When will men get liberated from gender roles?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

True enough.. but I wear boots (Doc'm) all the time. They have roughly an inch heel on them. That's still manly, I suppose. You can find practical boots with variable sized heels throughout history... for some it was for horse riding. I'm sure with some digging you'll find plenty of other practical reasons for heels on boots.

I'm not really arguing against your point though.

I used wear these all the time with jeans. Even though my employer deemed them inappropriate it wasn’t until a business consultant explained to me that if I wanted to be taken seriously in the industry I was in, I was going to have to change my style to something more conservative, or formal. I knew she was right, so even though it made me uncomfortable, I knew if I wanted to be accepted by my customers, I would have to change my appearance. I couldn’t simply demand that my customers accept me because that would mean I wouldn’t be able to earn a living.

Now that I’m not dependent upon others to accept me, I dress as I wish, and as it happens I prefer to dress more conservatively in an industry where it’s more acceptable to dress smart casual, and dressing conservatively makes one stand out like a sore thumb. It’s often been commented upon, but because I’m more secure in myself, I accept that other people are going to express their opinions, it doesn’t mean I have to take them seriously.

Dresses simply aren’t practical for men, let alone women, but they’re designed for women, they’re not designed for men, and that’s why they look ridiculous on men - because they are being presented in a completely different context. If I walked into the office in the bright orange overalls I used wear when I worked in CIE, I expect it would be frowned upon. I’d probably be ok with it though, whereas someone else doing the same thing would demand that other people must accept it. I don’t agree with or approve of that sort of egotistical behaviour.

the_pen_turner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That "men bad, women good" idea doesn't happen on boards. AH is never long without a thread blaming women for something. Ever compare the men's forum and women's forum on boards? Men's forum has loads of threads Complaining about feminism and women. Women's forum has no such abundance of threads Whinging about men or men's rights.

most of those threads start because of something in the media blameing men for something or how opressed women are

as for the ladies lounge v gents club. i have noticed that. i put it down to women haveing no genuine claims for rights etc. women have everything right that men have and a lot more in some areas. i cant think of any area that women need more rights or to right a wrong against them. but men have dozens of wrongs against us

the_pen_turner wrote: »

while i understand your logic m surely that aplies to most discusions online and beteen people in real life. i often talk about issues, personal and political . i know it wont change anything .

that doesnt mean its not worth discussing. surely if anyone reading about mens issues or that most of modern femanism is BS then surely its a good thing

It depends on what you're objective is. If you want to go on and on and on about feminism, that's grand.

If you want to address men's issues then Whinging about feminism is useless. Campaign for solutions to men's issues is the way to solve men's issues. But some people only really care about Whinging about feminism. Men's issues aren't as important to them as Whinging about feminism.

Silentcorner

KiKi III wrote: »

Where do you feel I have dismissed you? I have disagreed with you, but I have not at any stage sought to dismiss you.

Again, this narrative that I want to dismiss you or shut you up is your creation. It suits your anti-feminist perspective but it’s not grounded in fact.

I don't think this is sinking in...this wave of feminism, which is Radical Feminism, is intolerant not only to men who do not subscribe to it, but also to women who don't subscribe to it....men are not "whinging" or are "anti feminists"...more and more men and women are completely intolerant of it...there is a big difference....you are not seeing this opinion in media so it is almost like you can't understand fathom anyone having an issue with a divisive movement.

The problem with Radicals is they have abandoned reason...if they ever had the ability to reason in the first place that is!

This wave of feminism is unhealthy for both men and women, so it is an issue facing men today, so we should feel perfectly fine with dismantling the different dishonest Feminist narratives we are presented with on an ongoing basis in media and culture.

If you feel uncomfortable with that it is of no concern to me.

the_pen_turner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It depends on what you're objective is. If you want to go on and on and on about feminism, that's grand.

If you want to address men's issues then Whinging about feminism is useless. Campaign for solutions to men's issues is the way to solve men's issues. But some people only really care about Whinging about feminism. Men's issues aren't as important to them as Whinging about feminism.

i agree that whinging doesnt change anything and that actions on the ground are needed to bring change.

Silentcorner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That "men bad, women good" idea doesn't happen on boards. AH is never long without a thread blaming women for something. Ever compare the men's forum and women's forum on boards? Men's forum has loads of threads Complaining about feminism and women. Women's forum has no such abundance of threads Whinging about men or men's rights.

Do you think that has anything to do with the fact that women are not confronted with the hostility straight white men are confronted with on an ongoing basis, in media, in work, in education?

Are you seriously that blind to it?

the_pen_turner wrote: »

most of those threads start because of something in the media blameing men for something or how opressed women are

as for the ladies lounge v gents club. i have noticed that. i put it down to women haveing no genuine claims for rights etc. women have everything right that men have and a lot more in some areas. i cant think of any area that women need more rights or to right a wrong against them. but men have dozens of wrongs against us

Sure, but the men's forum isn't full of ideas to solve the issues men face, or support for people who try to solve issues men face or support for campaigns to solve the problems men face. It's just full of Whinging about feminism.

Silentcorner wrote: »

Do you think that has anything to do with the fact that women are not confronted with the hostility straight white men are confronted with on an ongoing basis, in media, in work, in education?

Are you seriously that blind to it?

If men wanted to solve those problems they'd talk about solving those problems. If they want to whinge about feminism that's what they'll do (and that is what they do).

If feminism was so intent on bullying men, wouldn't there likely be some mention of feminism or feminist issues in the ladies lounge?

In reality it's just whinging about feminism for the sake of whingeing about feminism. And that's grand it's just a pity those bloke's don't care enough about mens issues to want to chat about how to solve those issues.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

KiKi III wrote: »

Nope, feel free to call feminists out as you please. Just know that it won’t improve anything for marginalised or underprivileged men.

KiKi III wrote: »

It’s fairly simple, he’s saying sh1tting on feminism doesn’t improve anything for marginalised men.

KiKi III wrote: »

So, what I think El Dude is saying, or at least what I’m saying is channeling some of the energy currently spent giving out about feminists into the activities mentioned above would be far more likely to result in meaningful change in the family courts system.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Whingeing about feminism is sport for some and that's fine. But it's a shame to think some people see it as solving the issues. It's just whinging about feminism.

If they cared enough about men's issues to campaign for or just offer support for promoting men's issues, that would be so much more useful.

Naggin Merchant wrote: »

How do you know I wouldn't ask the bloke why came to work in a dress?

And what's this thing about being a 'hard man'? I'm only asking him why he chose to dress like that.

Because I worked in a large company where a man who became a woman (but still looked like a man, more or less) wore a skirt frequently and wasn’t bothered. A large company will be filled with all kinds of personality types. And this was a staid government agency but with various departments and a wide variety of personalities and socioeconomic classes. But this person was fine. But you’d somehow be different from all the different people who worked in my company and you’d question the person? You wouldn’t. Like I said, talk is cheap.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The delightful thread the other day about the case where a man who admitted he raped a woman and people were still doubting it and her was an eye-opener.

That's a pretty spot on example. That was genuinely fascinating to see people try their best to find fault with a person who was raped in their sleep.

spurious

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The delightful thread the other day about the case where a man who admitted he raped a woman and people were still doubting it and her was an eye-opener.

That's AH. It's always the woman's fault. Even men not managing to organise themselves is the fault of women.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Naggin Merchant wrote: »

Notice how El Dud reduces any criticism of feminism to 'whinging'.

Just the whingeing. Which in the context of addressing men's issues, is most (if not all) of it. Anyone who only wants to discuss feminism in a discussion about mens rights issues, is whingeing and is not seriously interested in solving men's issues. At least they're more interested in Whinging about feminism than actually addressing men's issues.

[Deleted User]

Dude..you've spent the last two years attacking the most prominent person who has tried to address men's issues..

Naggin Merchant wrote: »

You actually think I wouldn't say 'Steve, wtf man? What's with the get up?' Of course I would! And why wouldn't I? Why can't I ask that question?

I work in government office too btw. And no HR wouldn't fire for me just for asking a question. No doubt you're disappointed by that.

Well, it’s just as well I never suggested any such thing, isn’t it?

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i agree that whinging doesnt change anything and that actions on the ground are needed to bring change.

It's that simple. And your behaviour will be determined by your focus. If you want to solve men's issues, you'll focus on this s that will achieve that such as campaigns to promote men's issues. If you want to whinge about feminism, then that's what you'll do.

Naggin Merchant wrote: »

Actually criticising feminism is not 'whinging' at all. It can't be 'whinging' when much of feminism is legit BS.

In the context of critiquing feminism it's grand. In the context of addressing men's issues, it's just whinging. Completely takes the wind out of the sales of the men's issues and pits the focus on feminism instead of the issues which men face and the solutions to those issues.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

In the context of critiquing feminism it's grand. In the context of addressing men's issues, it's just whinging. Completely takes the wind out of the sales of the men's issues and pits the focus on feminism instead of the issues which men face and the solutions to those issues.

The definition of feminism is advocacy of equality between the sexes, so someone who is concerned with men's rights in areas where they are lacking is a feminist.

Naggin Merchant wrote: »

Incorrect. Feminism is trade union for women. It has nothing to do with equality.

I am correct.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/feminism

https://www.britannica.com/topic/feminism

Anybody who believes in feminism, or wishes to consider themselves a feminist, must address imbalances that favour women as well as those that favour men.

KiKi III

Valentino Old-fashioned Spacecraft wrote: »

I am correct.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/feminism

https://www.britannica.com/topic/feminism

Anybody who believes in feminism, or wishes to consider themselves a feminist, must address imbalances that favour women as well as those that favour men.

That’s exactly how I feel about it. I want imbalances effecting either gender addressed. Family courts & suicide are the two biggest I see for men but I know there are many more. I don’t see any contradiction between feminism and advocating for men.

Valentino Old-fashioned Spacecraft wrote: »

The definition of feminism is advocacy of equality between the sexes, so someone who is concerned with men's rights in areas where they are lacking is a feminist.

OK. Personally I'd expect feminism to focus on women's issues a d men's rights advocates to focus on men's issues. But you can hope feminism fixes men's issues if you want.

Because men don't tend to support addressing men's rights there really isn't support for a men's rights movement at the moment. Feminism is the only show in town at the moment.

Imagine if the energy spent whingeing about feminism was spend on campaigning for (or expressing support for) men's issues. That would be a different situation.

KiKi III wrote: »

That’s exactly how I feel about it. I want imbalances effecting either gender addressed. Family courts & suicide are the two biggest I see for men but I know there are many more. I don’t see any contradiction between feminism and advocating for men.

Those are two really ripe issues. Very few people, feminist or not, isn't interested when they find out about the rate of suicide amongst men. Likewise when they hear about decent men who want to be good fathers to their children and are thwarted by the family courts.

Those are the kinds of issues I'm keen to support. But still, some people will tell you that talking about feminism is the way to go. It isn't. Talking about obvious areas where men are disadvantaged or need help and the solutions to those problems, is the way to go. It's so obvious.

Naggin Merchant wrote: »

Yeah that's why we're getting women only jobs in academia. Meanwhile it's men do all the dirty, unpleasant jobs that keep society going.

Equality my hole.

Women only jobs make sense in particular circumstances. If John would be more eligible because of historical sexism in his favour then maybe Jane should get a look-in. I'd suggest that this would only be applicable to senior positions requiring a lot of experience, where historically some of that experience might not have been available to female candidates.

I also think women and men bring different things to the table and teams tend to be most effective when both are included. ...And I think particular different negative features often develop in environments where either sex is too dominant.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

OK. Personally I'd expect feminism to focus on women's issues a d men's rights advocates to focus on men's issues. But you can hope feminism fixes men's issues if you want.

Because men don't tend to support addressing men's rights there really isn't support for a men's rights movement at the moment. Feminism is the only show in town at the moment.

Imagine if the energy spent whingeing about feminism was spend on campaigning for (or expressing support for) men's issues. That would be a different situation.

Feminism and mens rights are by definition the same thing.

But Mens Rights badly needs rebranding.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

OK. Personally I'd expect feminism to focus on women's issues a d men's rights advocates to focus on men's issues. But you can hope feminism fixes men's issues if you want.

Because men don't tend to support addressing men's rights there really isn't support for a men's rights movement at the moment. Feminism is the only show in town at the moment.

Imagine if the energy spent whingeing about feminism was spend on campaigning for (or expressing support for) men's issues. That would be a different situation.

there ought not be a gender war based on 2 grab all associations. doesn't sound very productive. there is a role for debunking feminist conspiracy theories like pAtRIarChy

Valentino Old-fashioned Spacecraft wrote: »

I am correct.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/feminism

https://www.britannica.com/topic/feminism

Anybody who believes in feminism, or wishes to consider themselves a feminist, must address imbalances that favour women as well as those that favour men.

Your own links are contrary to your opinion? Feminism is an ideology which promotes the welfare of women and equality for women and girls in areas where they are not equal to men. Someone who says they campaign for men’s rights means they’re a feminist is either confused, misled or being deliberately obtuse. At some point their ideology will present a conflict which cannot be resolved based upon the principles they claim to adhere to.

Fathers rights is just one example where fathers welfare would conflict with mother’s welfare, neither of which is actually relevant in the family courts where it is the welfare and the best interests of the children are the primary concern, not the wishes of their parents.

Valentino Old-fashioned Spacecraft wrote: »

Feminism and mens rights are by definition the same thing.

But Mens Rights badly needs rebranding.

They’re not :pac:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your own links are contrary to your opinion? Feminism is an ideology which promotes the welfare of women and equality for women and girls in areas where they are not equal to men. Someone who says they campaign for men’s rights means they’re a feminist is either confused, misled or being deliberately obtuse. At some point their ideology will present a conflict which cannot be resolved based upon the principles they claim to adhere to.

Fathers rights is just one example where fathers welfare would conflict with mother’s welfare, neither of which is actually relevant in the family courts where it is the welfare and the best interests of the children are the primary concern, not the wishes of their parents.

Family courts tend to only give custody to fathers in extreme circumstances.

The first definition in every one of those links refers to equality between the sexes. You chose to pick definitions lower down the list to try to distort things.