Is feminism a dirty word?

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

I don't know a single MRA organisation that isn't inherently misogynistic that believes or makes this point. They point out that men face more sexism and discrimination than women, which is a point that is certainly debatable and can be made. As for everything else said in the post you argued he is correct, men do not get a fair representation in media.

I didn't argue that MRAs believe women face no discrimination, just that this is what the poster believes and this undermines his position.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

I don't know a single MRA organisation that isn't inherently misogynistic that believes or makes this point. They point out that men face more sexism and discrimination than women, which is a point that is certainly debatable and can be made. As for everything else said in the post you argued he is correct, men do not get a fair representation in media.

I don't know a single MRA organisation that isn't inherently misogynistic.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Just read it, wish I hadn't.
It amazes me that feminists persistently refuse to acknowledge the (in my view) obvious sexism inherent in a term such as "violence against women". It's so fundamental and in my view so obvious, and yet the term persists in usage by a movement which claims to seek equality.

In an equal society, violence would be violence and the demographic of the victim would not be considered a factor in any capacity whatsoever.

There is a show on this evening between 7-9 on People's Internet Radio on the subject of the Istanbul Convention.

Lucian Vâlsan who is one of the people in AVfM will be on the show

SoupMonster wrote: »

Google "end child marriage" and see who is working to stop this practice and allow girls to grow up before being married off. Damned western feminists, partnering with their sisters in the global south to try to improve the world for women and girls!

Look up efforts to end FGM. The real initiators of change are (http://www.dofeve.org/) and the women in the UK who support them. It was NOT Amnesty who were defending the practice as a cultural tradition only 10 years ago, hypocrites.

If you want to donate, check out www.EqualityNow.org.

If you dig a bit deeper you'll find that boys of a young age are also married....but what do feminists care about them eh!

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Yup, because both of those campaigns were started by feminists :rolleyes:. I have no problem with you making claims but seeing as both of those are violations of human rights then it should be sorted. My point is still standing, feminists haven't done anything to help oppressed women in the 3rd world countries or in China and India.

Also, anyone who doesn't think removing a man's forskin without his consent is hardly anything compared to FGM is sincerely wrong. They are both outdated, horrible practises. The only reason to get a circumcision should be for medical reasons (and it is very rare as a medical operation)

I hope you know that one of the people who sponsor an organisation which goes to Africa to circumcise boys and men is none other than Hilary Clinton.

The group even does forced circumcisions on men.

Frito wrote: »

Daughters have also been sued for failing to provide appropriate care.

I won't presume to know more about this than your Chinese friend. I'm assuming they're talking about filial piety which does confer (usually financial) responsibilities to eldest sons and also advantages such as Pre and post mortem inheritance rights.

Since there is a single child policy in China (except in rural areas) the eldest son is usually the only son.

One of the reasons some people have been suggesting that the suicide rate for women in China is twice that of Chinese men is that they have to take the exact same responsibilites as men in looking after their parents.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

I don't know a single MRA organisation that isn't inherently misogynistic that believes or makes this point. They point out that men face more sexism and discrimination than women, which is a point that is certainly debatable and can be made. As for everything else said in the post you argued he is correct, men do not get a fair representation in media.

Perhaps you can name some of the MRA organisations you refer to that you claim are misogynist, I am bound to know some of them and will be able to clarify it for you.

It is not fair nor true to say we think men face more sexism than women.

What we can say is the sexism against men is ignored and laughed at by everyone.

No one is helping men except a small few people.

Frito wrote: »

I won't argue with you there.

I think you undermine your position when you argue that MRAs are necessary to lobby on behalf of men but feminism is redundant as woman face no discrimination. My opinion would be if both sides have cases to make then let them be made.

That's not true, of course women face discrimination across life, just as men do across life.

Men are told to "Man up" and if they continue to complain they get laughed at or ridiculed or end up being called misogynists.

Frito wrote: »

I didn't argue that MRAs believe women face no discrimination, just that this is what the poster believes and this undermines his position.

I do not know a single MRA who believes women face no discrimination, this includes the many female ones.

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Are you operating under the assumption that if you say this often enough, it'll become true?

No I am saying it like it is.

Someone else posted several instances where feminist organisations have said they are looking for gender equality but when push comes to shove they ONLY advocate for women.

Feminists are not looking for equal rights and responsibilities they are looking for privileges which they want men to pay for

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Aside from the fact that it's not just equal rights we're fighting for. It's equal treatment, equal opportunities, bodily autonomy - a whole spectrum. That covers issues faced by women on a global scale. I don't see the point of dividing it up into "western" feminism and "developing world" feminism. Maybe you could clarify that?

Equal treatment....you'd lose out if that happens

Equal opportunities....great we'll close down all the "gender quotas" for women, all the organisations which are run by feminists who caim to be fighting for women.

Bodily autonomy....men die 6/7 years before women, more men die from treatable cancers than women.

Let's change the subject to what things MRAs believe.

Equal treatment....we are 100% behind that, we'd be better off in family law courts, justice courts, education (in Ireland 40% of graduates are male), work place accidents are over 90% male, we'd get a govt dept to look after our affairs.

Equal opportunities....employers would take people on based on merit rather than just getting a particular gender in because it looks good in the newspapers, as above 'education', the likes of Wimbledon winnings would be based on the number of sets played, men would be able to go to a domestic abuse shelter if needed (with their children), we could fly on some airplanes beside children without being asked to move because we are male

Bodily autonomy....men do not feel needed nor wanted in society which is why so many men are killing themselves (over 5-1 compared to women), there is no legislation outlawing circumcision in Ireland nor across the Western World.

I can continue this...

iwantmydinner wrote: »

As for the other poster who said men aren't fairly represented in the media... What?! Do you mean in advertising? Which is horribly sexist towards all genders... Do you think men are less fairly represented than women? ETA: this is a genuine question, not argumentative.

Men are nor fairly represented in media at all.

All you have to do to get an idea of how horrible it is towards men is just watch a soap.

Then reverse the genders in your mind and see how it would appear.

Adverts are horribly sexist towards men, except beer commercials.

The simple fact is that when you are doing adverts they have to be aimed at the ones who control the money in a household.

60-80% of all disposable income is spent by women not men which is why most adverts are aimed at women so they are hardly going to try to make women look stupid.

iwantmydinner wrote: »

I don't laugh at sexism towards men.

Good for you.

I'll edit my previous post to clarify.

I was listening to an advert on the Ray D'arcy show and there were 2 characters singing a song which went something like,

"Punch your husband in the groin to see the look on his face"

Can you imagine for one second genders reversed what would happen?

S.L.F wrote: »

No I am saying it like it is.

Someone else posted several instances where feminist organisations have said they are looking for gender equality but when push comes to shove they ONLY advocate for women.

Feminists are not looking for equal rights and responsibilities they are looking for privileges which they want men to pay for



Equal treatment....you'd lose out if that happens

Equal opportunities....great we'll close down all the "gender quotas" for women, all the organisations which are run by feminists who caim to be fighting for women.

Bodily autonomy....men die 6/7 years before women, more men die from treatable cancers than women.

Let's change the subject to what things MRAs believe.

Equal treatment....we are 100% behind that, we'd be better off in family law courts, justice courts, education (in Ireland 40% of graduates are male), work place accidents are over 90% male, we'd get a govt dept to look after our affairs.

Equal opportunities....employers would take people on based on merit rather than just getting a particular gender in because it looks good in the newspapers, as above 'education', the likes of Wimbledon winnings would be based on the number of sets played, men would be able to go to a domestic abuse shelter if needed (with their children), we could fly on some airplanes beside children without being asked to move because we are male

Bodily autonomy....men do not feel needed nor wanted in society which is why so many men are killing themselves (over 5-1 compared to women), there is no legislation outlawing circumcision in Ireland nor across the Western World.

I can continue this...

I honestly wish I had time to address all your points. Perhaps I'll get a chance after work.

But for now I''ll stick with the biggest question in my head. Why can't you let feminists fight our battles, and you fight yours? It seems a waste of energy to heap all this bitterness on feminists and feminism.

iwantmydinner wrote: »

I honestly wish I had time to address all your points. Perhaps I'll get a chance after work.

But for now I''ll stick with the biggest question in my head. Why can't you let feminists fight our battles, and you fight yours? It seems a waste of energy to heap all this bitterness on feminists and feminism.

Feminists are not fighting anyones battles except for their own ideology.

To prove me wrong just show me a single feminist website, organisation, campaign, event or group that has anything good to say about boys, men or masculinity....without wanting to change them.

Feminists fight for the 'feminist ideology' nothing else.

EDIT....bitterness...where is the bitterness?

Losqualo wrote: »

When did I say you were insulting anyone?

Well, I'm a feminist.

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Well, I'm a feminist.

I think it’s a given they're referring the prevailing feminist ideology rather than each and every self-identifying feminist.

banquo wrote: »

This: since when are movie stars too young to have experienced anything of life our go-to people on complicated social issues?

So which Ivy League college did you go to?

This is AH, so I claim the right to make a point without doing a great deal of research, and having authoritative citations.

It seems to me that the areas where it is claimed that men are disadvantaged vis-a-vis women include:
- women getting sole or primary custody of children where a relationship breaks down;
- violence by women on men being regarded less seriously by violence by men on women;
- women found guilty of offences often being treated more leniently than men.

I am quite willing to believe all these things happen, and where they happen, men are relatively disadvantaged by society.

These things are rooted in society (and, in particular, the justice system) being shaped by a patriarchal mindset, the same type of patriarchal mindset that in many other manifestations leads to women being disadvantaged.

A good feminist (and I would like to think that in my own small way I am a good feminist) would be willing to recognise the hardships imposed on some men by such attitudes.

But people generally fight one battle at a time. A woman who believes that she is disadvantaged in her desire for career advancement by her employer's policies or practices might address the problem that affects her directly, before she pays any attention to an alleged injustice in a child custody case involving people that she does not know. Should she not have career concerns, and should the aggrieved male parent be her brother, she might take on a different battle.

mug_holder wrote: »

sounds like a win win for women

how very feminist

So when the patriarchal model determines that women are unsuited to politics, to business leadership, or to taking on some skilled (and well-rewarded) jobs, women are winning there too?

Patriarchy is a two-sided coin: whichever way it falls, there are losers as well as winners.