Feminist mob attempt to shut down talk on equality for males - MOD NOTE POST 10

Zulu

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I see feminism and masculinism as wanting equality but focusing on what they see as the obstacles to achieving equality for the side they represent.

You may well be right, but if you are it'll never happen. It's only a pretense. You can't seriously strive for equality by only looking at one side of the equation; by only representing one side of the equation.

Personally, I don't believe they are trying to achieving equality anymore. They certainly don't sound like they are. They don't look like they are. They don't walk like they are.

If it sounds like a duck; looks like a duck; walks like a duck...

I don´t see feminism as meaning what´s best for women. Likewise I don´t see masculinism as being what´s best for men. In this sense, I´d see myself as being both feminist and masculinist and see no contradiction there.

I suspect you are eager to avoid the use of labels, but what you are describing seems similar enough to how I'd look at things. I describe myself as an egalitarian however, as I don't see how either masculinist or feminist can represent true equality without considering the other sex.

To me it's tantamount to some sort of White nationalism group hiding behind the pretense of equality by protecting their own races' interests. There is no room for elitism in equality.

I also have never been part of a feminist/masculinist lobby group etc. I just subscribe to the ideology that both genders suffer from gender-based inequality and prejudice, and I´m committed to countering such inequality and prejudice in my own little life.

They really, (at risk of labeling you against your will) you are an egalitarian.

The thing is - anybody can slap a label on themselves and claim to represent that group - or just be taken to represent that group.

This is true, but until the group rallies against this "agent provocateur" it will increasingly grow and consume the voice of the whole.

I understand the feminism has "many different flavors" but if you take a moment to consider which of these flavors seeks out men and with what message, and which groups do nothing to address it, how do you expect society to view the whole?

fanki na pengin

Scrap the term 'feminist' and substitute with 'pro-equality'?

Zulu

Madam_X wrote: »

The thing about this though, is that it's surely agreed by anyone with a sense of fairness that "islam = terrorism" and "catholic priests = child abusers" is a terribly wrong way to think.

Of course it is, but life isn't fair. And continuing with that train of thought, how do we react to a church that does nothing to correct/condemn the child abusers?

You say yourself Reku that youre aware of feminists who condemn the ones who are hostile to men.

You yourself are one, are you not Madam_X? However your efforts appear to be in vain, for you (and others like you) are failing to marginalise these "extremest" groups. Whatever actions you are taking don't appear to be working. That said, are you taking any actions? or simply "complaining about it on the internet" - a comment often leveled at men who speak up on the internet.

but to say feminism had its roots in man-hating is a rather frightening way to think.

I have to agree with this. Unless the poster has evidence to the contrary, then to accuse the original suffragettes of being man haters is a simple, lazy, slur.

It scares me tbh - and just as feminism is the sanctuary for man-haters, it's likely the very valid cause of men's rights will be hijacked by misogynists.

Which is exactly the flaw I see in both efforts. The only solution I see is in a unity. An egalitarian effort. It's quite simple - equality for all. (Not equality for men/equality for women...)

And the cycle of division will continue sadly. Even though the original intention of the men's rights movement are very much not to hate women.

I have to agree.

Zulu

fanki na pengin wrote: »

Scrap the term 'feminist' and substitute with 'pro-equality'?

No, it's not a relabeling we need. We need a change in ideology.

fanki na pengin

Apologies, it was a bit of a flippant remark, and probably not needed in this thread.

fanki na pengin

Plus I may have been imbibing a wee bit.

¬_¬

Reku

DamoElDiablo wrote: »

Therein lies a massive problem. How can those that support feminism prevent others from saying that is what they support? You can't prevent anyone from identifying themselves as part of a larger group, when it's not some strictly run members-only type affair. That is why further descriptive terms tend to be tagged on, such as "militant" feminists.

They can't, all the more reasonable element can do is make sure that they actively discredit those in the group who depend upon hatred, lies and propaganda, so when the moderates say something that is true and reasonable people will take note.

DamoElDiablo wrote: »

Also, I concur with LeeHoffmann, male rights adovocacy, feminism and equality are not mutually exclusive. Being an advocate for male or female rights does not mean campaigning for male/female superiority. Just for their rights. And the rights should be equal. It'll never be 100%, as there will always be some things that men/women are more inclined to, such as manual labour, or childcare, and paternal leave will probably never be equal to maternal leave, but I don't see these things as equality issues.

Unfortunately, as shown by the video in the OP's post, there is a not insignificant number of feminists who see any mention of rights for or discrimination against men as being anti-women. Another video worth looking at might be the one from the UK where a lad was suing the university over the strong feminist agenda of the gender studies course, you will hear wonderful quotes from the females he interviews such as:
"Men are never discriminated against".:rolleyes:
This outlook turns the entire thing into a conflict instead of a mutual compromise.

Madam_X wrote: »

The thing about this though, is that it's surely agreed by anyone with a sense of fairness that "islam = terrorism" and "catholic priests = child abusers" is a terribly wrong way to think. Not trying to martyr feminists but it is the same logic. You say yourself Reku that youre aware of feminists who condemn the ones who are hostile to men.

However that sort of simplification is exactly how the human mind tends to operate, it's the entire basis of stereotypes. Our minds are lazy and so you can either cross your fingers that all those lazy brains out there will stop being lazy (unlikely:() or you can put in that extra mile yourself and ensure even the lazy brain has an easy time recognizing that you are not to be grouped in with the rest.

Madam_X wrote: »

I agree though that women here cannot be compared to women in e.g. Pakistan in terms of how things are for them, but to say feminism had its roots in man-hating is a rather frightening way to think. It has its roots in getting the vote, education and increased job prospects for women - the hatred of men simply for being men (unfortunately) came after.

Though I don't agree with a lot of his generalisations I think lechiennoir may have had a point here, if you have a group who broadly feel the same who are they going to elect leaders except those among the most extreme, because they will simply seem like the ones who will get the job done.:(
Loath as I am to feed Godwin's rule: this thinking would be how Hitler got as high up as he did; "we all hate the jews, this guy really hates them, he'll solve the problem".:( (again I blame our innate laziness)

Madam_X wrote: »

And just like Islamic extremists get held up by islamophobes as what islam can be, the paedophile priests get held up by sectarian people and bigoted militant atheists as what the catholic church had/has in its ranks, so too do these loons (definitely not representative of all feminists) get held up by those with a questionable agenda towards any feminist, or even any forthright woman. It's plain to see from a (thankfully small) element on this thread.

Sadly while I'm aware of the good elements of the feminist movement, I've personally encountered more of the negative element, can always hope one day they'll snap out of it but as long as they have their "sisters in arms" affirming that they are right in their thinking I doubt it will happen. While you (the moderates) can try to discourage that element I doubt you can do much to make them re-evaluate their stance since they at times seem cult-ish in that any questioning of their "faith" is met with hostility and they have a remarkable knack of only seeing and hearing what they want to.

Madam_X wrote: »

It scares me tbh - and just as feminism is the sanctuary for man-haters, it's likely the very valid cause of men's rights will be hijacked by misogynists. And to object to their hostility being deemed as "feminism" (by those who think feminism is only a bad thing; as if you have to be a feminist to object to misogyny) and worse still... misandry. And the cycle of division will continue sadly. Even though the original intention of the men's rights movement are very much not to hate women.

Indeed, I try to keep a quote circling in my head most of the time:
"to the left, to the right,
we will fight to the death"
sadly it often seems to sum up our behavior when we encounter that which is different. I'm definitely prone to letting myself get too worked up over things and then running along with the blinkers on.:(

iptba

I hope people who are egalitarians will actually do something. I've been listening to people who thought the gender movement was unbalanced i.e. only focused on women, for 20 years or so, who'd say they thought there was an imbalance but did nothing.

py2006

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Feminism = The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

On paper yes, but not always in practice unfortunately.

py2006

The term Feminism has such negative connotations nowadays. You only have to read through this thread and various others in the past to see how people feel about the movement.

Yes the mission statement or slogan may have wonderfully positive egalitarian philosophies associated with it and yes there are plenty of well meaning and right-thinking ladies who declare themselves feminists. However, there would be appear to be a lot of untoward and deluded advocates who give the whole movement a really bad name.

A lot of men (and women) feel genuinely aggrieved, offended or disillusioned by the element associated with this movement and unfortunately this is largely dismissed on here and society as unacceptable.

iptba

I think some of the ideology around feminism is the source of some of the problems e.g. we live in a patriarchy, therefore things are by definition worse for women.

Madam_X

So the consensus is: all Muslims terrorists, all catholic priests molesters = wrong, if to be expected, but should be challenged.
All feminists and feminist ideology: man-hate = wrong and unfair but that's to be expected and life is unfair; the moderate ones just need to accept that's what's gonna happen if there are militant ones...?

I genuinely am not being snide when I say the above, but that's really what it looks like. If someone said all Muslims are terrorists, while it's to be expected, it should not be accepted.
Why not the same in this case?

Zulu wrote: »

You yourself are one, are you not Madam_X?.

No, an egalitarian like yourself. I still can't help being sickened though by some people misrepresenting all feminists and all feminist ideology, and equating it all with misandry, and telling women who have a discussion regarding anything at all that aggrieves women to get over it and they must be ugly etc. And any defence of women when they're being trashed for their looks or the behaviour of a minority of them as just "the feminists getting a bee in their bonnet" - as if only feminists would get annoyed by that stuff. In the same way as you would get pisses off Zulu if similar were directed at men's rights groups (and it happens) even though you identify more as an egalitarian than a men's rights activist.

I'm also seeing what looks like the beginnings of "inter men" conflict - the female equivalent being calling girls calling other girls bitches and sluts and scrutinising their looks etc - the term "white knight" being the male equivalent. And "man up", "grow a pair" etc.

nlgbbbblth

Does the video contain hipsters?

jaffacakesyum

py2006 wrote: »

On paper yes, but not always in practice unfortunately.

Not always in practice being the key here.

Muslims are not always in practice peaceful people but it's not acceptable to be "anti-Muslim" yet it is acceptable for many men (and women) to be "anti-feminist"

I think it's pretty disgusting if you're anti-feminist. Same way I think it's disgusting to be anti-masculinist. I guess the terminology here isn't great but basically I believe in equality for all and if a feminist movement is working towards that, brilliant. If a mens rights group is working towards that, brilliant. If a feminist group is doing things like in that video, I don't support that at all but it's not right to tar all feminists with the same brush.

Madam_X

Being anti fanatical feminist - obviously fair enough; but yeh, someone proclaiming to be anti any kind of feminism... makes me uncomfortable.

Zulu

Madam_X wrote: »

I genuinely am not being snide when I say the above, but that's really what it looks like.

And I'm not being snide when I say: look harder.

Why not the same in this case?

Well for a start, terrorism is a different matter, but if the Muslim religion was to do nothing about terrorism, if it didn't make efforts to denounce it and to combat it... ...but it does.

Like my point about the church (which you appeared to have overlooked) and what happens when it does little but ignore sex offenders.

No, an egalitarian like yourself.

Hummm, I was pretty sure you considered yourself a feminist. Maybe I'm getting you confused with someone else who does/did.

Zulu

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

I think it's pretty disgusting if you're anti-feminist.

Well I'm openly anti-feminist.

Frankly I find it disgusting that anyone would align themselves openly with an elitist group that seeks to progress the rights of a person based on their genitalia. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - there's no room for elitism in an egalitarian society.

ancapailldorcha

I'd describe myself as anti-feminist because I see it as an aggressive anti-male movement. I'm not saying that all feminists are like that or even that most of them are, it's just the only image I've seen of it. I've heard arguments for fair wages and opportunities for women (perfectly reasonable) but the idea that a child's father should be awarded custody is one they seem to find insulting given that the "mother is the natural caregiver".
Again, not running down the movement, just the faction I've encountered.

jaffacakesyum

Zulu wrote: »

Well I'm openly anti-feminist.

Frankly I find it disgusting that anyone would align themselves openly with an elitist group that seeks to progress the rights of a person based on their genitalia. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - there's no room for elitism in an egalitarian society.

Well, I find that pretty disgusting. I said it before and I'll say it again. Feminism = The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

I 100% support equality of the sexes.

The reason feminism is "progressing the rights of a person based on their genitalia" is because historically women have always had less rights than men.

Do you equally find mens rights groups disgusting because they are seeking to progress the rights based on their genitalia? Somehow I don't think you are quite as anti-masculinism as anti-feminism

jaffacakesyum

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'd describe myself as anti-feminist because I see it as an aggressive anti-male movement. I'm not saying that all feminists are like that or even that most of them are, it's just the only image I've seen of it. I've heard arguments for fair wages and opportunities for women (perfectly reasonable) but the idea that a child's father should be awarded custody is one they seem to find insulting given that the "mother is the natural caregiver".
Again, not running down the movement, just the faction I've encountered.

But then why can't you express the opinion that you are against aggressive, anti-male women who don't believe in equal rights for men and women? Why do you chose to say you are anti-feminist?

Once again, it's like me saying I'm anti-Muslim because I see it as an aggressive terrorist led movement. "Again, not running down the religion, just the faction I've encountered"

Jam

One of the more interesting things I've encountered, and I realize this is hardly a scientific study, is that it seems that most young women today don't see themselves as feminists. But rather more as egaltarians, which is something I'd much prefer to see. I could be projecting here however.

Jaffa, the crux of one of the arguments is how can any movement truly be about equality if it's founded on the perspective of one side? This is where I have to agree with Zulu on the rejection of feminism/maculisim/facism/communism/racism or nearly anything that ends in -ism, and go with a completely neutral egaltarianism. (Yes, I see this ends in -ism too.)

Perhaps this is where most moderate feminists could find new footing as the ideology is, by its own label, about equality of everybody and not just one interest group. I would hope it would be harder to hijack the label, perhaps naively so.

Madam_X

But say, Zulu, a group of women are discussing how it pisses them off the way a female politician's or scientist's or whatever's looks are sometimes torn to shreds even though it's irrelevant and she's not making a name or living for herself via her looks anyway... while one doesn't have to be a feminist to find that objectionable and it's just commonsense to find it annoying, and plenty of men would also, including yourself I'd bet, unpleasant behaviour is unpleasant behaviour... it still touches upon a not unreasonable form of feminist ideology. That's why I think it's such a pity when there's an outright dismissal of feminism as a whole. It can make not unfair points. And in that example, there's no attack on all men, just those being obnoxious. And some women too - there are times when women can be ruthless about other women's appearances.

I know it happens to men also.

py2006

Madam_X wrote: »

But say, Zulu, a group of women are discussing how it pisses them off the way a female politician's or scientist's or whatever's looks are sometimes torn to shreds even though it's irrelevant and she's not making a name or living for herself via her looks anyway....

In my experience it is women who do this.

py2006

If Feminism wants anything to do with egalitarianism it should not name itself after a particular gender.

Madam_X

py2006 wrote: »

In my experience it is women who do this.

Come on now, it is both. You know as well as I do there are some men who have to bring a woman's looks into everything and castigate her if she has the audacity not to be hot. I mean, you use the internet.

I guess there'll always be a clash when we cannot fully see the perspective of the opposite sex, which is fair enough; a degree of that cannot be helped.

awec

This post has been deleted.

Madam_X

awec wrote: »

This is true, but I don't see how this falls into the remit of feminism.

I would say it falls into the remit of many things, including feminism.

py2006

Madam_X wrote: »

Come on now, it is both. You know as well as I do there are some men who have to bring a woman's looks into everything and castigate her if she has the audacity not to be hot. I mean, you use the internet.

I guess there'll always be a clash when we cannot fully see the perspective of the opposite sex, which is fair enough; a degree of that cannot be helped.

May be so but I don't think most men judge political candidates or CEO's based on their looks. I am sure some do. Men in general know nothing about womens hair, clothes, makeup, fake tan etc etc. I do hear women comment on this a lot.

LeeHoffmann

If Feminism Masculinism wants anything to do with egalitarianism it should not name itself after a particular gender.

do you agree?

I think it´s ridiculous to say that feminists or masculinists are anti-egalitarian - it´s essentially redefining those terms. There are lots of groups who suffer from human rights abuses, bigotry etc. Focusing on one problem or group at a time is generally more successful than trying to focus on every problem for every group all at once. I support womens rights, mens rights, LGBT rights, ethic minority rights etc. Supporting (for example) the LGBT community doesnt make me anti-heterosexual. Supporting the rights of ethnic minorities doesnt make me anti-Irish. Likewise, supporting womens rights doesnt make me anti-men and supporting mens rights doesnt make me anti-women.


*please ignore my poor punctuation - computer issues :mad:

ancapailldorcha

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

But then why can't you express the opinion that you are against aggressive, anti-male women who don't believe in equal rights for men and women? Why do you chose to say you are anti-feminist?

Because that's the face of the movement to a lot of men, myself included. It wasn't until just recently that I saw that there's more to it than that.

Madam_X

py2006 wrote: »

May be so but I don't think most men judge political candidates or CEO's based on their looks. I am sure some do. Men in general know nothing about womens hair, clothes, makeup, fake tan etc etc. I do hear women comment on this a lot.

Well sure, but you dont need to be an expert on make-up etc to rip apart a person based on their looks.

Anyway, misandry/misogyny - bad; reasonable men's rights/women's rights activists - good; egalitarianism - ideal.

Zulu

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

The reason feminism is "progressing the rights of a person based on their genitalia" is because historically women have always had less rights than men.

I understand where it comes from. My point is that you can not achieve a balance or an equality when you view the world through a biased lens.

When you choose to focus your attention on one particular sex, you do this to the detriment of the other.

Do you equally find mens rights groups disgusting because they are seeking to progress the rights based on their genitalia?

No, not "equally" I don't - in the way I don't find a corpse laid out in a funeral home equally as disgusting as a maggot ridden semi-decayed bloated cadaver.

While obvious comparisons can be made between feminism & whatever movement is starting on the male side, it's disingenuous to suggest they are the same. Feminism is infinitely more established. "Gender studies" at university level is a good example of this.

That said, I do take your point. Masculinism is doomed from the get go with the same pit falls as feminism. This is exactly why I've turned down opportunities to get involved with fledgling masculinism efforts here in Ireland. (Well that and time concerns, but I digress.) I do not believe masculinism can do anything to avoid turning into (at best) the mirror image of feminism, which will only serve to further divide people along gender lines - irregardless of the best efforts and intentions of those involved. And let me assure you, when that happens, my answer will be "yes"; it will equally disgust me.

There is no room for gender elitism in an equal society.

Madam_X wrote: »

But say, Zulu, a group of women are discussing how it pisses them off the way a female politician's or scientist's or whatever's looks are sometimes torn to shreds even though it's irrelevant and she's not making a name or living for herself via her looks anyway... while one doesn't have to be a feminist to find that objectionable and it's just commonsense to find it annoying, and plenty of men would also, including yourself I'd bet, unpleasant behaviour is unpleasant behaviour... it still touches upon a not unreasonable form of feminist ideology.

What?
If I understand you correctly: feminist ideology is against belittling women based solely on their looks, and so, because this is a good point, then feminism has some redeeming qualities, and I should consider this. Is that right?
Well I'd argue that when something is doing more harm than good, it needs to be stopped. I see feminism doing more harm than good right now in Ireland. Much more harm than good.

That's why I think it's such a pity when there's an outright dismissal of feminism as a whole.

Personally I think the real pity is that modern feminism has been allowed itself be represented in such a way as to destroy the name of those that when before.

Madam_X wrote: »

Anyway, misandry/misogyny - bad; reasonable men's rights/women's rights activists - good; egalitarianism - ideal.

I disagree.

• misandry/misogyny - bad
• reasonable men's rights/women's rights activists - naively doing more harm than good
• egalitarianism - the only hope

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I think it´s ridiculous to say that feminists or masculinists are anti-egalitarian - it´s essentially redefining those terms.

No it's not.
A feminist views the world through a polaroid lens.
A masculinist views the world through a polaroid lens.
Neither can see the complete picture focusing on one aspect.

There are lots of groups who suffer from human rights abuses, bigotry etc. Focusing on one problem or group at a time is generally more successful than trying to focus on every problem for every group all at once.

Well we don't know this. All we know is that the current system (different interest groups for different problems) isn't working so well. In particular, while feminism has had some great success, it wasn't without cost. Men are suffering appallingly. The system isn't working, you'll excuse me for looking for alternatives.

I support womens rights, mens rights, LGBT rights, ethic minority rights etc. Supporting (for example) the LGBT community doesnt make me anti-heterosexual.

Well that depends on how you support them.
Not meaning to go Goodwin, but a white power activist could claim to support human rights, but just "focus" on caucasian peoples. They could claim that they aren't anti-negroid, but do you honestly believe they are going to come up with an acceptable solution to racial hatred? I don't.

Inclusion is where the solution lies. We'll know equality when the woman in the video is hugging the guy who lost his friends, and not screaming in his face.

Reku

Madam_X wrote: »

Well sure, but you dont need to be an expert on make-up etc to rip apart a person based on their looks.

Anyway, misandry/misogyny - bad; reasonable men's rights/women's rights activists - good; egalitarianism - ideal.

Are you honestly trying to convince us you've never been around when women have done the same tearing apart based on looks regarding a male in the public eye (or even male colleague)?!?! Either you have your head in the sand or have just exhibited perfectly the sort of blind spot I complained about the misandrist feminists displaying.

We all judge others based upon appearance, they've even done studies that show given a choice between 2 candidates of equal merit people will usually pick the "more attractive" one for the job.

LeeHoffmann

No it's not.
A feminist views the world through a polaroid lens.
A masculinist views the world through a polaroid lens.
Neither can see the complete picture focusing on one aspect.

You focus on a small group of those people and decide all feminists/masculinists are the same. You completely ignore the feminists/masculinists who don´t neatly fit into the pigeon hole you´ve carved out for them. We define these two terms so differently and I don´t think either one of us is going to change our understanding of those terms. If we can´t even agree on the meaning of the terms, then it´s impossible to build any kind of discussion on that. We´re just going to keep contradicting each other´s definitions.

btw Nobody can ever see the whole picture. It´s not possible.

Zulu

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

You focus on a small group of those people and decide all feminists/masculinists are the same.

I don't but, whatever. :rolleyes:

You completely ignore the feminists/masculinists who don´t neatly fit into the pigeon hole you´ve carved out for them.

I don't, but again, whatever.

We define these two terms so differently

Well the problem here is that once anyone opposed to feminism comments on what it means, they are quickly advised that feminism has different flavors; that it means different things to different people. Bearing that in mind, I take it to mean this: (feminism, dictionary definition) advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.

[However I believe that (in Ireland at least) its grown beyond that now. I don't see a genuine drive for "equality" anymore, but rather a lobby group looking to create a better society (in it's view) for women. Quotas are a perfect example of this. So is the very narrow blinkered view of the "pay gap".]

Now I've pinned my colours to the mast - care to do the same?

If we can´t even agree on the meaning of the terms, then it´s impossible to build any kind of discussion on that.

Maybe your right, but I'm willing to try. Otherwise it's simply a cop-out for feminsits to claim "different flavours" so no one can point out it's obvious flaws.

We´re just going to keep contradicting each other´s definitions.

Lets see your definition, and we'll take it from there.

btw Nobody can ever see the whole picture. It´s not possible.

Perhaps, but I'd rather make an effort. A person who attempts to consider the whole picture is more likely to succeed that someone who simply gives up.
Certainly no one ever will if they don blinkers and only consider a biased view.

LeeHoffmann

Zulu, there´s no need to take such a dismissive and aggressive tone. "but whatever" with a rolls eyes smiley - is a pretty childish and inflammatory response to somebody else´s points. I could have done the same to your previous post. Try to be respectful if you want me to engage with you.

I take it to mean this: advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men. However I believe that (in Ireland at least) its grown beyond that now. I don't see a genuine drive for "equality" anymore, but rather a lobby group looking to create a better society (in it's view) for women.

You´ve just contradicted yourself. You say you take it to mean the dictionary definition but in the next sentences you say that´s not what you believe it is. You want me to tell you what feminism means to me. I´m loathe to get into this again as I have done this to death in this forum and nobody ever seems to alter their way of thinking. However, I have always understood the terms feminism and masculinism to refer to the theory that the genders suffer from inequality and prejudice and the campaign to counter such inequality and prejudice. Feminism focuses on the inequality and prejudice women suffer. Masculinism focuses on the inequality and prejudice men suffer. Feminism and masculinism focus on one gender but that doesn´t mean they´re anti the other gender. (Some feminist/masculinist people might be, but feminism and masculinism per se are not, in my understanding of the terms).

Perhaps, but I'd rather make an effort. A person who attempts to consider the whole picture is more likely to succeed that someone who simply gives up.

I make an effort too. All reasonable people do. I´m just pointing out to you that it´s not possible to succeed so pointing your finger at somebody and sneering that they don´t see the whole picture is silly. Nobody does - or can.

S.L.F

Zulu wrote: »

Well I'm openly anti-feminist.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'd describe myself as anti-feminist

I am also an anti-feminist.

I am pro-equal rights for all both men and women.

I think woman have gotten everything they wanted and more in the last 40 years.

The family courts are a battle ground for the inequities between the sexes and it is men who have been losing for a long time.

I think really we have all been losing for a long time because of the darker side of the feminist agenda.

The thing that stuck me about the video was that the cops held back, if it had been men screaming abuse at women walking in the cops would have decked loads of them.

D'Agger

CdeC I've deleted your post - any more inflammatory remarks and generalizations about feminism in general and I'll go straight for bans rather than infractions - Dont' say you weren't warned lads!

Zulu

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Zulu, there´s no need to take such a dismissive and aggressive tone. "but whatever" with a rolls eyes smiley - is a pretty childish and inflammatory response to somebody else´s points.

Excuse me? LeeHoffmann you created a position for me; you told me what I mean, and you got it wrong. Do you honestly expect me to to accept that?
You accuse me of being dismissive, yet you create a false position for me and misrepresent my posts.
You accuse me of being inflammatory, yet you label me as childish and inflammatory when I treat your false position with the scorn it deserves.

I could have done the same to your previous post.

Instead you just ignored my points, created a false position for me, and then belittled my response as childish and inflammatory? Cop yourself on. A more appropriate response would have been "apologies, I must have picked you up wrong".

Try to be respectful if you want me to engage with you.

That cuts both ways.

You´ve just contradicted yourself. You say you take it to mean the dictionary definition but in the next sentences you say that´s not what you believe it is.

That was not my intention. I have said that I understand "feminist" to mean this: definition. That's the definition. Then I went on to say that "feminism" in Ireland no longer appears to strive for that. In Ireland it appears to stand for "a lobby group looking to create a better society (in it's view) for women." In fairness, I added this in a separate paragraph with square brackets to distinguish the difference.

One is the definition. The other is the reality. And if I'm being asked, I don't think that the reality is living up to the definition.

I have always understood the terms feminism and masculinism to refer to the theory that the genders suffer from inequality and prejudice and the campaign to counter such inequality and prejudice. Feminism focuses on the inequality and prejudice women suffer.

And I'd agree with this understanding, but I disagree that inequality and prejudice can be banished by biased thinking. (See my previous examples for a "why")

Feminism and masculinism focus on one gender but that doesn´t mean they´re anti the other gender.

With this I somewhat agree. I don't think feminism (on the whole) is anti-men. That said, I think it's guilty of idly standing by and watching (with some indifference) the problems faced by others. I think it peruses some goals that are in direct contrast to those of men and if gained will further diminish the rights of others. A case of some people being more equal that others.

]I´m just pointing out to you that it´s not possible to succeed

How do you know it's not possible?

so pointing your finger at somebody and sneering that they don´t see the whole picture is silly. Nobody does - or can.

Who's sneering? I'm simply saying, that whatever chance anyone has of considering the whole picture, they can not do so from a biased starting point. That's not sneering, that's the truth.

And finally, if we just take your last post and the language you use:

• dismissive and aggressive tone
• childish and inflammatory
• pointing your finger at somebody and sneering

Apart from my use of "whatever :rolleyes:", my post did little to deserve the accusations above. This is a significant problem when discussing "feminism" - people are all too eager to shut-up-shop.
Criticism is met with hostility.

LeeHoffmann

Zulu, I did not create a position for you or misrepresent your posts. It´s very clear to me that you are looking for a fight. I am not in the mood for a flame war. Arguing with you will benefit neither of us. I´m not continuing this discussion

Zulu

Convenient cop out. Fair enough.

I'm happy to continue a civil discussion with you if you wish to return, but not one of sniping.

LeeHoffmann

From google -

Flaming (also known as bashing) is hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users.

Based on the previous posts, I don´t think we can discuss this very civilly or achieve anything through discussion. We´re also taking over this thread. That´s not a cop out - it´s a very good reason to discontinue discussion. Let´s leave it there

awec

This post has been deleted.

Madam_X

Zulu wrote: »

What?
If I understand you correctly: feminist ideology is against belittling women based solely on their looks, and so, because this is a good point, then feminism has some redeeming qualities, and I should consider this. Is that right?

No, what I'm saying is that some of the aspects of feminist ideology are not unreasonable so it's unfair to blanketly dismiss it all.

Reku wrote: »

Are you honestly trying to convince us you've never been around when women have done the same tearing apart based on looks regarding a male in the public eye (or even male colleague)?!?! Either you have your head in the sand or have just exhibited perfectly the sort of blind spot I complained about the misandrist feminists displaying.

Where have I even slightly implied I've never even been around when women have done the same tearing apart based on looks regarding a male in the public eye or even male colleague? I've said women can be as bad.

I am talking about the situations when it's a group of men ripping into a woman's looks - e.g. on After Hours if a female journalist has the neck to not be that hot. I'm not saying it's only men who do that, but I'm using that particular hypothetical to demonstrate how women getting annoyed isn't always a militant feminist, man-hating thing.

We all judge others based upon appearance, they've even done studies that show given a choice between 2 candidates of equal merit people will usually pick the "more attractive" one for the job.

Moving off the point and I never said we don't judge people based on their appearance, but we don't all tear strips off them if we don't fancy them, or bring their looks into any discussion on them when it's not of relevance.

iptba

Regarding the appearances thing: I don't believe I judge professional people, male or female, too much by their appearance.

However, in a dating scene, it does affect who I am attracted to. I'm afraid due to biology, I think women's "overall attractiveness" is more based on their physical attractiveness and appearance than a male's (in heterosexuals).

However, men get judged in other ways: for example, their financial assets, income, and earning potential is a bigger factor in their "overall attractiveness" to women than a woman's financial assets, income, and earning potential is to men.

Men being shorter appears to be a bigger problem for men than it is for women, with women generally not wanting to date men that are much shorter than they are.

Physical strength is something that is also to some extent more important in a man's, than a woman's, attractiveness to the opposite sex.

And your attractiveness to the opposite sex can affect your status.

Also, if one knows what is attractive to people of the opposite sex, one will concentrate on enhancing one's attractiveness more.

Some aspects of feminism seems to say that it is unfair that women are judged by appearances at all. It may come from this idea, from sociology and the like, that men and women are exactly the same. However, I don't think men and women are exactly the same in terms of what (heterosexuals) are attracted to, so expecting "equality" in this area is an unrealistic goal.

Pressure to look physically good is, to some extent, because women are competing with other women. Sometimes feminism seems to ignore it and complain it's all to do with living in a patriarchy.

28064212

Zulu wrote: »

I understand where it comes from. My point is that you can not achieve a balance or an equality when you view the world through a biased lens.

When you choose to focus your attention on one particular sex, you do this to the detriment of the other.

Are black right's activists biased? LGBTQ activists? Fathers 4 Justice?

You get absolutely nowhere if your sole approach to inequality is to say "Everyone should be equal". You have to identify specific areas of actual inequality and act on them.

GalwayGuy2

Hmm, the @Ireland account just replied with this. (Quote signs are what he replied to)

If you don't have a maleist Monday I'm going in the huff.” Right. Cos men are SO oppressed!

Eh, more seeing people's view to this than saying men are rabidly discriminated against:P

iptba

One possible distinction is education versus activism.

It is one thing to present the case for your side e.g. in an election, or a particular group you represent in court or when campaigning.

However, the big problem comes when education becomes so biased that it doesn't give both sides, or alternative views, to a story. Similarly if the media doesn't give both sides (I think the latter may come from the former). Quite a bit of third level education (and research) is unbalanced in how it deals with gender. And it's not even simply that other sides aren't given, but giving alternative views isn't really encouraged - perhaps a bit like the protestors discouraging freedom of speech of the speaker in the video. This causes ripples, or perhaps snowballs, throughout society.

Basically even when some feminists are in positions where they should be acting more impartially, giving different viewpoints in education or if they hold an "equality" position working for both genders, they often don't.

Reku

Madam_X wrote: »

Where have I even slightly implied I've never even been around when women have done the same tearing apart based on looks regarding a male in the public eye or even male colleague? I've said women can be as bad.

Right here:

Madam_X wrote: »

Come on now, it is both. You know as well as I do there are some men who have to bring a woman's looks into everything and castigate her if she has the audacity not to be hot. I mean, you use the internet.

awec wrote: »

This is true, but I don't see how this falls into the remit of feminism.

Madam_X wrote: »

I would say it falls into the remit of many things, including feminism.

Madam_X wrote: »

I am talking about the situations when it's a group of men ripping into a woman's looks - e.g. on After Hours if a female journalist has the neck to not be that hot. I'm not saying it's only men who do that, but I'm using that particular hypothetical to demonstrate how women getting annoyed isn't always a militant feminist, man-hating thing.

So then you agree that both genders do it to each other and so it is not a feminist issue at all?
This is another thing that will likely turn people away from feminism, the tendency of a number of "feminist" groups to try grab hold of issues that have nothing to do with equality at all:
e.g. rape is a legal issue, not a problem in the rights of one group Vs. another.
Same goes for abuse of one's partner, both genders are capable of it, but yet "feminist" groups try to portray it as solely a man on woman issue.

As a result of this I genuinely know women who are adamant that a woman can't possibly abuse/rape a man, even when I brought up the possibility of the guy being passed out drunk they felt it still was not rape, yet for a man doing so to a woman it would be.

LeeHoffmann

I genuinely know women who are adamant that a woman can't possibly abuse/rape a man

Unfortunately this is common among both men and women