but it is silly to say that about the movement in general.

Again false; you don't have to be actively seeking to advantage other groups to be partisan, but you will end up doing so when the rights of those other groups conflict with the group you represent, which is what we are seeing now.

Can you give me examples of that?

I did, in my last post.

Google seems to only support this position being the opinion of a particularly deranged rape support worker, Lisa Longstaff. She seems to be repeatably quoted in news papers calling for this, but I can't see any support.

Ahh, the few bad apples defense. How many more examples before you believe me? I'd rather know in advance before you change the goalposts.

Yes I understand that. But again that isn't the claim. The claim is that men are no longer the 'rich kids'. So men have lost rights since feminism started? Men current have less rights than they did in say the 1960s?

Yes. Men have lost their rights and privileges, with regard to the workplace, that they had in comparison to women, for a start. Marital rape didn't exist either. There were numerous 'rights' or privileges assigned by virtue of gender - that existed 50 years ago and now are gone.

This is not to say that in the interests of equality it should not have happened, but apparently only men have lost those 'rights' or privileges assigned by virtue of gender. Women have retained theirs and at the very least appear to have no interest in removing them.

Again can you detail where feminists groups have campaigned to get the rights of men reduced?

The question is where feminists groups have opposed the rights of men being increased where it affects their rights.

LOL. So "more correctly" we didn't, since privileges are not rights.

Actually privileges are rights, depending on whom you ask. Many gender based privileges were considered rights by men, just as gender based privileges are still considered rights by many women.

I wasn't aware 'mother knows best' was a) a comment on fathers (the phrase is a warning not to argue with your mother, it isn't a comment to ignore your father) or b) a law :rolleyes:

Don't attempt glibness. I used the term 'mother knows best' to describe a cultural and legal system of discrimination against men, where women will almost always be favoured over men where it comes to offspring.

If you prefer to deflect the point with another attempt at dismissal, feel free to do so, but at this stage you're not doing yourself any favours.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

Of course you can say that feminism is not looking for equality for women, regardless of whether everyone is equal or not. If your purpose it to represent your group and in doing this also serves equality, all well and good. But it doesn't mean that you're looking for equality - it just means that your aims and those of equality are aligned for the time being.

Again that is a false notion that I have only encountered on this forum. Back in the real world no one has an issue with a group representing the interests of a sub set of the population while striving for equality for that sub set.

As I quoted to you and to which you didn't respond, this is common in all areas of civil rights. Martin Luther King spoke of equality while campaigning tirelessly for black men and women to be given the same rights as while men and women.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Again false; you don't have to be actively seeking to advantage other groups to be partisan, but you will end up doing so when the rights of those other groups conflict with the group you represent, which is what we are seeing now.

You will do so because .... ? What? Natural law? Inevitability?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ahh, the few bad apples defense. How many more examples before you believe me? I'd rather know in advance before you change the goalposts.

Ok, lets say 10. 10 examples of main stream feminism campaigning for the rights of men to be removed. Fair?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yes. Men have lost their rights and privileges, with regard to the workplace, that they had in comparison to women, for a start. Marital rape didn't exist either. There were numerous 'rights' or privileges assigned by virtue of gender - that existed 50 years ago and now are gone.

What rights (not privileges, which as I explained are not rights) have men lost in the work place because of feminism.

And you are going to have to explain the marital rape comment least I mistakenly assume you were suggesting that marital rape was a right removed from men.

The Corinthian wrote: »

The question is where feminists groups have opposed the rights of men being increased where it affects their rights.

No that wasn't the question. If you would like to admit that feminists have not removed the rights of men (only the privileges they shouldn't have had in the first place), and instead talk about where feminists have objected to calls for equality for men, that is fine. But that was not the original question.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually privileges are rights, depending on whom you ask.

Do you consider the privileges men had that women didn't have "rights"?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Don't attempt glibness. I used the term 'mother knows best' to describe a cultural and legal system of discrimination against men, where women will almost always be favoured over men where it comes to offspring.

And where does such a system exist given it doesn't exist in Ireland, the UK, most of Europe and America.

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you prefer to deflect the point with another attempt at dismissal, feel free to do so, but at this stage you're not doing yourself any favours.

It is no a point, so there is nothing to deflect. You are struggling to come up with substance to your original claims. This suggests to me that your original notions of feminism are emotive, not factual. Hence the original use of the term "backlash".

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

And where does such a system exist given it doesn't exist in Ireland, the UK, most of Europe and America.

The many members of Fathers For Justice, in Ireland, and particularly the UK (and various other countries arounf Europe, and North America) would beg to differ with you on that point. Our legal system very definitely favours the mother, as opposed to the father where offspring are concerned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers_4_Justice

For example...

For children born outside of marriage in Ireland, only the mother has automatic rights to guardianship. (Even though a father's name may be registered on the child's birth certificate, this does not give him any guardianship rights in respect of his child).

or

Fathers who have been appointed joint guardians by a court or by statutory declaration can be removed from their position if the court is satisfied it is in the child's best interest. The only way a mother can give up her guardianship rights in Ireland, is if the child is placed for adoption.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/cohabiting_couples/legal_guardianship_and_unmarried_couples.html

Are you seriously trying to argue that no discrimination against the father in favour of the mother exists in the Irish legal system where offspring are concerned?

If you become pregnant while in employment in Ireland, you are entitled to take maternity leave

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/leave_and_holidays/maternity_leave.html

Paternity leave is not recognised in employment law in Ireland

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/leave_and_holidays/paternity_leave.html

strobe

gargleblaster wrote: »

Can anyone name any of these groups which strive for equality for all? We've had centuries of people stiving for equality. It took decades to get rid of slavery (in the countries where it is no longer practiced), decades more for women to be able to vote and own property, etc.

Which groups sought to redress all these issues back when it wasn't socially acceptable to do so? Are there any now?

Human Rights Watch use as their basis the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and subsequent international resolutions that led from it.

Article 1 & 2 of the UDHR read as follows:

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

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.

etc...

I'm sure there are many other organisations who follow the same ethos. Off the top of my head AI (ehh, that's Amnesty International, not the crazy Irish atheist guys :pac:) are another "Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 3 million supporters, members and activists in more than 150 countries and territories who campaign to end grave abuses of human rights.

Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards."

And so on...

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote: »

Again that is a false notion that I have only encountered on this forum. Back in the real world no one has an issue with a group representing the interests of a sub set of the population while striving for equality for that sub set.

Back in the real World? Please do not claim that no one has an issue with a group representing the interests of a sub set of the population while claiming to strive for equality for that sub set - this discussion, amongst others, is testament to the fact that such dissent cannot be so easily dismissed.

As I quoted to you and to which you didn't respond, this is common in all areas of civil rights. Martin Luther King spoke of equality while campaigning tirelessly for black men and women to be given the same rights as while men and women.

Because, soundbites aside, that's not how things ultimately worked out and many black groups in the US no longer make any claim to representing anyone other than themselves.

You will do so because .... ? What? Natural law? Inevitability?

It is inevitable; equality is served only so long as your constituency is disadvantaged in terms of rights. The moment it is not, and your constituency is advantaged in terms of rights, is where the conflict of interests emerges.

What do you do then? Actively sacrifice these rights, in the name of equality or protect them in the name of your constituency? Frankly, I am taken aback by your complete denial that there could ever be a conflict of interests.

Ok, lets say 10. 10 examples of main stream feminism campaigning for the rights of men to be removed. Fair?

I've repeatedly pointed out how it is not necessary to seek to remove rights to be blatantly partisan, but oppose any equalization of rights, which can mean opposing removing of unilateral rights held by women or affording men the same rights as women. Why have you ignored this point?

What rights (not privileges, which as I explained are not rights) have men lost in the work place because of feminism.

No, you didn't explain that privileges are not rights, you just claimed they weren't. The reality is that privileges are rights, when you have them.

That only women are recognized as having the choice of career as a home-maker - is that a right or privilege? That only women may choose to keep or abort a child - is that a right or privilege? That only women have a significant bias in the favour where it comes to custody of children - is that a right or privilege? That women will get lesser sentences to men for the same crimes - is that a right or privilege? That women are immune to prosecution for under-age sex, when they are under-age, and men are not - is that a right or privilege? The list goes on and on.

And you are going to have to explain the marital rape comment least I mistakenly assume you were suggesting that marital rape was a right removed from men.

Indeed, but many of the privileges that women had, by dint of their gender, should also have been removed from them. But they haven't been and the feminist movement has at best remained silent on this, and in some cases opposed, despite these privileges flying in the face of equality.

Do you consider the privileges men had that women didn't have "rights"?

I answered this above.

And where does such a system exist given it doesn't exist in Ireland, the UK, most of Europe and America.

You're joking, right? Or are you in complete denial on the reality, both de jure and de facto, of family law even in Ireland?

It is no a point, so there is nothing to deflect. You are struggling to come up with substance to your original claims. This suggests to me that your original notions of feminism are emotive, not factual. Hence the original use of the term "backlash".

The facts are easily demonstrable though. From how official figures are now manipulated to actively undermine evidence of discrimination against men, throughout to how laws are being promoted that give rights to women and not to men or where women's groups openly oppose equal rights for men.

Indeed, the result of so many decades by a partisan ideology that claims to support equality has let to an official definition of equality that does not include (heterosexual) men:

"We lead on issues relating to women, sexual orientation and transgender equality matters; we have responsibility across government for equality strategy and legislation."

How can you have a definition of equality that excludes groups from it?

It defies all reason to then claim that such an approach to 'equality' cannot be seen as anything other than partisan and ultimately contrary to equality. And in the face of such hypocrisy, it is only natural that a 'backlash' would occur, because a backlash is in the end a reaction to perceived social injustice - for which there is more than enough evidence to demonstrate as being quite real.

gargleblaster

As I define the terms, a privilege is most certainly not the same thing as a right. Privileges are conditional, rights are inherent. Defining terms is obviously very important before people can have meaningful conversations about anything. For example: The 'right' to rape one's wife was not a right at all, it was an example of male privilege. The 'right' as a female to not be subjected to prosecution for underate sex crimes is similarly not a right, but a privilege.

As for backlash and feminism not fighting for 'equality for men', I agree that redressing issues which men face is not their paramount goal. They have finite resources and would dedicate themselves to the issues they think are most pressing to them. It should be noted that issues regarding gender roles would fall into this realm, and those would also benefit men. I do not doubt that some feminists actively seek to hold on to privileges, I also do not doubt that most men seek to hold on to male privileges. Further I think both groups are largely blind to their own privileges, as that usually is the case with privilege in general.

I think it's petty and unrealistic to expect feminist groups to dedicate themselves to redressing a handful of issues of unfairness that men face. It has taken generations to get as close to equality as we have come, and although some people disagree, I certainly do not think that there is no need for feminist activism.

I don't even see the point of creating some mega-group which seeks fair treatment for all humans. I agree that (as has been said already) it would simply be a large bureaucracy full of smaller groups doing the same thing as is being done now - specializing in one area or another.

As far as minority groups have come, there is still a measurable amount of institutionalized discrimination and despite attempts to rationalize it or make it seem ok, it isn't. We're a long way from viewing each other as equals - both racial groups and sexes.

If there is unfairness, seek to change it. Don't target someone else as an 'enemy' and complain that they should be fixing your problems. If women had done that we'd still be unable to vote, own property, etc.

And if you're going to complain about loss of privilege, I would kindly ask that someone provide a definition of that term that doesn't make such complaining seem outrageously entitled.

prinz

gargleblaster wrote: »

I think it's petty and unrealistic to expect feminist groups to dedicate themselves to redressing a handful of issues of unfairness that men face. It has taken generations to get as close to equality as we have come, and although some people disagree, I certainly do not think that there is no need for feminist activism..

I think you are missing the point slightly. Nobody is seriously putting forward the argument that feminist groups should be campaigning for equality of rights for men.

The problem is not only would they not do so, they regularly don't even acknowledge that in some areas men are at a distinct disadvantage. It's a complete blind spot for some people.

Not only that but many so-called 'feminists' have just as much of a preconceived idea of what a woman should be as the male chauvinist misogynists they despise.

gargleblaster

Yes, I'd agree, but I'd say it's a complete blind spot for most people. It just doesn't register. Even when confronted with hard evidence, many find it hard to wrap their head around and accept.

And yes, feminists are people too, and therefore many of them have character flaws, personal issues, etc. which can color perceptions and judgments. The sad thing that I notice is that some people use such examples to tar the entire movement/feminists in general. It's not much different from those women who observe the behavior of players and form an opinion that all men are dogs.

prinz

gargleblaster wrote: »

The sad thing that I notice is that some people use such examples to tar the entire movement/feminists in general. It's not much different from those women who observe the behavior of players and form an opinion that all men are dogs.

The 'entire movement' cannot be tarred as the 'entire movement' has fallen to pieces. It covers such a wide range of issues now that the idea of a general feminist movement is redundant. Some of the former feminists when feminism was primarily concerned with equal rights are now tagged as anti-feminists.

The Corinthian

gargleblaster wrote: »

Privileges are conditional, rights are inherent. Defining terms is obviously very important before people can have meaningful conversations about anything. For example: The 'right' to rape one's wife was not a right at all, it was an example of male privilege. The 'right' as a female to not be subjected to prosecution for underate sex crimes is similarly not a right, but a privilege.

Fair enough, although I see the difference of privileges and rights are being more akin to the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. Fifty-odd years ago many of these traditional 'privileges' were considered rights, were actually considered 'inherent' by society. Just as today, many privileges held by women are seen as 'rights'.

I also do not doubt that most men seek to hold on to male privileges.

What privileges? Are any left? Legally there are none, and even those that appear to remain de facto are bizarrely largely down to women retaining their traditional privilege - if you want to have a monopoly on the role of the child carer, you can't expect to be treated equally in the role of the provider.

I think it's petty and unrealistic to expect feminist groups to dedicate themselves to redressing a handful of issues of unfairness that men face.

Handful? I would challenge such a dismissive notion. As I have already suggested, name any law that discriminates against women on the basis of solely gender and I'll name two that discriminate against men on the same basis, for each one.

At this stage men are probably subject to far more issues of inequality than women, IMO.

If there is unfairness, seek to change it. Don't target someone else as an 'enemy' and complain that they should be fixing your problems. If women had done that we'd still be unable to vote, own property, etc.

Sorry, but if a group that serves it's own constituency, often to the detriment of my own, sets itself up as a champion of equality, and by this means attains a stranglehold on those organs of the state that are suppose to promote equality (presumably including my own), then they are my enemy.