Is the Western World anti-man?

desertcircus wrote: »

Pretty much everyone who isn't deranged is in total agreement on what Gamergate was: vicious, misogynistic slut-shaming perpetrated by entitled sociopaths.

Now, isn't this exactly the problem with threads like this?

I would say that there is quite obviously a degree of "grey area" with regard to Gamergate. To the extent where I still have trouble defining exactly what "Gamergate" is/was. A very brief look on the internet reveals that there are level heads and rational voices on both sides.

So, I'd be instantly suspicious of anyone who takes the most absolute, dismissive and accusatory stance possible.

Anyone who doesn't agree with your totally rigid description of "vicious, misogynistic slut-shaming perpetrated by entitled sociopaths" is deranged?

How did you come to this conclusion?

Samuel Scary Urination wrote: »

I think it is clear to see for anyone who can think for themselves that the western world is currently extremely anti-man. The examples are everywhere, from gender quotas to cries of "sexual harrassment" for being stared at. Misandry is now acceptable in most areas of life, whilst any attempt to point this out is usually received with a backlash of abuse, and quite ironically, more misandry.

In my opinion the media and large portions of the Internet are doing their best to attach a shame to being male, similarly to what's happening to white people. Somehow it's my fault for being male and therefore benefitting from this imaginary "male privilege", and I should be ashamed of that. Nonsense.

I'm sick to the back teeth of attempts being made to make me feel bad about my masculinity. I'm a man, and I'm proud of that fact. I hope everyone feels the same way about themselves, even those who have changed gender.

The equality movement has gone too far.

The western world isn't 'anti-man', it's 'anti-hetrosexual man'.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Well when one group has had so many privileges for so long, it's impossible to create true equality without removing some of those privileges. Obviously some of that group will feel entitled to those privileges after enjoying them for so long and feel hard done by and victimized but that isn't the case. The world wide pay gap shows that things are far from equal for women.

When are going to go after the privileges of rich American feminists?

We're talking about the west here, by the way. American women can no more point to what happens in Pakistan than a worker for Apple in Cupertino can call himself oppressed because of FoxConn.

Historically working class men and peasantry had no rights or privileges compared to elites of either gender. The gender pay gap in the west is statistically insignificant compared to regional and class differences. Capitalism is unequal.

Kev W wrote: »

Tell us why you think feminists are silent on the matter?

Because they represent the interests of their constituency - women - not both genders or men. As such if it does not benefit women it is at best ignored, worthy of a soundbite at best, but no actual campaign. At worst it is opposed, as it may adversely affect the interests of women.

A case in point is the presumption of child care, and control. The principle of the tender years doctrine is the de facto standard in Western Family law. It is also ultimately the cause of the pay gap, gender discrimination of women of child baring age, and an important reason why women lack the opportunities to advance in politics. Basically, they have to sacrifice those roles because society presumes that they should be in charge of caring for our children.

On the other hand, it also means that they will 94% of the time get custody of those children and why fathers' rights are such an embarrassment.

Don't you think that were feminism interested in equality it would seek to overturn our reliance of the tender years doctrine? See a greater divide amongst fathers and mothers where it comes to custody? Free up more women to pursue the much sought goals of equality of pay, politics and promotion?

But that would require the sacrifice of a female privilege. So instead quotas, that allows a cake and eat it approach, are the answer apparently and feminism remains silent on the monopoly that the tender years doctrine affords women.

Since the rise of second wave feminism you will not find a single instance of mainstream feminism actively supporting any measure that would negatively affect women's rights, regardless of whether it serves gender equality or not.

psinno wrote: »

It is just standard old white men nonsense that is getting transplanted from the US.

You know what else is imported from the U.S.? Ideas like white privilege. Even the term "white" as used in most debates.

What's not talked about, and what used to be talked about, is American supremacy.

Old Jakey wrote: »

And she wrote an article about how she's sad men don't catcall her anymore.

Agreed about the Guardian. It's become a joke.

And also an article about how she was enraged by male catcalling.

It's all San Francisco portlandia bollocks. Not even a smidgen of acknowledgement that she's writing for a different country, where things might be different.