Male Feminists

Wibbs

Sleepy wrote: »

Then again, it's a strawman argument made by someone so stupid that she actually believes feminism is about equality.

Dial that kinda posting right back. Attack the post, not the poster. Secondly, Smash dragging posts from other threads/forums is also not on.

zeffabelli

Sleepy wrote: »

Assuming it means an abortion clinic, what if the man is pro-life?

I'm not personally, and yes, I'd consider any man who wouldn't support his partner by accompanying her to an abortion clinic a fairly lousy boyfriend (assuming it was his and he agreed with the termination), especially for as flaky reason as band practice but I don't see how it would invalidate his (poor imo) decision to support feminism. Then again, it's a strawman argument made by someone so stupid that she actually believes feminism is about equality.

Both feminism and men's rights stuff are the bi products of what happened when the left abandoned formal religion. It developed its own cultish fashionable morality that people to wear like a seasonal accessory.

And did you call me stupid in your post or were you referring to someone else? Please confirm.

orubiru

zeffabelli wrote: »

Clinics will insist that someone is there to take you home. I suppose you expect her to pay for the while thing too.

You confuse decency with servitude. I think this might be a common delusion among the chip on the shoulder victim brigade.

I didn't say that I wouldn't be there. I didn't say that I wouldn't pay. I didn't say that I wouldn't act in a decent way. I do not have a chip on my shoulder.

The point I was making is that the statement "to identify as a feminist is to say that you agree with the idea that men and women are social, political and economic equals" is not contradicted in any way when "she actually needs a ride to the nearest clinic he will claim he has band practice and disappear into the ether".

It's not a chip on the shoulder at all. If there is an insistence that Feminism is only "to agree with the idea that men and women are social, political and economic equals" then you have to accept that lazy or indifferent boyfriends can still be Feminists.

Being a Feminist does not automatically make you a good guy and equally bad guys, yes even rapists, can be Feminists if we insist on using these stupid "catch all" definitions.

If the complaint in the article is that terrible people are hiding behind the shield "Male Feminist" then the logical conclusion is that this is made possible by dishonest definitions such as "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people". It's possible to believe that and also be a complete and utter monster.

"Victim Brigade". I'm sorry but plenty of men and women have been victims of harassment and bullying in the name of "Feminism" so I don't think it's fair to just dismiss. I can fully understand why someone might have a chip on their shoulder and so what if they do?

Sleepy

zeffabelli wrote: »

Both feminism and men's rights stuff are the bi products of what happened when the left abandoned formal religion. It developed its own cultish fashionable morality that people to wear like a seasonal accessory.

And did you call me stupid in your post or were you referring to someone else? Please confirm.

Apologies for my lack of clarity: I was referring to the author of the piece posted by smash. Her caricature of the "Male Feminist" who wouldn't go to an abortion clinic with his girlfriend doesn't exist: it's a strawman she created to "make her argument" i.e. enable her whine.

She also mis-equates the (acutally disappointingly low) 82% support for 'the idea that men and women are social, political and economic equals' as reported by the Huffington Post/YouGov poll as support for Feminist ideals.

This is a total nonsense as feminism doesn't care about men being equal citizens: it's not their problem to campaign for.

Even more bafflingly, she seems to think that this "support" is only a recent phenomenon. While our laws have lagged (and continue to lag in respect of men's rights and access to abortion) behind popular consensus, the concept of men and women being equal is hardly modern. I may be only 35 but it's only in the past five to ten years that I've heard anything other than universal positivity about the feminist movement. And even when you do hear it criticised, it's coming from a position of egalitarianism rather than one of misogyny (though modern feminists don't seem capable of recognising either).

zeffabelli

Sleepy wrote: »

Apologies for my lack of clarity: I was referring to the author of the piece posted by smash. Her caricature of the "Male Feminist" who wouldn't go to an abortion clinic with his girlfriend doesn't exist: it's a strawman she created to "make her argument" i.e. enable her whine.

She also mis-equates the (acutally disappointingly low) 82% support for 'the idea that men and women are social, political and economic equals' as reported by the Huffington Post/YouGov poll as support for Feminist ideals.

This is a total nonsense as feminism doesn't care about men being equal citizens: it's not their problem to campaign for.

Even more bafflingly, she seems to think that this "support" is only a recent phenomenon. While our laws have lagged (and continue to lag in respect of men's rights and access to abortion) behind popular consensus, the concept of men and women being equal is hardly modern. I may be only 35 but it's only in the past five to ten years that I've heard anything other than universal positivity about the feminist movement. And even when you do hear it criticised, it's coming from a position of egalitarianism rather than one of misogyny (though modern feminists don't seem capable of recognising either).

Well I dunno...where is she writing from? I remember a lot of college aged feminist men, whatever that even means outside of self identifying, who did not go with their girlfriends to clinics, because they dumped them first. I think it has become a character people will recognise... You know sensitive new age pony tail guy...talking the talk about how wonderful vaginas are... yeah yeah.... I feel your oppression types...pass the bong...

Tbh Irish feminism confuses me...I don't really get it. It seems lost in something because the men are somewhat feminised too by being post colonial yadda yadda...so I don't think it has sorted out where the lay of the land is...in its identity politics, which is all the left is now.

But it does have a religious flavour....fervor...feminism, egalitarianism...whatever the morale du jour is.

py2006

zeffabelli wrote: »

I remember a lot of college aged feminist men, whatever that even means outside of self identifying, who did not go with their girlfriends to clinics, because they dumped them first. I think it has become a character people will recognise... You know sensitive new age pony tail guy...talking the talk about how wonderful vaginas are... yeah yeah.... I feel your oppression types...pass the bong...

:rolleyes:

Not sure what I just read.

Sleepy

What does "feminist" mean when applied to anyone, male or female, beyond someone self-identifying as whatever they conceive to be a feminist?

It's moronic to accuse someone of not being a feminist on the sole basis that they didn't support a girlfriend when she was having an abortion. There are large numbers of feminists who are pro-life and there's almost certainly no more people who identify as feminist that are simply selfish arseholes than there are in the general population.

But, like you say, there's a religious fervour amongst many feminists so it's probably akin to a Bible Belt Christian decrying someone as being "unchristian" or "unamerican": the person making the statement can think of no higher insult whilst us saner folk might actually consider it a compliment

zeffabelli

Sleepy wrote: »

What does "feminist" mean when applied to anyone, male or female, beyond someone self-identifying as whatever they conceive to be a feminist?

It's moronic to accuse someone of not being a feminist on the sole basis that they didn't support a girlfriend when she was having an abortion. There are large numbers of feminists who are pro-life and there's almost certainly no more people who identify as feminist that are simply selfish arseholes than there are in the general population.

But, like you say, there's a religious fervour amongst many feminists so it's probably akin to a Bible Belt Christian decrying someone as being "unchristian" or "unamerican": the person making the statement can think of no higher insult whilst us saner folk might actually consider it a compliment

This is the same with all ideologies...."s/he not really a Christian...' "that's not islam.." "that's not Marxism.." That's not a real {insert whatever}.....

Carlos Orange

Sleepy wrote: »

But, like you say, there's a religious fervour amongst many feminists so it's probably akin to a Bible Belt Christian decrying someone as being "unchristian" or "unamerican": the person making the statement can think of no higher insult whilst us saner folk might actually consider it a compliment

I used to think calling someone unamerican was such a strange thing to do. It seemed very unamerican.

mariaalice

This is possibly a bit of odd view. My husband would be very supportive of everyone he would not say he was a feminism nonetheless he would say the best reaction when someone make an off colour joke about women is to not laugh along or react in any way, the person telling the 'joke' soon gets the message.

This has led me to speculate that if it has become socially unacceptable to make misogynist, racist, or homophobic jokes and comments in the public space. Has that led to outpouring of vitriol you get on the internet as the anonymity of the internet has given them the space to express themselves with out censure.

Sleepy

I think there's almost certainly an element of that these days, but it would include feminism and misandry too.

JPNelsforearm

mariaalice wrote: »

This is possibly a bit of odd view. My husband would be very supportive of everyone he would not say he was a feminism nonetheless he would say the best reaction when someone make an off colour joke about women is to not laugh along or react in any way, the person telling the 'joke' soon gets the message.

This has led me to speculate that if it has become socially unacceptable to make misogynist, racist, or homophobic jokes in the public space. Has that led to outpouring of vitriol you get on the internet as the anonymity of the internet has given them the space to express themselves with out censure.

I wouldnt say the two are related, it should always be acceptable to make any sort of a joke. Spewing venom and vitriol is distinct from that.

Potatoeman

mariaalice wrote: »

This is possibly a bit of odd view. My husband would be very supportive of everyone he would not say he was a feminism nonetheless he would say the best reaction when someone make an off colour joke about women is to not laugh along or react in any way, the person telling the 'joke' soon gets the message.

This has led me to speculate that if it has become socially unacceptable to make misogynist, racist, or homophobic jokes and comments in the public space. Has that led to outpouring of vitriol you get on the internet as the anonymity of the internet has given them the space to express themselves with out censure.

That makes him sound very dry. Jokes don't have to be malicious. When you draw the line with certain groups you are treating them differently.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Well that kinda thing can happen often enough and in unconnected areas. EG imagine a company where one of the customers is sometimes extremely late with payment. You think "bit of a dick sometimes but…". Then you trundle along to a business conference and over a few drinks later someone else pipes up and says "you know yer man, he can be a right git with payments" and then the floodgates open. If these women were assaulted, they may have thought "it just happened to me, everyone else says he's nice", all it can take is someone else to come forward and others feel less alone.

However and it's a big however for me, is I really don't like how society is going when serious accusations like this are played out on social media. A) lives can be ruined with a single accusation. Bandwagoning can happen in tiny groups of people, across hundreds, thousands, millions that's going to be magnified. C) In sexual crimes there is the feeling that going to the authorities may be useless for victims, so they may feel such a route is their only option. This is not good. Most of all I really don't want to live in a society where Twitter replaces due process and a court of law.

Yeah I can see that side of it but the porn industry/community is usually a sieve and many are a law unto themselves when it comes to grudges and the like. And the porn industry now is very connected and pretty small. For it to flip so quickly, especially with the studios just seems strange, again because this is an industry where people can be easily blackballed for anything. Some of the accusations are coming from women who have actor/director partners and seemingly none said anything to them nor the female studio heads etc. yet everyone seems happy to believe it as if confirmation of something they heard before, in which case why only now while allowing him access this whole time?

mariaalice

Potatoeman wrote: »

That makes him sound very dry. Jokes don't have to be malicious. When you draw the line with certain groups you are treating them differently.

There is a difference between offensive jokes and jokes in general. He has a find sense of the ironic and is witty in a way only people who are good with words can be.

I think jokes are very interesting as way of looking at issues.

When it becomes unacceptable to say something, the issue then move on to jokes.

When it becomes unacceptable to make comments and jokes about the issue in the public sphere that's when it moves on to the internet as the person has no other uncensored outlet for their views.

Saipanne

mariaalice wrote: »

There is a difference between offensive jokes and jokes in general. He has a find sense of the ironic and is witty in a way only people who are good with words can be.

I think jokes are very interesting as way of looking at issues.

When it becomes unacceptable to say something, the issue then move on to jokes.

When it becomes unacceptable to make comments and jokes about the issue in the public sphere that's when it moves on to the internet as the person has no other uncensored outlet for their views.

This is why I am grateful for South Park. They provide a great public service, by holding a mirror up to society. It is human nature to laugh at the misfortune of others. I think it is a coping mechanism. Surpressing that mechanism can only lead to bad outcomes.

mariaalice

Saipanne wrote: »

This is why I am grateful for South Park. They provide a great public service, by holding a mirror up to society. It is human nature to laugh at the misfortune of others. I think it is a coping mechanism. Suppressing that mechanism can only lead to bad outcomes.

I am not disagreeing with you as such, but if you were right what you are saying is that people need an outlet for their racism and homophobia ect and that suppressing it only leads to worse outcomes.

Saipanne

mariaalice wrote: »

I am not disagreeing with you as such, but if you were right what you are saying is that people need an outlet for their racism and homophobia ect and that suppressing it only leads to worse outcomes.

True racism and homophobia is based on hatred, not laughter. I wouldn't squirm if someone told a homophobic joke, so long as the context was acceptable. For example, a gay friend of mine was posting homophobic jokes on Facebook. Everyone thought it was hilarious.

Potatoeman

mariaalice wrote: »

There is a difference between offensive jokes and jokes in general. He has a find sense of the ironic and is witty in a way only people who are good with words can be.

I think jokes are very interesting as way of looking at issues.

When it becomes unacceptable to say something, the issue then move on to jokes.

When it becomes unacceptable to make comments and jokes about the issue in the public sphere that's when it moves on to the internet as the person has no other uncensored outlet for their views.

Are jokes offensive by intention or by result? It's a slippery slope thats very subjective.

newport2

mariaalice wrote: »

This has led me to speculate that if it has become socially unacceptable to make misogynist, racist, or homophobic jokes and comments in the public space. Has that led to outpouring of vitriol you get on the internet as the anonymity of the internet has given them the space to express themselves with out censure.

Sleepy wrote: »

I think there's almost certainly an element of that these days, but it would include feminism and misandry too.

I think a key difference here is that misogynist, racist, or homophobic jokes and comments are now generally socially unacceptable, whereas misandrist jokes and comments are not.

But I think the main reason for abuse on the internet is the convenience of not being face to face. It's like driving a car, a lot of drivers curse at other drivers whereas they wouldn't say boo if they were within earshot. That and general trolling to get a reaction.

JPNelsforearm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/every-swedish-16-year-old-is-getting-a-copy-of-chimamanda-adichi/
"Feminism is becoming a solid part of education in Sweden "
Sweden lol, usual wage gap nonsense etc etc..

Sleepy

I wonder how long it will be before Swedish men just decide to leave the women to it and begin to emmigrate en masse?

zeffabelli

newport2 wrote: »

I think a key difference here is that misogynist, racist, or homophobic jokes and comments are now generally socially unacceptable, whereas misandrist jokes and comments are not.

But I think the main reason for abuse on the internet is the convenience of not being face to face. It's like driving a car, a lot of drivers curse at other drivers whereas they wouldn't say boo if they were within earshot. That and general trolling to get a reaction.

That is because if you are of a dominant group - male, white, or rich, then you don't have moral status.

We have a framed morality around not being dominant...being a victim..and we can't even look at how a victim might be complict in their own victimisation because we have framed that as moral failure...so we have a lot of new taboos and are breeding a lot of lies.

silverharp

Sleepy wrote: »

I wonder how long it will be before Swedish men just decide to leave the women to it and begin to emmigrate en masse?

Wasn't that TV show Robots made in Sweden originally? Shots fired!

JPNelsforearm

Sleepy wrote: »

I wonder how long it will be before Swedish men just decide to leave the women to it and begin to emmigrate en masse?

That must be the reason for the mass importation of muslim men, one of the side effects of feminism, the male population either flee or become eunuchs.

ancapailldorcha

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

That must be the reason for the mass importation of muslim men, one of the side effects of feminism, the male population either flee or become eunuchs.

This sort of comment is unwelcome here. Please read the charter before posting again.

Sleepy

silverharp wrote: »

Wasn't that TV show Robots made in Sweden originally? Shots fired!

Which show?

Saipanne

Saipanne wrote: »

1. A woman never fabricates a rape accusation

2. If such an accusation is made, the onus is on the accused to prove their innocence. Ergo, guilty until proven innocent.

This is what the leaders of this movement preach. Scary stuff.

Are there any feminists here who could comment on the above?

ancapailldorcha

Sleepy wrote: »

Which show?

Maybe it's this?

silverharp

Sleepy wrote: »

Which show?

..I couldnt have got the name more wrong, I meant Humans , it was based off a Swedish TV show , Im curious to watch the Swedish version now to see if it brings up any issues around men and feminism in Sweden?