Serious question for the men in mensrights: Do you guys make a distinction between "women" and "feminists?"

Shanjayne · 2011-08-24T16:44:59+00:00

I love my wife very much, hell....I love women and I'm fairly liberal. What I don't like are some grim facts about men including prison rape, homelessness, suicide and divorce laws where men suffer everyday in some very real ways, and it goes ignored. I don't care one way or the other about "feminists" until they begin to say these issues regarding men don't matter. That men aren't the victims of domestic abuse, that men can't go into battered shelters and such.

That's pretty much it for me.

memymineown · 2011-08-24T16:17:16+00:00

Women are women first and foremost. Some of the more prominent members of the Mens' Rights Movement are women who are not feminists.

girlwriteswhat · 2011-08-24T20:47:30+00:00

You know, now I think about it, equality as I see it is defined completely differently than as most people see it.

That is, I don't believe we should look at it as a woman having equality with a man.

How we should see equality is like this:

One's power should be equal to their responsibility.

One's authority should be equal to their accountability.

One's freedom should be equal to their self-sufficiency.

One's opportunities should be equal to their abilities.

One's benefits should be equal to one's contributions.

If we looked at equality in this way, we'd see that no individual is the perfect equal of any other individual, let alone one gender being the equal of another. But I think we'd be in a better place as a society.

shady8x · 2011-08-24T16:22:53+00:00

women == women

feminists == self identified feminists of either gender(a minority among both genders)

I have never been able to tell feminists in real life without them identifying themselves as such. Even when women start talking about the gender wage gap or 1 in 4 women getting raped, you can't be certain that they are feminists. Those lies have been repeated so often and to so many people that even people I know for a fact to care about and discuss issues that effect men negatively, people that don't care for feminism in general, may also believe them.

girlwriteswhat · 2011-08-24T19:29:52+00:00

I think it comes down to having some integrity. I mean, I'm all for embracing the freedoms and opportunities I have now as a woman. But at the same time, if I want to embrace those freedoms and opportunities, I need to give up some things, too.

I think it probably seems odd to other people when my bf and I are out and about, that I'm usually the one who opens the doors, and will often let him walk through. This is because I walk faster than he does, and get to the door first, and letting him through lets him catch up with me. He also earns less money than I do--he earned zero money when we were first together because he was a student, and now that he's working, I'm still bringing in twice as much as he does. I'm fine with that. It's more that he's working, being busy, being productive and contributing. I'm not that interested in how much he makes, because I'm completely capable of supporting myself. But I still see a lot of women as having a very difficult time with this.

And the whole "being taken seriously" thing. I see women at my job batting their eyelashes at the few men and convincing them to carry the heavy stuff or whatever. Playing up the "I'm just a girl, I'm helpless" thing. And then wondering why those men don't respect them the way they would respect a man. Being equal means sometimes YOU carry the heavier boxes, unless you're completely incapable. It sometimes means YOU get to sand the drywall compound, or unclog the drain or clean out the gutters or help install a toilet. You can't demand equality if you still relegate all the strenuous, heavy, sweaty, nasty jobs to the man.

There are a few other things I see women as being conflicted about. Being free can never be made safe. That's a big one. If we have sexual freedom, we can't put the responsibility for our sexual safety on anyone but ourselves.

Our taking advantage of opportunities has to come with a sense of social responsibility. Post secondary education is heavily subsidized, and if we accept the extra financial help available to us as women, that makes it more heavily subsidized. Society is investing in our training, and if we take that investment, we need to give society something back in return. This is especially important with training that is extremely costly and opportunities that are finite--such as spots in medical school. It is hugely unfair to society, to the government, to other applicants, to train as a doctor and then end up working part time because your personal choices are put before the need and investment of the communities that paid millions to train you.

I still see women using their educations as much as a way to put themselves in the vicinity of smart, potentially successful men, and I know a few women with advanced degrees who have never worked. It's a huge waste of money, but it's money we don't see or think about. It comes from the taxpayer, and therefore it means little to us personally. And many of us are raised as if our first obligation should always be our own happiness--which is laudable, if you're the only one who foots the bill for it. Men are raised with a different sense of social responsibility. A woman may stay home thinking it's putting her family first--and it is--but this is also compatible with her own happiness and fulfilment. A man is more likely to see working 60 hour weeks at a stressful job as putting his family first, and it is often less likely to be compatible with his happiness.

There's nothing inherently wrong with traditional gender roles. Those roles were sort of a 50/50 division of labor, all fair and above board when both parties were coming at it in good faith. What I see now is a lot of confusion as to who should do what, and frankly, when both people work outside the home, there's just MORE work for everyone. And there is still a kind of institutional clinging to those roles, when it comes to things like alimony.

A man used to be expected to support a woman for life, but she had to have a very good reason to break her side of the bargain if she wanted to make him continue to support her--abuse, cheating, etc. Now, she needs no reason at all, and he may still end up with an obligation of lifetime support. Feminists, who are supposed to be about equality for women, seem to be mostly in favor of this continuing, or ambivalent about it, which bothers me. In a society where women comprise 50% of the workforce, there is no excuse for any able-bodied woman to not be self-supporting. And if she doesn't want to be self-supporting, she should stick to her side of the marriage bargain if she wants to make him stick to his, you know?

I'm hoping that all of this conflict and confusion will settle eventually, and men and women will find a way to coexist together without all the gender politics. But I'll probably be dead long before it happens.

spagma · 2011-08-24T16:18:59+00:00

The problem here is identifying only as a woman, while enjoying the equality and advantage that feminism has brought you. You can't pick and choose to not support feminism when it would put you at a disadvantage, all while enjoying its other advantages.

Look at it from the other side. We Men, are being told that women are equal in every aspect, but must still treat them special by holding open doors and paying for meals, but then better not expect anything for the specialized treatment.

it comes down to Women as a whole need to come to some consensus as to what they want to be. Men have had enough of navigating this minefield of varying expectations.

SweetJeebus · 2011-08-24T16:45:23+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Shattershift · 2011-08-25T06:35:00+00:00

Not gonna lie, the quality of r/MR submissions is sometimes significantly poor. To answer your question, I don't see women as automatically feminists, but I do see them as being very like to be so, and for understandable reasons.

Women being feminists is only a problem because feminism has allowed the trappings of a rights movement to overstep certain boundaries in its own best interests. This is perfectly understandable, as people are fundamentally out for themselves, but the overstep is simply a mundane problem that needs to be corrected.

Feminism is not a big bad castrating robot, it's a group of people who are harming others for the sake of their own. Undesirable, but not special or evil, just mundane greed and its implications.

2011-08-24T16:12:27+00:00

I would say a woman is anyone who considers themselves a woman. By simplest definition a feminist is someone who is advancing women's position. The problem comes when advancing women's position hurts others.

Jyrsa · 2011-08-24T17:08:19+00:00

I hate it when for example, a woman expects a man to pay for a first date, and the argument is made "YOU FEMINISTS WANT TO BE TREATED EQUAL THAN YOU HAVE TO ACT EQUAL."

I have a problem with this approach. It somehow assumes that the woman is responsible for deciding whether or not the date should go according to the new rules or the old ones based on what she feels like at the moment. It's the 21st century and women are pretty damn equal (at least where I come from). Go with the new rules unless you're particularly looking to be a housewife instead of a spouse.

If a woman would just go ahead and expect me to pay, i wouldn't throw a fit but I would probably mentally tag her down as someone who has very different views of gender roles than I do.

2011-08-24T21:04:31+00:00

Yeah. Women doesn't equal feminist doesn't equal MRA doesn't equal Radical Feminist.

All distinct things to me.

imbecile · 2011-08-25T00:18:27+00:00

There is a difference between judging individuals and judging laws and rules and circumstances brought about by an ideology.

Todays rules and laws are implemented to a large part by feminism and feminists and they concern virtually everyone. This is where sweeping statements about feminism are correct and justified.

And every woman that self identifies as feminist has to expect to be able to address the logical shortcomings and unjust consequences of the ideology.

0ctopus · 2011-08-25T03:56:24+00:00

Whoever initiates the date should pay for it, even the first date, (which still means guys will be paying for 999 out of 1000 first dates). You want me to come with you, break out that hard earned money, sweetheart. Fuck a bunch of female entitlement. I love how you seem to think that this particular traditional gender role is a good example of one to hold on to. Give us a break... no really, give us a break!!

2011-08-25T09:31:05+00:00

I don't see all woman as feminists, but their actions can qualify them however they label themselves. I mean beyond working or divorcing etc. Treating their son like crap would be an example.

2011-08-25T18:59:57+00:00

Another observation:

One way to see the blur between women and feminists is as a part of the seemingly random "strategy" the most vocal MRA hive-members are using. It is kind of equivalent to the shaming tactics commonly seen from the opposing viewpoints. The logic is to make (especially) women feel uncomfortable associating themselves with selected, easily disputable policies.

For example, MRA1 points out/demonstrates women are abusing their privilege in a way or another (custody, alimony, get-out-of-jail, false rape claim etc.). MRA2 shows there is a strain of feminist-theory, research or even active operation to protect the abuser directly or indirectly (blame the patriarchy, self-victimization, doing bad job for males... you get the picture).

This builds a polarization. There are the abusers and their defenders against the good guys for Greater Justice. You initially attack female privilege and frame it to appropriate context. The former provokes a gender-wide reaction (either because you are accused to hold the privilege or you are in danger to get screwed over) and the latter points to a solution.

The kind of dialogue might look like an attack on women, because the objective is to make women feel bad (and men angry) on themselves and what they have let their movement become. It sets a strong emotional frame for criticism. But I think the parallel to be challenged is more about "Me as a reader == (pro-)feminist?" than "women == feminist".

And it is totally OK. Criticism is good. People sometimes need hard wake-ups (the red-pill) for their own good. Complaining about women and men is something free people should be allowed to do. Complaining leads to a better world. And since humans are first and foremost emotional creatures, political arguments absolutely need personal dimensions (I.e. "How this is my problem?") to break into consciousness. We do not have the right to feel un-offended. Some shit should make us feel bad.

2011-08-25T20:39:56+00:00

I see women as my spouse, mother, sister, niece, co-workers, etc. I even view many "feminist-y" women as being ignorant of their male counterparts situation. I don't blame them for their beliefs, they have been heavily indoctrinated and fed a steady diet of propaganda from the MSM in general.

yeliwofthecorn · 2011-09-07T04:51:23+00:00

One of my best friends (a woman and an Ex of mine) has a bigger issue with feminism than I do.

She points out that women still can't be drafted, which is an obvious example of inequality, yet there doesn't seem to be a strong feminist movement towards changing that particular law.

She even commented in 2X regarding a video compilation of men insulting a woman's coffee making skills (along the lines of "Well, he paid for the coffee, he has a right to choose to drink someone else's coffee or simply point out that her coffee is shitty.)

Not all women are feminists and not all feminists are women. Most people I know who are outraged or annoyed by feminism is that it doesn't attempt to gain equal rights for both genders most of the time, simply equal rights for women in specific circumstances where they aren't favored, but ignores areas where men are treated as inferior.

As someone who believes everyone, male, female and everyone else, deserves to be treated fairly and equally (although not necessarily the same in certain situations as there are some ways that gender makes people different) I view a woman the same way I would anyone else.

Burnt_toaster · 2011-08-24T16:00:54+00:00

[permanently deleted]

NovemberTrees · 2011-08-24T17:15:58+00:00

I generally make a distinction between reasonable people and unreasonable people. The radical side of both MRA and the feminist movement are crazy, but a lot of people don't see the crazy side of feminism because it's uses a lot of the same arguments as feminism, which is seen as "good". Basically, I make a distinction between egalitarian people and sexist people.

HolyCounsel · 2011-08-24T18:29:15+00:00

Always a problem in /mensrights - here is the latest. A bitter jab at women, seeking justification out of the overabundant hatred for Feminists. You're right - it is bullshit.

Perhaps it is useful to separate "Feminists" from "feminists".

I love feminists. They often introduce their view by saying "I'm not a Feminist but...". Seeing the problems women face and wanting to solve them is a great thing.

I hate Feminists. They have already decided on the issue (oppression of women by the patriarchy), the obstacle (misogyny and privilege), and the answer (government funding and increased intervention). When I disagree with Feminist 101, discussion quickly turns to shaming and appeal to authority. Close minded dogmatics.

And yes, I do see the obvious hypocrisy if I dismiss a Feminist out of hand. They come is the full spectrum between the two poles I just laid out, so I try to give people a chance to explain what they mean. On the anonymous internet, however, my patience is short. ;-)

Tyador · 2011-08-24T16:34:48+00:00

I see people as people first and only base my opinions concerning them on their words and actions. I certainly use my experience with different groups and types of people, however, there is no reason for me to assume that I can divine what a women (or a man) is like simply based on their gender.

spiral-staircase · 2011-08-24T17:32:38+00:00

We criticize Feminists for ignoring and amplifying issues affecting men, and at best focusing on one inequality over another inequality. Because of the fact most of this generation's women are raised feminists, it's hard to extract support for men's rights from women who live in times smothered with feminist fascism and the treatment of men ranges from bad to fucking horrendous.

Kill_The_Rich · 2011-08-24T17:34:50+00:00

Of course there's a distinction between the two. In fact, many of the feminists I can't stand are actually men. The other day I started writing something relevant here, so I'll just post it to clarify:

Feminism is an ideology with two fundamental assumptions:

Men and women should be equal.
Equality will be achieved by raising women up to the level of men (because men are privileged above women in our society).

In 2011, in the west, the idea that men are above women is contentious (at best), so many do not operate on that assumption. I've seen it happen before (several times) where a person will say they support gender-equality (assumption 1), and a feminist will tell them that this makes them a feminist. I imagine MANY people come to call themselves feminists because of similar conversations. However, without the assumption that men are above women, they are not actually feminists.

Because so many people call themselves feminists based solely on the first assumption, descriptivism dictates that the definition should be changed. So, for the descriptivists like Christina Hoff Sommers, there exists a necessity to distinguish those who accept only the first assumption from those who accept both (though, she couches it differently). She termed the distinction "equity and gender feminism" -- equity feminists would be the former, gender feminists would be the latter. I'm (generally) more of a prescriptivist, so for me, "equity feminists" wouldn't actually be feminists, the only actual feminists would be the gender feminists. So, when I say "feminist" I almost always mean "gender-feminist".

Does that make sense? In short, you have a bunch of people calling themselves "feminists" that are not actually feminists -- they just support equality and think that's the definition of "feminist".

robobreasts · 2011-08-24T23:03:21+00:00

I don't assume any particular woman is a feminist, because I am not prejudiced.

Even when a woman shows evidence of bias against men, I give the benefit of the doubt that she has simply been indoctrinated by the feminist framework of society and hasn't considered any alternatives. After all, that's what happened to me. I am a man, but my mother was a staunch feminist, and I had to come out from under that.

I realized her politics were bullshit when I realized what a hypocrite she was. If she watched a tv program and a man cheated on his wife, he should die. (I was fine with this.) If a woman cheated on her husband, he drove her to it. (WTF?!)

But I digress. I have no idea what other folks in MR do, I know we've got some woman-hating crackpots, but I don't equate "women" and "feminists" as the same group AT ALL.

melonpaste · 2011-08-25T06:21:05+00:00

I like traditional roles and don't mind paying for the girl on the first date. I also like giving small gifts to my girlfriend from time to time.

What I don't like is when women get the advantage in society, justice, etc. When I say that I mean things like rape that never happened, abusive wives, all that good stuff.

theozoph · 2011-08-25T10:03:07+00:00

The new program is this : you can't expect anything. Since the man in front of you has no idea what your femininity means to you (because of feminism), basically you cannot expect of him to act in traditional ways, either.

If he offers to pay for the date, opens up door for you, and acts like a gentleman, fine, you have a traditional man. But, if he splits the check, make a mental note that this isn't a traditional man, shut your mouth, and pony up.

Later, you can curse and rail against your feminist sisters having fucked up the sweet deal of traditional femininity all you want, but for the love of God, leave the poor guy alone. He's having a hard time navigating your sisters' mine-field already.

Peace.

roland3337 · 2011-08-24T16:53:27+00:00

Yes, I do indeed make a distinction between women and feminists.

There are a lot of complaints about women that come up in the MRM, and many of them are quite justified. Nymphotropism is one example, and hypergamy is another. Neither is a feature exclusive to feminism, but both are associated with the female sex.

However, the real threat to the civil and human rights of men, come from feminist ideology. And there are many men that are hard core feminazis (NOMAS, Good Men Project, etc.) Such men are as bad (or sometimes worse) than female feminists, or women in general.

ManThoughts · 2011-08-24T17:12:23+00:00

All women benefit from feminist governance whether they are feminist or not. Many women claim to not be a feminist, but believe 90% of the worldview. Most women deny male suffering, claim victimhood, and claim female moral superiority, just as feminism does.

If a woman benefits from feminism, believes what a feminist does, doesn't care about male suffering, and claims moral superiority for being a perpetual victim, it really doesn't matter what they call themselves.

As an aside, Feminists do not believe that women count as women unless they are feminist.

2011-08-24T17:39:54+00:00

Of course--feminists define themselves relative to their ideology, and can be rightly judged on the merits of that ideology; the same with MRAs. Women are by definition no more feminists than men are MRAs; but in the case of feminism, it is a movement to promote the affairs of women as a gender, so women in general are implicated in the movement that benefits (privileges) them. We're basically using the theory of institutional oppressive gender hierarchy against feminists, much as they have used theories of patriarchy against us.

As for "traditional" gender roles, there are no such thing. There are people's behaviors, and anything else is just editorialization after the fact. It just so happens that only one half of our species can have babies; that creates an automatic difference in experience between the two sexes that no amount of "equality" can ameliorate. The "productivity" of women having children cannot be measured in the same way as the productivity of men in the public corporate world, and should not be; yet feminists often try to conflate the two, putting dollar values to procreation and child-rearing while demanding companies simply stop saving money by hiring people who can work 100% of the time, rain or shine, pregnancy or no pregnancy.

If men were the ones to gestate babies and suckle them in infancy, the gender roles would simply be on the other foot; men would be unable to reconcile their desires to have children with their desires to be successful in the business world, while women would simply be able to make their deposit and go right back to work, even gaining status while the man stays home with the baby. It all comes down to priorities--is it the priority of feminism to eradicate the biological implications of gender, namely the gestation of new human life; or is it the glorifications of our already pre-determined biological abilities? Should women have to give up being maternal in order to matter? The onus is on feminists to answer.

AnnArchist · 2011-08-24T18:00:05+00:00

what the stupid?

Torger083 · 2011-08-24T16:01:47+00:00

No opinion one way or another, but I'm curious where this goes.

Skittlez666 · 2011-08-24T18:19:05+00:00

I am a man and believe whole-heartedly (pardon the grammar) in treating women as equals. However I also believe in division of labor as well as the traditional sense of being a gentleman. for instance I would definetly (sorry again) pay for a first date with my girlfriend, hold the door open for her, etc. But I also, however, would like a sandwich every now and then in return.

pcarvious · 2011-08-24T19:59:11+00:00

I see feminists as politically active individuals who are attempting to shape the discourse regarding the rights of men and women in such a way that it will solely benefit women. To mean this means that, a feminist may be male or female. They may have limited access, or sweeping access, to large groups of people, and specifically endorse rights for women without looking at the rights of men at all.

Under this definition a lot of people would fall under the feminist ideology without labeling themselves as feminist, so I'm going to add a caveat to this. A feminist is a person that endorses the rights of women to the extent that they do not care for, and will always challenge any attempts to improve the rights of men. This means that, a lot of self-identified feminists are actually egalitarians rather than feminists.

ExpendableOne · 2011-08-24T20:33:44+00:00

Some women are fair minded, some women promote sexism in spite of feminism(or simply because they are sexist), some women promote sexism in the name of feminism and some women promote sexism as a direct result of feminism. There many ways to make that distinction between women and feminism.

When feminism is used as a means of enforcement for the whims and expectations of the female majority(even when those are sexist, irrational or harmful) or when the majority of women support feminism - despite the prejudice that it entails - either out of ignorance, a sexist sense of female solidarity or as a means for male subjugation; the distinction becomes that much harder to make.

fondueguy · 2011-08-24T22:59:00+00:00

Dumb question. Some of most upvoted regulars are women.

Moving on now...

Thrug · 2011-08-25T05:07:46+00:00

Firstly, feminism is not a way for women to define themselves. It was started as a rights movement - women's rights - in the late 19th century. It has been redefined by modern "feminists" so they can shoehorn whatever self-entitled privilege seeking agenda they feel like in, and lend it an air of legitimacy.

To answer your question - not at all. My girlfriend is both feminine and dislikes feminists which really hits home for me how far beyond the balance point we have gone.

FJLawson · 2011-08-24T16:21:04+00:00

Woman = Woman
Feminist = A woman who feels the need to advance her genders position at the expense of mens. (Or some variant of "getting one up one" over men)

kloo2yoo · 2011-08-24T17:34:05+00:00

woman = adult human who identifies as female.

feminist = ?^{?^{?^{?^{?^{?^{?^{?^{?^{?^{?^{?^}}}}}}}}}}}

thingsarebad · 2011-08-24T17:59:26+00:00

An answer to your query: The vast majority of western women are misandric to some degree. Some of the most misandric are feminists. Obviously not all women are feminists, but almost all women are guilty of misandry to some degree (as are most men) and are perfectly willing to revel in their privileges while claiming victimhood (not something most men do).

Title	Serious question for the men in mensrights: Do you guys make a distinction between "women" and "feminists?"
Author	maximae
Upvotes	19
Comments	156
Date	August 24, 2011 3:50 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/jsyr3/serious_question_for_the_men_in_mensrights_do_you/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/serious-question-for-the-men-in-mensrights-do-you.1035505 https://theredarchive.com/post/1035505

Comments