Feminist Men

Rev Hellfire · 30-07-2013 03:06PM

iwantmydinner wrote: »

and I guess also because I am a woman.

An interesting statement in a thread about feminist men.

It's that sort of mind set (on both sides) that re-enforces the view of feminism as an 'us vs them' ideology.

iwantmydinner · 30-07-2013 03:12PM

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

An interesting statement in a thread about feminist men.

It's that sort of mind set (on both sides) that re-enforces the view of feminism as an 'us vs them' ideology.

Interesting that that's the only thing you took from my post. I certainly don't see it as being an "us vs them" ideology. Working for one women's rights, supporting those working for men's rights. I was very, very clear about that.

"...and I guess also because I'm a woman" refers to the fact that I am aware that being a woman might have an influence over the fact that I feel so strongly about women's rights. In the same way that I expect being a man makes some men feel so strongly about men's rights.

Rev Hellfire · 30-07-2013 03:19PM

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Interesting that that's the only thing you took from my post. I certainly don't see it as being an "us vs them" ideology. Working for one women's rights, supporting those working for men's rights. I was very, very clear about that.

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but it read to me as your focus is women rights because you're a woman. And that while you support others campaigning for rights they are secondary to women rights for you.

iwantmydinner · 30-07-2013 03:29PM

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but it read to me as your focus is women rights because you're a woman. And that while you support others campaigning for rights they are secondary to women rights for you.

No no, I certainly don't think anyone's rights are secondary to anyone else's. I simply choose to throw my weight and energy behind women's rights, for the reasons I outlined. I absolutely feel I can campaign for the betterment of women's rights where they lag behind men's, in a way that does not in any way trample or make little of men's rights.

Rev Hellfire · 30-07-2013 03:35PM

My apologies I clearly misunderstood.

CarlDunne1979 · 30-07-2013 03:36PM

Can someone give me an example of at least one way there is serious inequality between men and women, where women are on the losing end? The video seemed to just mention violence. Yet, man on man violence is far higher than man on women violence. Also, achieving a society without violence is a utopian vision, not an issue of equality.

These threads always play out under the assumption that feminism carries legitimate concerns in regards to inequality of the sexes, yet never gives examples outside of "slut shaming" and "rape culture".

Morag · 30-07-2013 03:39PM

starling wrote: »

This is the thing a lot of people don't seem to get about feminism, from the outside it looks as if it's about taking something away from men, that's not what it's about. Feminists don't hate men. We don't like the unfairness in the patriarchal system, we think women should be treated fairly, it's not about "punishing" men.

http://vimeo.com/64941331

Dave_The_Sheep · 30-07-2013 03:40PM

CarlDunne1979 wrote: »

Can someone give me an example of at least one way there is serious inequality between men and women, where women are on the losing end?

Toilet queues.

Women's toilet queues are far longer. I, for one, support the need for more toilets for women, it takes them longer to do the business, that's just a biological requirement. So they need more cubicles compared to men. It's only fair.

CarlDunne1979 · 30-07-2013 03:45PM

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Toilet queues.

Women's toilet queues are far longer. I, for one, support the need for more toilets for women, it takes them longer to do the business, that's just a biological requirement. So they need more cubicles compared to men. It's only fair.

I could've predicted this response before it was given.

Also, one time, a woman felt that a not good looking man looked at her without her explicit contractual permission, RAPE culture in action.

iwantmydinner · 30-07-2013 03:51PM

CarlDunne1979 wrote: »

Also, one time, a woman felt that a not good looking man looked at her without her explicit contractual permission, RAPE culture in action.

Wow, way to belittle.

30-07-2013 03:55PM

Mod

CarDunne1979, a very quick glance through your post history tells me you have some fairly misogynistic views. The Ladies' Lounge is probably not the best place for you tbh so you should consider reviewing your posting style before posting in this forum again.

With regards to this thread in particular, you are no longer welcome to post here and doing so again will result in a ban from tLL.

Morag · 30-07-2013 04:08PM

The anti room podcast is up

But what about the menz?
https://soundcloud.com/anti-room

Dave_The_Sheep · 30-07-2013 04:12PM

CarlDunne1979 wrote: »

I could've predicted this response before it was given.

No, you couldn't. Otherwise you would have.

You also may have missed my less than serious tone, usually reserved for people whose views don't really deserve to be taken seriously.

[edit] Saw the mod response above. Will park it here.

Millicent · 30-07-2013 05:05PM

Zulu wrote: »

Nothing except some of us would prefer to work towards equality. The sole pursuit of rights for one group will not lead to equality. It's practically impossible to balance a scale by only adding weights to one side.

That's exactly how a scale works.

If one side is heavier than the other, adding weight to the lighter side balances the scale. It doesn't diminish the weight of the other side.

GalwayGuy2 · 30-07-2013 07:24PM

If one side is heavier than the other, adding weight to the lighter side balances the scale. It doesn't diminish the weight of the other side.

EDIT: Eh, I re-read my other post and it was bordering on incoherent. I blame my grammer

To sum it up, if you're solving unfair steorytypes of women by perpetuating unfair steorytypes of men, then, yes, the scale does end up wonky.

Ambersky · 30-07-2013 07:45PM

GalwayGuy2 says
Becuase society sees a man hitting a woman as abusive, or even a precursor to assault, then men who hit women not in self-defense may have more of an abusive element than men who wouldn't.

Dont know what is actually being said here but its not sounding good.

GalwayGuy2 · 30-07-2013 07:55PM

Dont know what is actually being said here but its not sounding good.

I deleted my post because of the massive grammar issues. But I'm kind of curious what you thought i was saying?

Tbh, the way I phrased that was horrible and I did get a bit philosophical.I'm not condoning any kind of violence against anybody.

I was trying to say that men in our society who get physically violent against a women, eg: shoving the woman in anger if she tells him to go away in a club, could be more likely to assault than a man who wouldn't get physically violent.

Jesus, I hope I didn't give the impression that I'm victim blaming or condoning violence against women :eek:

Millicent · 30-07-2013 09:01PM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

To sum it up, if you're solving unfair steorytypes of women by perpetuating unfair steorytypes of men, then, yes, the scale does end up wonky.

But who's doing that? Not any of the feminists I know.

clairefontaine · 30-07-2013 09:11PM

Millicent wrote: »

But who's doing that? Not any of the feminists I know.

Stereotyping is so unconscious that a lot more people do it than they realise. If you jnvestigatws with more subtle measures you'd find they did stereotype, because nearly everyone does to some extent.

It might also be worth examining ones own stereotypical behaviour.

GalwayGuy2 · 30-07-2013 09:13PM

But who's doing that? Not any of the feminists I know.

Fair point.

To be honest, I'm bowing out of this discussion. I read my quote above, and I came very, very close to sounding like I was condoning violence against women.

And I really, really wasn't, and I'd hate for someone who suffered violence at their partners hands to think that I was

So, until I get better grammar and debating skills, I'm not going to talk about such emotive subjects.

Dave_The_Sheep · 30-07-2013 09:35PM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

So, until I get better grammar and debating skills, I'm not going to talk about such emotive subjects.

To be honest, I didn't think that's what your post came across like. It was merely pointing out that there are a lot of sexist stereotypes that exist in a negative way of men, and they get thrown about a lot by feminists (perhaps more extreme ones). Dealing with both is required, and not just one set. That's what I took from your post.

clairefontaine · 30-07-2013 09:36PM

Sobaldalsauch wrote: »

But there isn't just one scale. There's countless scales, some tipped towards men and some tipped towards women. Feminists only look to balance the scales which our tipped towards men and in doing so missing so many opportunities to give women equality.

I prefer the model of Newtons pendulum to weighing scales.

Ambersky · 30-07-2013 10:26PM

GalwayGuy2 As I said I didnt know what you were trying to say but as you say yourself when your post was quoted it didn't sound too good. Thanks for putting a bit more clarification on the issue.

Zulu · 31-07-2013 07:13AM

Millicent wrote: »

That's exactly how a scale works. If one side is heavier than the other, adding weight to the lighter side balances the scale. It doesn't diminish the weight of the other side.

You seem to have misunderstood (or have only considered the problem at its simplest level) ...but considering that there's 7/8 of you making the same mistake let me explain...

What happens if you add too much weight to the lighter side? How do you balance when only adding weight to that side? (You can't).

Zulu · 31-07-2013 07:14AM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

To sum it up, if you're solving unfair steorytypes of women by perpetuating unfair steorytypes of men, then, yes, the scale does end up wonky.

Or this, I guess, works also.

Zulu · 31-07-2013 07:21AM

Millicent wrote: »

But who's doing that? Not any of the feminists I know.

They are not fighting for womens rights? That is to say they pursue rights for both sexes equally? If that's the case - I'm one of them "feminists". But aren't they then really egalitarian?

I wonder though, do you mean that they are like iwantmydinner? Where they don't have any "problems" with mens rights, but they just "throw their weight behind" womens rights, (and let the men sort themselves out). If thats the case, then they are really just loading the scale on one side - and hoping that someone else will load the scale on other side. Which, frankly, is a madness. Granted weights could be taken off, but I see no evidence of that happening. Clearly, the quickest way to balance is to add/remove weight to/from both sides.

Equal rights is a goal we should all strive for, for everyone. Equally. ...selfishness doesn't shouldn't have a place in the pursuit of equality. A lofty ideal, but something I think is worth striving for.

iwantmydinner · 31-07-2013 09:59AM

Zulu wrote: »

They are not fighting for womens rights? That is to say they pursue rights for both sexes equally? If that's the case - I'm one of them "feminists". But aren't they then really egalitarian?

I wonder though, do you mean that they are like iwantmydinner? Where they don't have any "problems" with mens rights, but they just "throw their weight behind" womens rights, (and let the men sort themselves out). If thats the case, then they are really just loading the scale on one side - and hoping that someone else will load the scale on other side. Which, frankly, is a madness. Granted weights could be taken off, but I see no evidence of that happening. Clearly, the quickest way to balance is to add/remove weight to/from both sides.

Equal rights is a goal we should all strive for, for everyone. Equally. ...selfishness doesn't shouldn't have a place in the pursuit of equality. A lofty ideal, but something I think is worth striving for.

You are completely misrepresenting what I have said. Completely and utterly. I really think you need to re-read my posts if you want to attack them effectively.

I just want to pick up on one point in particular though. To say that I'm just hoping someone else will pick up the slack you're suggesting I'm leaving by concentrating my efforts on women's rights is a complete falsehood. There are good, intelligent and passionate people working hard on men's rights issues. There is no "madness" in supporting them in their work while I focus on what I feel most passionately about. "Let the men sort themselves out" - that completely belittles the work that men (and women) are already doing on behalf of men.

Also, this scales analogy is ridiculous.

Zulu · 31-07-2013 10:59AM

iwantmydinner wrote: »

You are completely misrepresenting what I have said. Completely and utterly.

Am I?

Apologies if I am, but that's what I took:

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Personally, I (and others here) feel like there's a far greater need on one side than the other. Therefore, I throw my weight behind that side.

I'm cognisant of, and sympathetic to, areas where men's rights leg behind those of women (for example, in family law). I support those who work to correct that imbalance, but my focus is on women's rights as I feel there is a greater need there and I guess also because I am a woman.

to mean.

I guess I'm probably misinterpreting what you mean by "sympathetic to" and "support those who". To me that reads "I don't object to", but "don't actually do" anything. Apologies if that's too harsh a view.

Eitherway though, my salient point stands.

I just want to pick up on one point in particular though. To say that I'm just hoping someone else will pick up the slack you're suggesting I'm leaving by concentrating my efforts on women's rights is a complete falsehood.

Oh sorry, so you are throwing your weight behind mens rights aswell?

Look, I'll be honest, I'm confused by what you are saying. You actively pursue womens rights - I'm getting that much. Do you persue mens rights? If you do, I'm picking you up wrong. Sorry.

There is no "madness" in supporting them in their work while I focus on what I feel most passionately about.

There is if your actions are working in contrast to theirs!

Of course it really depends on what we mean by "support". Is "support" actively campaigning, or is "support" lip service. If it's the former, it's not madness. If it's that latter - then its maddness ...or blind niaevity.

Also, this scales analogy is ridiculous.

Why?

Millicent · 31-07-2013 11:00AM

Zulu wrote: »

They are not fighting for womens rights? That is to say they pursue rights for both sexes equally? If that's the case - I'm one of them "feminists". But aren't they then really egalitarian?

I wonder though, do you mean that they are like iwantmydinner? Where they don't have any "problems" with mens rights, but they just "throw their weight behind" womens rights, (and let the men sort themselves out). If thats the case, then they are really just loading the scale on one side - and hoping that someone else will load the scale on other side. Which, frankly, is a madness. Granted weights could be taken off, but I see no evidence of that happening. Clearly, the quickest way to balance is to add/remove weight to/from both sides.

Equal rights is a goal we should all strive for, for everyone. Equally. ...selfishness doesn't shouldn't have a place in the pursuit of equality. A lofty ideal, but something I think is worth striving for.

Yeah, we've been on this merry-go-round before where you pretend not to understand my definition of feminism or anyone else's and keep harping on about your own definition despite being given pages and pages of evidence to the contrary. It got boring a long time ago.

You've decided you know what feminism is, you've decided it's unfair against the menz and I'm not going to waste my time on a conversation that we both know is futile. But just keep wrapping that argument up in "But I'm an egalitarian" terms. We both know how this conversation goes.

Zulu · 31-07-2013 11:06AM

Millicent wrote: »

Yeah, we've been on this merry-go-round before where you pretend not to understand my definition of feminism or anyone else's and keep harping on about your own definition despite being given pages and pages of evidence to the contrary. It got boring a long time ago.

Attack the post - not the poster. Millicent, I'm responding to what's posted here - not prejudice.

You've decided... you've decided it's unfair against the menz

menz?

and I'm not going to waste my time

Fair enough, add me to your ignore list.

But just keep wrapping that argument up in "But I'm an egalitarian" terms.

If you have a problem with me calling myself an egalitarian - out with it.

...but you know what, I see the thanks starting; this is the ladies lounge, have it. :rolleyes:

Feminist Men

Comments