Male Feminists

later12

Is this unnatural? I think it should be viewed as reasonable to want to promote equality between the sexes. Assuming the meaning is the promotion of equality of women to men in employment, public administration, and personal life, how can feminism be something that is restricted to women? It's like suggesting you had to be black to approve of the civil rights movement.

I said at lunchtime today that I believe in feminism and the people I was talking with looked at me like I had two heads. Do the men of boards consider themselves feminists?

Temptamperu

I am all for the rights of our fair weathered partners in this mortal toil. I also believe all should be equal though. Maternity leave, rights of fathers to children, pay and amount of clothes shops.

John Doe1

I assume you are trying to get the ride

I believe in every sex for themselves

snubbleste

There is no feminism in the nursing or primary school teaching professions.
Maybe we need a more equality-friendly word to describe what you say, rather than some gender-orientated word beginning with F or M.

keano_afc

You dont have to be a feminist to want gender equality. Women should be paid the same as men if both are doing the same job (especially in the world of tennis). But I dont think gender quotas are a good idea. The right person should get the job, regardless of their sex.

Sindri

I agree with you completely, but some feminists wouldn't. Ultra Feminists and they're not just lesbians.

Some separatist feminists do not believe that men can make positive contributions to the feminist movement and that even well-intentioned men replicate the dynamics of patriarchy.

My name is URL

I think calling it feminism is what causes some people to be dismissive of it. They obviously don't understand what it actually means.

seamus

Because feminism only chases equal rights for women, rather than equal rights for both sexes.

Egalitarianism would be a better cause.

DarkJager

Sindri wrote: »

I agree with you completely, but some feminists wouldn't. Ultra Feminists and they're not just lesbians.

Probably not lesbians but women who only have a battery powered lump of plastic for comfort as no sane man would touch them.

Einhard

I don't want women to have the same rights as men. i want both genders to have equal rights. There's a difference, and some of the most vocal feminists don't seem to get it.

later12

snubbleste wrote: »

Maybe we need a more equality-friendly word to describe what you say, rather than some gender-orientated word beginning with F or M.

Yes I think the problem may the word itself; it sounds as though feminists seek to further their rights beyond those of men... which I don't believe is the case for the vast majority of feminists.

Sindri wrote: »

I agree with you completely, but some feminists wouldn't. Ultra Feminists and they're not just lesbians.

Good Heavens Sindri.

Who knows where that fist has been:eek:

Bannasidhe

Temptamperu wrote: »

I am all for the rights of our fair weathered partners in this mortal toil. I also believe all should be equal though. Maternity leave, rights of fathers to children, pay and amount of clothes shops.

Men would need wombs and to have recently actually given birth to avail of this particular one - perhaps you meant Paternity/Parental Leave?

Amount of clothes shops?

starbelgrade

B (.) (.) B S

Chuck Stone

If one is concerned with equality in a general sense then one is concerned with the equality of women.

Trying to figure out how equality is achieved is the problem.

snubbleste

There is no such thing as equal pay for equal work.
Sure go down to the supermarket and compare which gender is predominantly manning (oops) the checkouts and which is predominantly stocking the shelves or dealing with deliveries.

Temptamperu

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Men would need wombs and to have recently actually given birth to avail of this particular one - perhaps you meant Paternity/Parental Leave?

Well yeah ofcourse they didnt have a baby sorry about my choice of word, but I think men should get the same amount of time of as women

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Amount of clothes shops?

Yes for every six womens clothes shops we have one, it was a joke in the midst of my serious post as my father always said if you want to tell the truth you should make a joke of it. But its a serious issue theres not enough male clothes shops and none with the crazy cheap prices women get.

Bannasidhe

Sindri wrote: »

I agree with you completely, but some feminists wouldn't. Ultra Feminists and they're not just lesbians.

I'm a lesbian and I completely disagree with separatists. I have no issue with men whatsoever, I just don't want to have sex with any of them. However, I will not tolerate some guy thinking he is automatically 'better' then I am just because he has a penis. I also won't tolerate some guy refusing to do a particular task just because they have a penis. As I have informed ny son and nephew many times -your willy won't fall off if you use a washing machine/hoover/iron/duster/change a nappy.

Bipolar Joe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Men would need wombs and to have recently actually given birth to avail of this particular one - perhaps you meant Paternity/Parental Leave?

Amount of clothes shops?

Personally, I think it's bullsh!t to not allow a new Dad the opportunity to have an extended period with his baby free from the hassles of work. I don't think it should be compulsory, but I do think the option should at least be there.

Also, yeah, clothes shops?

Bannasidhe

Temptamperu wrote: »

Well yeah ofcourse they didnt have a baby sorry about my choice of word, but I think men should get the same amount of time of as women


Yes for every six womens clothes shops we have one, it was a joke in the midst of my serious post as my father always said if you want to tell the truth you should make a joke of it. But its a serious issue theres not enough male clothes shops and none with the crazy cheap prices women get.

Well since I haven't worn a dress since my communion back in the age of the dinosaurs I see your point.

Johnny Foreigner

later10 wrote: »

Is this unnatural? I think it should be viewed as reasonable to want to promote equality between the sexes. Assuming the meaning is the promotion of equality of women to men in employment, public administration, and personal life, how can feminism be something that is restricted to women? It's like suggesting you had to be black to approve of the civil rights movement.

I said at lunchtime today that I believe in feminism and the people I was talking with looked at me like I had two heads. Do the men of boards consider themselves feminists?

Male feminists=Eunuchs.

Deus Ex Machina

Yikes.

later12

seamus wrote: »

Because feminism only chases equal rights for women, rather than equal rights for both sexes.

Egalitarianism would be a better cause.

Yes I suppose egalitarianism is a better word indeed. But I am not so much concerned about mens' rights as I am about women's equality. There are only a relatively small number of cases where men suffer from discrimination on the basis of their gender (and particularly as fathers), but there is (in my opinion) an entire culture of sexism against women, even in our society.

I think this culture of the denigration of women is more overwhelming than the important issue of fathers' rights, which can be fixed with sensible lawmakers passing the appropriate legislation. The treatment of women in society is not so easily fixed.

Chuck Stone

Bannasidhe wrote: »

your willy won't fall off if you use a washing machine/hoover/iron/duster/change a nappy.

Using a hoover on your willy may not result in amputation but it can certainly cause serious damage.

Not that I'd know anything about that type of thing.

finality

The issue with feminism is that a lot of women seem to have a false sense of entitlement, they think that they're better than men or that they deserve more. Feminism has some really negative connotations, and I think it's something of an obsolete term in developed countries as women do essentially now have equal rights. I think a lot of women use feminism as a sort of defense, as in "it's because I'm a woman" as opposed to "it's because I genuinely wasn't the best person for the job," or something along those lines. There are also a lot of feminists who equate it to a "men are all chauvinistic pigs" attitude, which is really negative. Feminism is not something I would want to associate myself with, for those reasons.

Anyway, never mind male feminism, female chauvinism is the way forward! :L

starbelgrade

Chuck Stone wrote: »

If one is concerned with equality in a general sense then one is concerned with the equality of women.

Trying to figure out what equality is is the problem.

I think equality is a fairly straightforward thing. It gives equal status to both genders when it comes to jobs, voting, education etc etc.

I think the main problem lies with people trying to enforce "equality" on people who choose not to take it up. And women are the worst offenders in this regard - for example some career minded women look down on women who choose to be stay-at-home mums. Take a look at the Ladies Lounge & you'll see it's full of women ragging on women who choose to use their sexuality for self gain. Etc etc.

For me, equality is giving people the right to equal status but also giving people the freedom to choose whether or not they actually want it.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian_utopia

<3

I wouldn't mind a lesbian Utopia myself.

elasticspastic

seamus wrote: »

Because feminism only chases equal rights for women, rather than equal rights for both sexes.

Egalitarianism would be a better cause.

I've been feeling this way for quite a while with regards to all group-specific rights organisations. They all start off with the greatest of intentions, but because of the narrow view their indignation is composed of, they all end up becoming nothing more than litigious or impotent whiners.

Most changes in attitude I've seen appear to come more from a populace becoming more liberal as it's wealth and/or exposure to foreign nationals increases rather than due to major campaigns by these organisations.

I seriously feel the various rights groups need to actually work towards having a single platform of egalitarianism before they can really start making the strides towards the equality they profess they're chasing.

Bipolar Joe

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

Yikes.

http://pics.livejournal.com/caffienekitty/pic/006bq0sq.jpg

Bannasidhe

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Using a hoover on your willy may not result in amputation but it can certainly cause serious damage.

Not that I'd know anything about that type of thing.

We cannot legislate against stupidity in either gender sadly. Anyone who presses a hoover against their genitalia and switches it on would most likely be better off if their reproductive organs were amputated thereby removing them from the gene pool.

starbelgrade

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I also won't tolerate some guy refusing to do a particular task just because they have a penis.

Apart from breastfeeding, I hope?

Gone Drinking

I dunno, but there's loads of them over in the Ladies Lounge!

Sindri

We see some women talking about new age pseudo-psychological shite about women being happy in themselves. Now, obviously, not all feminists are like this, but I'd prefer to see more discussion of women and female children in developing countries and the positive role women can have in society rather than this shite (which is evident in America).

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2046045-1,00.html#ixzz1DR0n2h61

Grolschevik

seamus wrote: »

Because feminism only chases equal rights for women, rather than equal rights for both sexes.

Egalitarianism would be a better cause.

Not all feminism(s) are solely concerned with that. The feminism of bell hooks is explicitly about the ending of any oppression based on any gender.

Beyond that, and only in very general terms, you have your standard liberal feminists (generally concerned mainly with equal pay, equal formal rights etc), your socialist feminists (as many stripes of those as there are stripes of socialist) and your radical feminists (who may or may not include lesbian separists).

stovelid

I don't need a label to believe in equal rights for other humans and to detest violence, prejudice and oppression against same.

I might need a label, however, to hang around gender specific forums trying to mortifyingly brown-nose a bit of sex for myself.

Excuse me, I feel phantom period pains coming on.

Bannasidhe

starbelgrade wrote: »

Apart from breastfeeding, I hope?

They can feed a baby. They can even feed a baby breast milk.
http://www.inhealth.ie/Breastfeeding.aspx?gclid=CJzMyp-Ym64CFUEe4Qod0hbSJQ

Some men can even make their own breast milk...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_lactation

Chuck Stone

starbelgrade wrote: »

I think equality is a fairly straightforward thing. It gives equal status to both genders when it comes to jobs, voting, education etc etc.

It's straightforward as a concept but it's anything but straightforward when it comes to on-the-ground reality.

I agree that creating the conditions where a parent can choose not to work, male or female, is desirable.

I think the problem ultimately is that society, on the whole, sees children as a women's 'problem' (the female burden of care issue). I believe that we'll have come a long way towards equality when we begin to see the care of children as an issue for all aspects of society rather than primarily women.

starbelgrade

Johnny Foreigner wrote: »

Male feminists=Eunuchs.

You really do have a very dim viewpoint on life.

RedXIV

The problem here is that while it's great to have equality, we're confusing this with being identical. Take for example the checkouts/deliveries example mentioned before hand. Men are, scientifically speaking, physically stronger than women. I know there's exceptions yadda yadda yadda, but this is true well over 90% of the time. we're more suited to physical labour. the differences aren't just physical either.

So while I'm all for "equal pay between genders!" I'm against "If a man/woman can do it, I should be doing it". That's the kind of thinking that will end up turning us all into robots.

Bipolar Joe

RedXIV wrote: »

The problem here is that while it's great to have equality, we're confusing this with being identical. Take for example the checkouts/deliveries example mentioned before hand. Men are, scientifically speaking, physically stronger than women. I know there's exceptions yadda yadda yadda, but this is true well over 90% of the time. we're more suited to physical labour. the differences aren't just physical either.

So while I'm all for "equal pay between genders!" I'm against "If a man/woman can do it, I should be doing it". That's the kind of thinking that will end up turning us all into robots.

Now you're making it sound appealing.

starbelgrade

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's straightforward as a concept but it's anything but straightforward when it comes to on-the-ground reality.

I agree that creating the conditions where a parent can choose not to work, male or female, is desirable.

I think the problem ultimately is that society, on the whole, sees children as a women's 'problem' (the female burden of care issue). I believe that we'll have come a long way towards equality when we begin to see the care of children as an issue for all aspects of society rather than primarily women.

Ireland's particularly backward in that respect - I think we're the only country in the EU that doesn't give any paid paternal leave to fathers, which is absurd in the extreme.

DarkJager

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I also won't tolerate some guy refusing to do a particular task just because they have a penis. As I have informed ny son and nephew many times -your willy won't fall off if you use a washing machine/hoover/iron/duster/change a nappy.

That works 2 ways. Should women be excused from heavy manual labor just because they're women? Should women be excused from operating potentially hazardous machinery just because they are women?


It brings us back to the reason the sexes cannot and will never be "equal" - physical capacity to do the work. Women have always been more suited to nurturing and caring for others while men are more capable of doing prolonged and strenuous physical work.

starbelgrade

DarkJager wrote: »

Should women be excused from operating potentially hazardous machinery just because they are women?

Ah come on now, they're entitled to drive cars just like everyone else.

My name is URL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkp4t5NYzVM

later12

DarkJager wrote: »

That works 2 ways. Should women be excused from heavy manual labor just because they're women?

Should anyone be compelled to engage in manual labour? I don't believe so. And only those who are physically capable for employment in manual labour ought to be deemed eligible... this applies to men as much as it does to women. I know some camogie players who could probably wipe me into the mud on a pitch.

The Geneva convention prevents females being used as frontline soldiers in a war -

I've never heard of that. Where is that in the Geneva Convention? Which GC is it in?

Chuck Stone

DarkJager wrote: »

Should women be excused from operating potentially hazardous machinery just because they are women?

No Sir.

Morag

later10 wrote: »

Is this unnatural? I think it should be viewed as reasonable to want to promote equality between the sexes. Assuming the meaning is the promotion of equality of women to men in employment, public administration, and personal life, how can feminism be something that is restricted to women? It's like suggesting you had to be black to approve of the civil rights movement.

I said at lunchtime today that I believe in feminism and the people I was talking with looked at me like I had two heads. Do the men of boards consider themselves feminists?

You are in good company so.
http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=445
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/05/domestic-violence-refuge-government-cuts

It is not just about equal rights, it is about recognising were in our society women have had a raw deal and continue to do so and working towards changing that, and empowering women to stand up and avail of the opportunities they have.

Morag

DarkJager wrote: »

That works 2 ways. Should women be excused from heavy manual labor just because they're women? Should women be excused from operating potentially hazardous machinery just because they are women? The Geneva convention prevents females being used as frontline soldiers in a war - why should they be excused just because they're women?


It brings us back to the reason the sexes cannot and will never be "equal" - physical capacity to do the work. Women have always been more suited to nurturing and caring for others while men are more capable of doing prolonged and strenuous physical work.

If such work is split along gendered line should we value either one less then the other?

DarkJager

later10 wrote: »

[I've never heard of that. Where is that in the Geneva Convention? Which GC is it in?

Apologies, mind was in 2 places so that's incorrect, post edited. However most military forces do restrict the use of females in frontline combat with some only lifting this restriction as early as last year:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/world/asia/australia-will-allow-women-to-serve-in-frontline-combat.html

Bad Panda

Sindri wrote: »

We see some women talking about new age pseudo-psychological shite about women being happy in themselves. Now, obviously, not all feminists are like this, but I'd prefer to see more discussion of women and female children in developing countries and the positive role women can have in society rather than this shite (which is evident in America).

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2046045-1,00.html#ixzz1DR0n2h61

This.

Instead of campaigning against a 'boy's toys' section in a toy shop, ffs. Talk about picking an easy 'fight'.

Millicent

seamus wrote: »

Because feminism only chases equal rights for women, rather than equal rights for both sexes.

Egalitarianism would be a better cause.

What's wrong with that? Would black rights' groups be better off chasing equal rights for Asians, Hispanics, Caucasians etc.?

flanders1979

At least Sheila's Wheels are finished. What feminist viewpoint?