nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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?

Find more posts tagged with

troll thread

Quick Links

Comments

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?

Stiffler2

Male feminists - LOL

Rips off shirt.
Wobbles T!ts from side to side

Nope

token101

flanders1979 wrote: »

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

Exactly. They don't complain when they're getting cheap car insurance or more money for working less (Tennis). You never hear a complaint saying the hospitals are dominated by female nurses. You never hear a peep about gender quotas in primary teaching or nurseries. No it's a one way street. It's only inequality when it doesn't favour women. Then you'll see gowls like Ivana Bacik crawl from under the bridge with the 'Womens Council'. Christ, do we have a f***ing Men's Council? No. Why? Because we don't need one and they'd just be another gravy train quango full of idiots trolling the world.

I've yet to see a job spec that says men will earn more. Women can vote, drive and protest. They can, and do, run for election. We don't need more of these bored gob****es telling us things aren't equal and women are oppressed. We don't need quotas. People can vote for who they like, not based on their gender. Here's an idea: f*** off to Saudi and tell the House of Saud about your first world non problems. At least there you'll have legitimate complaints.

token101

Millicent wrote: »

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

Yes

southsiderosie

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.

Some countries have implemented mandatory paternal leave in exchange for child benefits, and it has completely changed attitudes (amongst younger generations at least) towards paternity leave. Sweden is a case in point:

In Sweden, Men Can Have It All

By KATRIN BENNHOLD
SPOLAND, SWEDEN — Mikael Karlsson owns a snowmobile, two hunting dogs and five guns. In his spare time, this soldier-turned-game warden shoots moose and trades potty-training tips with other fathers. Cradling 2-month-old Siri in his arms, he can’t imagine not taking baby leave. “Everyone does.”

From trendy central Stockholm to this village in the rugged forest south of the Arctic Circle, 85 percent of Swedish fathers take parental leave. Those who don’t face questions from family, friends and colleagues. As other countries still tinker with maternity leave and women’s rights, Sweden may be a glimpse of the future.

In this land of Viking lore, men are at the heart of the gender-equality debate. The ponytailed center-right finance minister calls himself a feminist, ads for cleaning products rarely feature women as homemakers, and preschools vet books for gender stereotypes in animal characters. For nearly four decades, governments of all political hues have legislated to give women equal rights at work — and men equal rights at home.

Swedish mothers still take more time off with children — almost four times as much. And some who thought they wanted their men to help raise baby now find themselves coveting more time at home.

But laws reserving at least two months of the generously paid, 13-month parental leave exclusively for fathers — a quota that could well double after the September election — have set off profound social change.

Companies have come to expect employees to take leave irrespective of gender, and not to penalize fathers at promotion time. Women’s paychecks are benefiting and the shift in fathers’ roles is perceived as playing a part in lower divorce rates and increasing joint custody of children.

In perhaps the most striking example of social engineering, a new definition of masculinity is emerging.

“Many men no longer want to be identified just by their jobs,” said Bengt Westerberg, who long opposed quotas but as deputy prime minister phased in a first month of paternity leave in 1995. “Many women now expect their husbands to take at least some time off with the children.”

Birgitta Ohlsson, European affairs minister, put it this way: “Machos with dinosaur values don’t make the top-10 lists of attractive men in women’s magazines anymore.” Ms. Ohlsson, who has lobbied European Union governments to pay more attention to fathers, is eight months pregnant, and her husband, a law professor, will take the leave when their child is born.

“Now men can have it all — a successful career and being a responsible daddy,” she added. “It’s a new kind of manly. It’s more wholesome.”

Back in Spoland, Sofia Karlsson, a police officer and the wife of Mikael Karlsson, said she found her husband most attractive “when he is in the forest with his rifle over his shoulder and the baby on his back.”

Sindri

southsiderosie wrote: »

Some countries have implemented mandatory paternal leave in exchange for child benefits, and it has completely changed attitudes (amongst younger generations at least) towards paternity leave. Sweden is a case in point:

It's a shame, Sweden has been for quite a while incredibly egalitarian. The rest of us are way off achieving their level of equality.

Ellis Dee

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?

I suppose "male feminist" sounds a bit odd, especially in a country like Ireland, which still has a way to go before it shakes off the last vestiges of the Victorian attitudes that our colonial masters embedded in us and were then complemented by the inhibitions, hang-ups and perverted attitudes that our new masters, the native Gombeenery and their allies in the kiddy-fiddler church, instilled in us.:)

But we are making headway, and indeed our head of state is now a man who has quite openly described himself as a feminist. Maith an fear!:)

I know the vision that flashes across what passes for a mind in some of the lads down in the pub when they hear the phrase "male feminist" is some kind of crossdressing puffter, but the way I understand it is just a man who believes in equality between the sexes. People like that often subscribe to other kinds of equality as well and can harbour astonishingly democratic views.:rolleyes:

There is something wrong with a country that does not allow half of its population to play a full role in running things.

It need not be like that. Right now I'm in Finland, where women have about 40% of the parliamentary seats and half of the cabinet seats (including the finance portfolio). The Bishop of Helsinki is likewise a woman, as are a majority of the clergy in the Lutheran Church (no kiddy fiddling, either). The country has its problems, but is coping well nevertheless. So letting women have a fair share of decision making will not mean the end of the world. It is probably largely thanks to their input that we have such things as good and pretty universal day care that families can afford, free school meals for all, about a year's paid maternity leave and several weeks' paternity leave and an excellent universal national health service.:):)

And, by the way, I'm sure that lads down in the pub will be interested to know that, despite the great liberty and power that woman enjoy here, you really need a good friend to talk to you about your BO problem if you can't easily get a ride in this country.;);)

southsiderosie

Sindri wrote: »

It's a shame, Sweden has been for quite a while incredibly egalitarian. The rest of us are way off achieving their level of equality.

Well, the Swedes also use mandatory policies when it comes to this stuff, whereas people in Ireland shriek about quotas and the like. The Irish government also kowtows to the American Chamber of Commerce Ireland when it comes to labor and employment law, so I doubt there will ever be such family-friendly policies in Ireland as there are in Northern European countries.

Dyr

southsiderosie wrote: »

Some countries have implemented mandatory paternal leave in exchange for child benefits, and it has completely changed attitudes (amongst younger generations at least) towards paternity leave. Sweden is a case in point:

that article nearly made me puke/lol , imagine a male politician making an approving comment about a more "wholesome" type of womanliness, he'd be f**king strung up :pac:

YFlyer

starbelgrade wrote: »

B (.) (.) B S

Burn those bras!

southsiderosie

Bambi wrote: »

that article nearly made me puke/lol , imagine a male politician making an approving comment about a more "wholesome" type of womanliness, he'd be f**king strung up :pac:

I think perhaps the better word here would be 'well rounded' vision of manliness/womanliness.