Joined: 2/28/2012
Posts: 159
Location: Philadelphia
While I would very much like to be militant about this, I know that does not convince anyone and only further stigmatizes feminism. So without being confrontational or accusatory, I would like to implore everyone to be more aware of how your actions and attitudes might make women feel uncomfortable or unworthy and try to avoid these actions. That's it. Peace.
[13:05:17] <rog> you must also consider areas where women are treated better than men
[13:05:34] <rog> you CANNOT ignore men's rights, just because they have it much better than women
[13:05:46] <dada__> I don't ignore men's rights, actually. neither does feminism.
[13:06:29] <rog> cool. where can i find some feminists arguing against women getting custody of their children far, far more often than men?
Leaving this here, so dada doesn't forget about it.
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
rog wrote:
[13:05:17] <rog> you must also consider areas where women are treated better than men
[13:05:34] <rog> you CANNOT ignore men's rights, just because they have it much better than women
[13:05:46] <dada__> I don't ignore men's rights, actually. neither does feminism.
[13:06:29] <rog> cool. where can i find some feminists arguing against women getting custody of their children far, far more often than men?
Leaving this here, so dada doesn't forget about it.
This is not a particular topic that I'm interested in, so I don't know. I'm pretty sure this has been discussed. Do some research on your own, I'm not going to do it for you.
But the point is that there's nothing in feminism that says "men's rights are off the table". It says "we need gender equality, and in order to achieve that we need to increase the rights of women, because they currently don't have as many as men".
So if you believe this is an important topic, then become a feminist and start trying to set the agenda to make a point of this.
This is not a particular topic that I'm interested in, so I don't know.
Of fucking course you don't.
btw, that particular topic is gender equality.
It says "we need gender equality, and in order to achieve that we need to increase the rights of women, because they currently don't have as many as men".
You cannot achieve gender equality by focusing solely on the issues of one. It does not work that way.
Obviously it makes sense to put more thought into women's rights, but when <1% of your consideration is in regards to men's rights, you cannot say you want gender equality.
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
rog wrote:
This is not a particular topic that I'm interested in, so I don't know.
Of fucking course you don't.
Oh, so because I don't happen to have a link to something that *you* care about, you've suddenly debunked the notion of me being in favor of gender equality because I don't care about men enough?
See, this is what I mean. A lot of people simply don't know about basic concepts of equality and will proceed to defame anyone who so much as dares to make the claim they're feminist.
The men who claim they're being oppressed, also known as "men's rights activists", are completely deluded.
There's a lot of (often deliberate) misinformation circulated around about this, and it mostly amounts to pure propaganda.
It's enough for a man to mention some discrimination issue against males in current society (such as for example having less rights in child custody cases) for this man to be immediately labeled with lots of derogatory terms such as "sexist" and "men's rights activist", and for his position to be distorted into a total straw man.
This distortion is quite often also hypocritical because if a woman raises the exact same issue (eg. men being discriminated in child custody cases) it's usually seen as a virtue of said woman (ie. that she is aware and acknowledges some of the social discrimination that men have to endure.) The woman would most certainly not be called "sexist" and "men's rights activist", but the exact opposite (ie. someone who fights for true equality).
This is a double standard, which goes exactly against the whole concept of equality.
And feminism is, as you pointed out, about gender equality--nothing more and nothing less.
Even disregarding the oxymoronic nature of that proposition (because the term "feminism" does not indicate that on its own), theory and practice can be quite different things. Even if in theory "feminism" is about gender equality, in practice many such "feminists" engage in quite many double standards, completely against the whole idea.
For example, if a woman cuts off her husband's privates (eg. because of infidelity), many "feminists" will rejoice and cheer, and do it in public, and even on the media, With complete impunity. (Yes, it has happened, if you haven't seen it.) If the crime had had the genders reversed and then it had been men who had rejoiced and cheered, they would get a huge social backlash and furor (and, depending on the country, perhaps even sued to court).
(And even in this case the same hypocritical attitude holds: If a man complains about this hideous example, he's labeled as sexist, but if a woman, especially a known feminist, condemns these women who laughed at the situation, she is praised for doing so. Yes, that has happened as well.)
Enterim wrote:
I don't know why "feminist" is treated like a dirty word. If you believe in equality, you are a feminist. Deal with it.
Many people have a problem with the term "feminism". The term does not convey the meaning of "equality", which is why many people who truly seek gender equality abhor the term. (It doesn't help that, as I said above, theory and practice do not always meet, and many women who call themselves "feminists" act like real jerks.)
I'm all for gender equality, but I do not appreciate being called "feminist". I do not like the word.
I would like to implore everyone to be more aware of how your actions and attitudes might make women feel uncomfortable or unworthy and try to avoid these actions.
I put in conscious effort to be more aware of how my actions and attitudes might make anybody feel uncomfortable or unworthy, and try to avoid these actions. I understand if it doesn't make me as worthy a human being in your or Dada's book, but that's how I believe in equality. Not singling some people out and ignoring the rest.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
Dada wrote:
See, this is what I mean. A lot of people simply don't know about basic concepts of equality and will proceed to defame anyone who so much as dares to make the claim they're feminist.
I don't know if there is anything as narrow minded and condescending as this point of view.
"if someone disagrees with me, they must not understand the issue"
I don't know if there is anything as narrow minded and condescending as this point of view.
It seems that feminism is one of those hot topics that cannot be discussed without the thread becoming a pissing contest on who denigrates the opposite view the most.
Just please don't let it plummet into outright ad hominems, which is the next logical step. Let's try to keep this even minimally civilized.
Joined: 2/28/2012
Posts: 159
Location: Philadelphia
While men may face discrimination on the basis of their sex from time to time, there is no institutionalized discrimination against men. Men certainly should not be overlooked, but they are not the focus. It's akin to trying to eradicate poverty: while there may be some poverty in, I dunno, Sweden, it would be silly to focus all of your efforts on Sweden as opposed to countries with widespread poverty. We would not ignore Sweden, but be aware of its relative financial stability relative to other nations'.
The patriarchy negatively affects men, but it does not oppress them. The patriarchy may cause men to feel inadequate about their body image (it tells us we all must be chiseled and muscular), but its affects on women are far, far worse. Feminists want maximal inclusion. It is very much appreciated when men help out, as I encourage you all to do.
Warp, unfortunately Dada is already past that step. I've posted the juiciest excerpts in the IRC quote thread just so he doesn't forget or deny them later.
More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
While men may face discrimination on the basis of their sex from time to time, there is no institutionalized discrimination against men.
Care to give examples of institutionalized discrimination against women? In all modern western (and western-like) countries discriminating against women is illegal, which is exactly what feminists wanted. There may be some minority of men who have a sexist attitude left and who discriminate against women (at least as long as it's not outright illegal), but that's a far shot from saying that it's "institutionalized". While those people might need some revision of attitude, the major goal of the feminist movement has already been reached (iow. having both genders be equal under the law, and discrimination being illegal), making it more or less obsolete.
Now, there are still entire countries where women truly are considered second-class citizens, barely above house pets (for example women may not have the right to vote, allowed to drive a car, be punished significantly more severely for "crimes" such as adultery than men, where their eyewitness testimony is less valuable in court than that of a man's, and so on), and those are problems worth fighting for. If you argue that men complaining about being discriminated is focusing on a minor problem while a major one still exists, then the exact same argument can be used for feminism in western countries and those countries where women are second-class citizens.
The patriarchy
Uh, please try not to use such a propagandist word. This mythical "patriarchy" has not existed in the western world for decades. (It still exists in those other countries, so if anything, you should concentrate on those.)
Joined: 2/28/2012
Posts: 159
Location: Philadelphia
Certainly. I advise you to read the The Global Gender Gap Report 2011 by The World Economic Forum and tell me there is no discrimination against women in modern Western countries.
Women earn less than men at every education level, even women CFOs get paid 16% less.
Women are given far more severe prison sentences for spousal homicide than men.
Women aren't allowed in military combat because they are perceived as being too emotionally fragile, physically weak, distracting to men, or something equally baseless and ridiculous.
Women have their reproductive rights consistently challenged by men and are charged more for healthcare than men.
Women are perceived as too stupid to make decisions about their own healthcare and must have men decide what is right for them.
1 in 6 college-age women are victims of attempted or successful sexual assault. More than two-thirds of rapes are unreported because our culture shames women for being assaulted and tries to tell them it is their fault because they're such darn slutty sluts.
And culturally speaking, there's the whole slut/prude dichotomy where women are not allowed to be their own sexual beings.
I'm sorry if you object to "patriarchy". Would you prefer the somewhat more accurate "kyriarchy"? Patriarchal systems are universally accepted as omnipresent in nearly all cultures, so I'm not sure what you're on about. Women occupy less than 20% of national-level governmental offices worldwide.
If you argue that men complaining about being discriminated is focusing on a minor problem while a major one still exists, then the exact same argument can be used for feminism in western countries and those countries where women are second-class citizens.
You need to understand the ideology followed by dada and Enterim. Cultural Marxists are only interested in Western societies.
As Wikipedia describes: «Cultural Marxism is a term referring to a group of Marxists who have sought to apply critical theory to matters of family composition, gender, race, and cultural identity within Western society.»
Here is a quote from a cultural Marxist, to give you an idea:
«We are, in Marx's terms, "an ensemble of social relations" and we live our lives at the core of the intersection of a number of unequal social relations based on hierarchically interrelated structures which, together, define the historical specificity of the capitalist modes of production and reproduction and underlay their observable manifestations.»
Enterim notes on page 2 that «we understand the intersectionality of oppression». He's definitely gold.
Note that material like this can be generated with http://dev.null.org/postmodern/
Joined: 2/28/2012
Posts: 159
Location: Philadelphia
Please tell me where I said I was a cultural Marxist.
I have been trying very hard to be civil and you are just trying to discredit me with entirely irrelevant arguments. It is very disheartening.
Metapedia explains:
«McCarthyism [or "Red Scare"] is a newspeak epithet used in political discourse to obstruct or demonise analysis of political subversion against a nation; historically it was applied to opponents of communism in the United States (and later other places) by fellow travellers of the Soviet Union. The term was coined or popularised by Herbert Lawrence Block—commonly known as Herblock—a Jewish cartoonist in his 1950 polemic against Joseph McCarthy in the Washington Post. Usually the term was applied in conjunction with strawmen such as references to "witch-hunts", in a dialectic which suggested that it was simply absurd to even suspect that the KGB would attempt to infiltrate a rival country during the Cold War.»
And now I finally see how disgusting this community really is. Props to Chamale back on page one for being right and smarter than 90% of the people who posted here.
Props to enterim and dada for attempting to explain reality to a pack of deluded misogynists.
What I have read here today is revolting. I will not be back.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
You did not provide evidence that this is caused by discrimination and not other reasons. Two people can earn a different amount of income, but that doesn't mean the one who earns less is being discriminated against. (More likely it just means that they have different jobs, one paying more than the other.) Also, are these incomes proportional to work hours, or are they just absolute income? (It is, after all, possible that women work 16% less hours in average than men, hence explaining the difference in total income.)
If it's caused by discrimination, in other words, employers paying smaller salaries to women for the exact same type and amount of work, then that's illegal in most countries (because it would be discrimination). How are these companies able to bypass the law? Why aren't the women suing?
(I'm not saying there isn't discrimination. I just can't understand how it can legally exist.)
Is this because of discrimination, or is it because women on average commit more severe forms of spousal homicide (eg. in terms of premeditation), or some other causes?
If it's because of discrimination, how can that be legal?
Women aren't allowed in military combat because they are perceived as being too emotionally fragile, physically weak, distracting to men, or something equally baseless and ridiculous.
Is that claim based on actual psychological studies, or is it just emotional wishful thinking?
Big news, males and females are on average different, both physiologically and psychologically. Also, big news, people of one gender behave differently in stressful situations when members of the opposite gender are present than when there aren't (in both good and bad). That's just human psychology. (Sure, instinctual attitudes can be changed through education and training, but that's a different story.)
I'm not saying that women shouldn't be allowed to join the military (and in fact, forcing men to do so can be considered discrimination), but that "or something equally baseless and ridiculous" just sounds like "this must be so because I don't like the idea of it not being so".
Women have their reproductive rights consistently challenged by men and are charged more for healthcare than men.
Women are perceived as too stupid to make decisions about their own healthcare and must have men decide what is right for them.
???
1 in 6 college-age women are victims of attempted or successful sexual assault. More than two-thirds of rapes are unreported because our culture shames women for being assaulted and tries to tell them it is their fault because they're such darn slutty sluts.
Which is, of course, illegal. How is this an example of "institutionalized discrimination"?
Some men are scum, but we are talking about discrimination at the societal level, something that needs to be corrected by law.
And culturally speaking, there's the whole slut/prude dichotomy where women are not allowed to be their own sexual beings.
How exactly is this an example of "institutionalized discrimination"? How is this away from women's legal rights? Some men have shitty attitudes, which sucks, but it's hard to criminalize thought crime.
I'm sorry if you object to "patriarchy". Would you prefer the somewhat more accurate "kyriarchy"? Patriarchal systems are universally accepted as omnipresent in nearly all cultures, so I'm not sure what you're on about. Women occupy less than 20% of national-level governmental offices worldwide.
A patriarchy is a form of society where males have more rights (even legal ones) than females, and where fathers and husbands basically own their daughters and wives respectively as property, and where fathers have the ultimate word on who their daughter will marry. Typically women are in a lesser position before the law compared to a man, and crimes committed by a man towards a woman (especially if the woman is a daughter or wife, hence "property") is punished significantly more leniently (if at all) than the equivalent crime committed by a woman against a man.
(I find it a bit amusing how feminists seldom object to the custom of a man asking a woman's father for her hand, given that this custom is directly inherited from past patriarchal societies.)
