Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	This is not EQUALITY
Author	Thevoicefromtheabyss
Upvotes	72
Comments	100
Date	March 2, 2018 1:54 AM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/81at78/this_is_not_equality/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/this-is-not-equality.905131 https://theredarchive.com/post/905131

Comments

[–]Blutarg 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]1493271 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

For real. We need to do a survey to find out where the most of MensRights resides and then set up a march in the largest city close by. It won't be ground breaking but its a start.

[–]6space6space6 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]1493272 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]6space6space6 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]notrlyjeses 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]1493272 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]6space6space6 -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Weetile 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Bibiloup -33 points-32 points-31 points 8 years ago (97 children) | Copy Link

I agree that those are not examples of equality. I also agree that the current wave of feminism is making big deals about men's advantages but not a peep about their disadvantages.

But I disagree that Feminism is not equality. It is literally the battle for equality of the sexes -- and it has undergone many changes over the decades. It will adapt again and bring true equality to our society. We can argue that it should change names, but I think that there is a historical tale being told with the word, and to be honest, one of the challenges for finishing this equality mission is making it ok for men to identify with feminine things.

Feminism isn't only for women, and if you men feel that way then feminism needs to get itself under control, and reassert its core values. I just wish you would help with that, instead of pushing the whole movement away :/

[–]GreyTortoise 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

We need to replace it with something better. It went from being a liberation movement to an ideology for supremacy. I wish the MRM could ally with it, but there simply needs to be a new movement outside of feminism to secure women's rights. An egalitarian movement would be needed but I don't think it's likely to happen. Too much distrust between the genders as the situation stands thanks in a large part to modern feminist rhetoric. We cannot help change feminism because we are now the "bad guy". Feminism has pretty much established that this is "the year of the woman" and the time of men is over.

No one here is against women's rights, safety, or health. Feminism has positions of authority and uses them to prevent equality and promote female supremacy and privilege, socially and legally. Through the educational system we have an entire generation being taught that women need help and men do bad things thanks to feminist initiatives funded by taxpayer money. Feminism is officially, yet unstated, against men's rights, safety, and health. We are raising generations to believe women's issues are the only one of two genders' troubles that are worth trying to solve, and this leaves room for dystopia in the future. "Feminazi" is not just a joke term anymore.

Even worse, the benign feminists who genuinely don't hate men have been duped into rolling along with this, believing this, living this. We're creating a divide that could widen enough for lack of understanding, or really care, to allow absolute suffering to grow among the male half of the population. Feminism is wrong now, it has been hijacked and corrupted by a movement based on revenge for a past long buried and aiming for reversing positions of supremacy as if that were the most just thing to do. Unfortunately it as an entity has monopolized the representation of women's rights, so being an MRA and understanding that feminism aims to neglect your troubles or even increase them means that you must oppose the group that has taken singular title of the protector of women's rights. Unfortunately, this is the case. We oppose our enemy, and by some cruel twist of fate, or possibly by cunning, we appear as misogynists by our position.

We are in for a hell of a fight, my friend. We might not win, but we will at least not be quiet about it.

[–]Bibiloup 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

It is true and sad that the pendulum has swung too far. Yet one of the reasons for this continued momentum in the wrong direction is in your phrasing:

a movement based on revenge for a past long buried

It is not in the past, and it has certainly not been buried. There are women still in the workforce who remember being told in school that they should go home because they were stealing the men’s spots. My mother was raised in that world, and she fought tooth and nail to break those barriers — her anger was a fire that molded me, too. Though my own generation is in a much different position (heck, today there are more women than men in school!), there are still many, many echoes of that unsubtle segregation of genders that I am able to recognize in my daily life. The most blatant one for me is homophobia. Why is it that a man who acts feminine is treated badly by his society? From a feminist perspective, that is because “femaleness” is still hierarchically lower than “maleness”, and a feminine man is ruined, lesser than. It goes the other way too — why is it that a stay-at-home mom is considered a traitor to female empowerment? Because her choice to strictly do feminine things is considered a weakness.

I think this points us to a very difficult truth: women hurt men and women just as much as men do. It’s a socialization problem. It’s systemic. But I believe that feminism will continue to work toward moving us in the right direction. In the past it has undergone a similar crisis — when black women, and intersex women, stood up and said “feminism is not helping us, it is putting us down lower”. There was an evolution of the movement at that time, a New Wave as they say, and Intersectional Feminism was born.

I think we are in a new crisis phase, and the next Wave of Feminism will be something like Ungendered Feminism. But I think it’s absolutely essential to maintain the momentum of the feminist movement, because all of our gender problems are two sides of the same coin: oppression based on the devaluement of femininity. I am telling you this as a feminist from within academic feminist circles: those who have hijacked the conversation are the extremists. They are the terrorists of our organization, and they are acting that way from a rightful anger and indignance that has corrupted their hearts. They can be saved.

The oppression of men, the perceived disposability of your bodies, is for me an indication that being physically weak, and emotional, and sensitive is still not a recognized trait of human men. It is strictly reserved for human women. That is wrong. Pain and fear ad suffering affect you the same way, and the article that OP shared about the UK saying women are more damaged by prison time and should therefore be given more lenient sentences is once again denying the fragility of your souls. You are just as vulnerable as us.

We are indeed in for a hell of a fight, and don’t you ever stop standing up for yourself my friend. I’ll do the same.

[–]6space6space6 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bibiloup 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GreyTortoise 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

I'm glad to see you understand the score. But this vengefulness of the movement is damning of it and worthy to put the entire thing down.

The past is buried. My grandmother helped dig that grave. Feminists keep digging it up and waving the corpse of that defeated institutionalized sexism to try and pretend that feminism has achieved nothing in its decades of efforts. The wage gap is closed, there are laws and regulations in place to make damn sure. Women make movies, are CEOs, are allowed to work whatever job they please, etc. Women have vastly more supportive services than men and organizations have demanded that men's groups don't receive that funding so that women can have it.

"The facade of strength is men's greatest weakness. The facade of weakness is women's greatest strength." We're seeing this play out far into society today. My grandmother is scratching her head as to what modern feminists march about. She was a fire-hearted rebel when women needed to be. She is now happily an equal to her husband (in her case I'd say she's his superior, but that's irrelevant). I could go on, but I don't want to. Feminism has to go, the movement as a whole is alienating, demonizing, belittling, and denigrating men. It is not a movement anymore, it is an ideology with official power and it wields it against the rights of men.

I can trust that women's rights to vote, work for equal pay, and hold office, among other things, will be protected without feminism. In time, without feminism, women's reproductive rights will be held firm as well. At the worst in the US it would be supported in Democratic states and denied in Republican ones. Feminism as an entity for promoting women's rights is almost vestigial. For promoting women's supremacy and higher status, it is paramount.

Feminism has become the enemy and unless it does a face-heel turn and the National Organization for Women starts funding men's shelters or promotes equal parenting rights or something like that, modern feminism will never be less than evil to us.

[–]Bibiloup 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

The vengefulness is human nature, unfortunately. It's happening with the Black Power movement and the demonization of whiteness, it happened with the Red October revolution and the murder of capitalists, and it happens when an abused child grows up and denies their parent everything. The pendulum swings with the momentum that held it up.

But listen to yourself. You say that the worst that can happen is that some Republican states deny women agency over their own bodies - like that's not some kind of big deal. You say that there is no reason to keep marching when the most powerful country in the world democratically elected an unapologetic misogynist - like that doesn't represent something deeply wrong with society. Yea there was a lot of progress made for women, so much that men got left at the wayside, but we haven't fixed all our problems! The workplace is still designed to benefit those who don't have a family role to prioritize. Doctors still don't give women the agency to become sterile without their man's consent. Psychologically speaking, women are still objectified by the brains of everyone in our culture - male and female.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: men's oppression stems in large part from the hierarchy of masculinity over femininity. If we honestly believed that men and women were equal, we wouldn't be having problems with men wanting to go into feminine roles, or with women not being given the same sentencing because of their fragilities or whatever.

Feminism as a battle for equality of sexes isn't done. We've still got a long way to go. I don't think you should be waiting for the NOW to fund men's shelters if that's your turning point - I think a National Organization for Men could still be a feminist organization.

[–]6space6space6 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bibiloup -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Circumcision on females was about reducing sexual pleasure and ensuring virginal purity, for the purposes of a successful marital transaction between a father and a husband. Male circumcision is about honouring Yahweh for the Jews, and a misguided belief in hygiene for the rest - one of the arguments for it is that it will increase sexual pleasure in the future. Apples and oranges.

Universities have positions exclusively for women because they had historically had very few females on their rosters. There are no exclusive positions for men because the opposite was not true. I personally don't believe in affirmative action but the logic is there.

Women are favoured in divorce cases because we are a "secular" system that was founded on religious principles which dictated that the woman's role is to care for the children, and that they are better able to do it than men (that's the patriarchy, btw). This is a bad thing, and something that feminism is fighting to correct - they are not explicitly saying that men can be just as good caretakers as women can be workers (which I think they should, and I believe they will soon), but it is heavily implied in the sentence "equality of genders".

Women are given lesser sentences for the same reason, pretty much: men are believed to be tougher, more resilient than women, and they will be less impacted by severe punishment. Again, this is an example of patriarchy, it is wrong, and another mission of feminism.

The patriarchy is putting masculinity above femininity: women gain by becoming more masculine, but men only lose by becoming more feminine. Trump espouses those views pretty well - he would even prefer if women just stayed really feminine, and men stayed really masculine, and there would be no room for the unique flavour of each human.

I am saying that most of the problems men are facing today are finally being addressed because feminism is pulling up those roots that allow us to deconstruct gender roles, and the lack of overlap between them. We are looking at two sides of the same coin.

[–]6space6space6 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

'Increase pleasure in the future'?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2279166/Circumcision-DOES-reduce-sexual-pleasure-making-manhood-sensitive.html

And

/r/MensRights/comments/8170pr/a_boy_who_underwent_a_botched_circumcision_in/

Well apparently not. Not to mention, have you not heard of a biblical eunich? Slave men who were castrated?

'Women gain more by being masculine' what exactly do you mean by masculine? Let me guess, masculine = good feminine = bad, that's pretty much what I'm gathering from the way you use these words? Masculinity and femininity are meaningless words, and have nothing to do with this. Equality does not = feminine. Equality = masculine and feminine, and neither excluded. This is about giving masculine and feminine men and women rights as human beings.

Historically there were very few males on board the titanic life boats, so should we have men first / men only policy every time a ship goes down now to make up for it? If no, then no that university logic is not 'there'.

[–]Bibiloup 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I never said it increases sexual pleasure definitely. I said that has been one of the arguments used in favour of it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28258953/

But there have also been studies saying the opposite. My only point was that while "increases pleasure" is an argument for male circumcision (for the benefit of the male), it was never an argument for female circumsision (the onus of benefits were for the father/husband ensuring purity). I think that's one of the reasons FGC was abolished with much less fuss than MGC has found. Plus I don't know why you brought up castration, that's something completely different.

Well, yea, in the collective subconscious of society, masculine (traditional associations such as strong, logical, and tough) are viewed in higher regards than feminine (traditional associations such as soft, emotional, and nurturing). Women who display masculine characteristics are perceived as more competent in the workplace, for instance. I completely agree with the rest of your paragraph! This is about changing that narrative, and making the words feminine and masculine have the same score. The words aren't meaningless. They are categories of behaviour and personality that we have grouped together according to gender. They shouldn't be grouped like that, because both genders should be able to express the entire spectrum without being considered "less of a man" or "less of a woman". Equality = who gives a shit whether you're a dude who likes Barbies and makeup or a chick who doesn't wax her legs. We're not quite there yet.

And a more appropriate response in terms of the Titanic thing would be reserved seating specifically for men on life boats -- not a "men only" policy for the whole boat. Which I think is totally appropriate, because our cultural norms would probably still push women and children in first, so we need to ensure that men aren't left behind altogether. Reserved spots for men on the boat sounds logical (another example of affirmative action which I'm not totally in favour of personally. I would prefer we go after the cultural norm that imagines men as disposable in the first place).

[–]Thevoicefromtheabyss[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

According to this http://www.newtimes.co.rw/section/read/94448 Circumcision of males and females originated for strange religious reasons, in certain cases circumcision appears to have been used to mark a male slave in ancient Egypt. Plus castration isn't exactly unrelated when it comes to the context you're using. You say that female circumcision was used to decrease a woman's sexual pleasure, however that is the exact same reason that these male slaves were castrated, when they didn't want a male to breed they would completely remove the organ. Obviously this completely removes the males sexual function and pleasure so this is not completely unique to women on a historical basis. People both men and women have suffered for a wide variety of reasons, and continue to suffer to this day. Equality will create a fair world, where people will treat each other with respect, because that's how everyone wants to be treated. If we have equality, then we can't discriminate, so people will have to treat each other how they want others to treat them, in order to create respect between everyone, there must be equality.

[–]Bibiloup0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Castration of men would be more akin to vaginal obliteration then, not so much circumcision. And it was reserved for a specific class of people considered subhuman and not worthy of breeding. I could argue that both castration and vaginal obliteration are not quite gendered violence, but rather class violence. An early form of eugenic sterilization. That's why I didn't really find it an appropriate argument.

Circumcision is different, because of the arguments that are used in favour of each of them. For women it was just the maintenance of virginal purity -- a sexist argument. That doesn't hold up today. For men, it's more nuanced. There's risk reduction for infection and disease, there's corrective surgery for deformities that cause pain or prevent urination, there's even increased pleasure -- all for the benefit of no one other than the boy himself. It's not sexist, it's medical. So it holds up a little better in today's world, and that's why it's more difficult to abolish it outright.

But honestly I agree with your vision of equality. I just don't think we can reach it if we don't understand why it's not here in the first place, and in order to understand that we need to admit that sexism exists, and it has existed throughout history. Much of the ideological discrimination is toward femininity, and that ripples out into our treatment of men, and our punishment of feminine traits like sensitivity and vulnerability in them. We consider men disposable because we don't think the world hurts them as much, they don't have emotions to hurt. Those are feminine things, and men can't have those.

[–]Thevoicefromtheabyss2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is why I'm agreeing with this person about masculinity and femininity being meaningless terms. If a male can have a 'feminine or masculine trait' or a female can have a 'feminine or masculine trait' then the 'trait' is clearly not feminine or masculine, it's just human in general. There is a few mild differences when it comes to male and female psychology and a few when it comes to physical but behaviour is not much different. Some men and women are empathetic and do good things and some men and women are murderers and abusive towards people. It's an individual basis. A woman or a man isn't being feminine when they have empathy, because a woman or a man have empathy. Therefore its not a feminine trait its a human trait. A trait that some people have and some don't but it's nothing to do with femininity or masculinity.

[–]Bibiloup1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]1493271 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GreyTortoise 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bibiloup 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're right, there isn't an NOM. There won't be until matriarchal feminism, which has usurped the conversation (I would argue that that is in great part due to sensationalization in the media for profit, but that is a tangent), is replaced by a more balanced narrative. The more balanced narrative requires both men and women speaking about it. If the MRA spoke in the name of feminism, then they could say the same arguments and yet be heard for once. Right now the MRA is speaking against feminism, and it's hurting the conversation about men's rights because most people agree that feminism is important even if they don't personally identify as feminist. If you want to be included in the mainstream and not be considered an extremist group, then you need to get into the main stream.

That main stream says that women are still discriminated against. You're refusing this by saying that the fact that there have been some misdeeds against men lately strictly because of their gender, that that is proof that all misdeeds against women have been righted, and now we are in a matriarchal society.

I think that's our main disagreement, so let's focus on that.

It's not about the wage gap anymore. It's not about legal recourse anymore. We've reached the core. This is about ideology. In the collective subconscious of most is not all societies, to one degree or another, masculinity is considered hierarchically higher than femininity. By those terms I mean the roles, personality and physical characteristics that have traditionally been ascribed to one or the other gender exclusively. Being logical is better than being emotional. Being tough is more valuable than being soft. Being the provider is more important than being the nurturer.

Women who have masculine characteristics are considered positively; men with feminine characteristics are considered negatively, if not violently. Femininity is a poison.

The conversation feminism is turning to is no longer get female representation in politics, but get female perspectives and traits to influence the very constructs of our economies, politics and culture. Humanity needs to get softer, and sweeter, and nicer.

Feminism isn't about making the individual male a proto-female. If that's what you got from that, think a little more abstractly. It's not about the person's behaviour -- it's about that person's society. We don't want all boys to wax their legs and wear a skirt. We want to live in a world where a business's main preoccupation isn't with making the numbers bigger, but with taking care of humans. We're trying to change society.

[–]Cant_Ban_All_MRAs 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bibiloup -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cant_Ban_All_MRAs 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I was just joking, but did you just use Wikipedia for a citation?

My question is real - you say that feminism is for men but never make it clear how this is so. Not some mealy-mouthed "advocacy" for letting boys cry; I am talking about the same kind of actual change like the list they give for Feminist accomplishments.

Feminism DID get language changed in many of the places where a man was presumed. It also introduced the sexist terms like "manspreading", "mansplaining", et al to common usage.

Feminists DO get direct consultation with judges to give even more lenience from a legal system already heavily biased towards women.

Feminists DO get entire legal constructions like VAWA aimed at fixing only the female side of domestic violence.

Feminists DID get female genital mutilation banned in North America, while baby boys are still circumcised by the millions and dying by the hundreds.

Feminists ARE successfully pushing back against proposals for presumptive joint custody because fathers are abusive and use the courts against poor mothers.

Feminists ARE constantly working against men who seek to gather and talk about their issues, pulling fire alarms and vetoing student groups.

Feminists ARE driving policy changes like the Dear Colleague letter that dramatically eliminating due process for accused males on campus (not even the right place for adjudicating crimes).

Feminists ARE getting their demands to hire more women, to the extent that the hiring bias is now two-to-one in favour of women. The near complete absence of men in nursing and primary education, with far more valid reasons for more equal representation than women in STEM, continue to be ignored.

With all due respect, screw you and your "help Feminism now and we will get around to helping you in the next wave". Feminism had over fifty years and did nothing but harm men. Put your money where your mouth is, stop making things worse, and make progress on any one of these issues for men.

[–]Bibiloup 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Ok let's put that all into perspective.

If it weren't for feminism we wouldn't even be having this conversation - men never would have thought that not staying at home with the kids, or getting sexually abused, or being stigmatized for wanting to be a nurse are problems. It hadn't even crossed their minds in the thousands of years they were at the top. We are able to have these discussions today because it used to be that the pillar of WOMAN was much shorter than the pillar of MAN, and now that it has had a growth spurt and passes the MAN pillar by a margin we are able to understand EXACTLY HOW to give men equal treatment in regards to women. We jumped too far and now we must take a step back. We have the tools to recognize all this because of feminism.

And with all due respect, I never said help feminism now and it will help you later. I said help feminism help you now.

No need to be rude. I've taken enough karma damage as it is, I can barely reply to all these comments.

[–]Cant_Ban_All_MRAs 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bibiloup 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cant_Ban_All_MRAs 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Nothing but flippancy and rudeness - the ball is in your court.

I have asked you twice to support your claim that Feminism is in any way prepared to help men. First you gave a Wiki quote and some personal opinion, then you waxed historical about something Feminists did in their own self-interest. You absolutely refuse to give a simple, straightforward example - BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE!

If Feminists want to march with the MRA intactivists to end circumcision, they are welcome.

If Feminists want to divert funds from Duluth model institutions towards resources for men that accept them as victims, they are welcome.

If the Feminists already getting paid government dollars to advocate to judges want to mention the egregious discrimination against men, they are welcome.

And if the you and the rest of the Pure Feminists^TM want to fight the "terrorists" who have hijacked the movement, I would say about bloody time. Go do it.

....

Shit, you're still here, aren't you?

[–]Bibiloup 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Hm. You're right, I do have a tendency to be more meta than concrete with my arguments. I guess it's just my field of study, which is more abstract in terms of cultural deconstruction. I'm sorry too if you thought I was flippant and rude. My apologies.

How has feminism helped men?

First of all, in many ways indirectly. I know that's not good enough for you, but to me bringing gender deconstruction to the conversation has been immensely helpful to men. By questioning the "women are weak" narrative, we are questioning the "men are strong" one too. By making it so we can question who stays at home and who works, we are also questioning the opposite: who works and who stays at home. It's not a one sided transition.

But you're more for the direct effects.

The Feminist Majority Foundation had their Rape is Rape campaign and managed to add male rape (either anal penetration or forced penetration) as a sex crime, in 2012, effectively broadening the scope of victimhood.

Maternity leave has changed into parental leave, and in Canada the self-described feminist government is now focussing on adding specific paternity leave into the federal budget as well.

And while there have been no feminist marches against male genital mutilation so far, many feminists are arguing that it's a double standard that must be eradicated in order to truly ensure gender equality. Here's a better quote by Dr. Rebecca Steinfeld:

Feminism, at its best, encourages us to think broadly and critically about the potentially harmful effects of gender constructions on both men and women. It is so much more than a narrow interest group of women who care only about ‘women’s issues’ or women’s rights. Feminism is much bigger than that. It is about identifying and challenging discourses and practices that engender all of us. The legal scholars Marie Fox and Michael Thomson describe male genital cutting (MGC) as “a gendering practice tied to masculinity and the management of male sexuality” that “parallels the ways in which feminist scholars have argued that female genital cutting (FGC) serves to fix gender in women.” As such, like FGC, MGC is a feminist issue. Furthermore, not challenging MGC while condemning FGC reinforces sexist attitudes about female and male bodies. It perpetuates the idea that male bodies are resistant to harm or even in need of being tested by painful ordeals, whereas female bodies are highly vulnerable and in need of protection, and as such propagates the notion that vulnerability is gendered.

MGC is a touchy topic, obviously, like abortion. That quote was from just over a year ago. But if you look for the voices, you will find them. Not just about MGC either - feminists are reaching into every problem you've mentioned, because we agree with you on a fundamental level. We are both fighting for gender equality. The conversation is starting, and the wheels are turning, and things are changing. It's been a long road to here and we still have a ways to go.

But look. You don't like me, you don't like feminism, you don't like feminists. I think the best arguments for why feminism has been helping men are bigger than specific instances. You disagree. I think that we've come a long way to level the playing field for both of us. You think we're moving backward. That's ok. As long as you keep fighting to protect your gender, I've got your back. If you don't think helping women means helping men too, or if you don't think you need to help women at all because they've got no more gendered problems and in fact have gained supremacy over men, I think that's unfortunate and a bit narrow. But so be it.

As a feminist I will continue to work to change the narrative that has been hijacked, because from the inside that's what it looks and feels like. I will continue to protect you, and protect myself, and try to get both of us to the finish line.

So peace be unto you my friend. I think you're bringing valid issues to the public sphere, and I hope you continue to do so. I will be listening.

[–]Cant_Ban_All_MRAs 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm sorry too if you thought I was flippant and rude.

LOL. No, it was my own attitude I was referring to. You are doing very well in hostile territory, which I always find respectable.

The Feminist Majority Foundation had their Rape is Rape campaign and managed to add male rape (either anal penetration or forced penetration) as a sex crime, in 2012, effectively broadening the scope of victimhood.

And there goes the respect. The FMM claimed to speak for male victims of rape but the campaign made no mention of forced penetration. The FMM's celebratory press release is here; not a word about it there, either. Nor is it in the actual revised wording.

Point #1 - never trust anything a Feminist says because they don't use unbiased sources. Or any at all.

Point #2 - even when helping men is literally as easy as speaking across the table, Feminists don't do it.

Maternity leave has changed into parental leave, and in Canada the self-described feminist government is now focussing on adding specific paternity leave into the federal budget as well.

And again, this has long been a Feminist plank to lessen the workplace penalty for mothers. To my mind, paternity leave (and other fathering initiatives) should have been Feminism's first priority to clear the way for more women in the workplace. It wasn't, and as a result single earner families were halved in the last forty years. Those horses are long gone but thanks for shutting the barn door?

MGC is a touchy topic

That was a mighty fine quote, but unnecessary - I have never met a Feminist of any stripe that agreed with circumcision.

You don't like me, you don't like feminism, you don't like feminists

Only the middle one. The third usually follows but it is entirely possible to be a feminist and not commit any sins.

If you don't think helping women means helping men too, or if you don't think you need to help women at all because they've got no more gendered problems and in fact have gained supremacy over men, I think that's unfortunate and a bit narrow. But so be it.

So unfortunate, so narrow; I agree wholeheartedly. Who are we talking about now?

So peace be unto you

And best of luck with the terrorists. Keep your head up, though, because we are hunting them too.

[–]6space6space6 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

So feminism says it supports equal rights, meanwhile it does nothing for mens rights, in fact it supports the destruction of mens rights, by removing their due process, by giving them harsher sentances than women for the same crime, by banning female circumcision and doing nothing about male circumcision, by failing to acknowledge abusive females and male victims, even female victims (if the abuser is female) never seen a feminist march against female on female violence? Or male on male? And of course NEVER female on male. Feminists really get triggered if the existance of that fact is acknowledged in the media, and treated as equal. What about you do a march demanding that the woman in the photo of this post goes to prison, because she threw her newborn daughter out of a window (killed her) and didn't have to even go to jail for 1 day! What she did, to her own daughter is ten times worse than anything Weinstein did even if he really was guilty. Where is the feminist march for that murdered infant girl? She doesn't get to stand in court, alive and well, and call out her 'abuser'. Instead she gets to lie in the ground and get eaten by worms, meanwhile her mother (who murdered her) is free, where is the feminist protest demanding justice here? No where to be seen, because feminism doesn't give a shit about helping women, it only cares about hurting men. If a woman is hurt by a woman, where is the feminist protest? They'd rather protest against a man getting away with grabbing a womans ass 10 years ago than protesting against a woman who murdered her own daughter 1 year ago, because obviously the ass grab is so much more of injustice isn't it? It's not like what this woman did wasn't maybe a tiny little bit worse?

[–]Bibiloup -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I know you're very angry, and justifiably so. You are right that there is not enough outcry for everything you have stated. That girl's memory was betrayed by the justice system.

Feminism is not about hurting men. Hurting men is the backlash from reacting too vehemently. It's the unfortunate consequence of pressure being blown. It is not acceptable. But we need to consider all of these movements as a collection of people, with human brains and emotions. Of course those women don't want to admit that they are at fault too - just look at all you men denying that there has been a historical and systemic subjugation of women! Your arguments basically entail that because men suffered most of the same violences as women, that the unique violence against women was not a sexist issue.

Feminism has evolved for its own good, and the next necessary evolution is at our doorsteps: women oppress women through a patriarchal lens, and that same lens is inversely oppressing men as well. We must recognize that, and adapt. I trust that it will - the current extremism is not a reflection of the deeper current we are riding. I only ask that you participate in shaping this feminist evolution so that we may better address your particular issues.

I mentioned it to others but I'm not sure I said it to you; the gendered oppression of men stems from a hierarchical preference of masculinity over femininity, and evening out that ideological playing field will help men just as much as women. When a man is deemed equal in vulnerability to a woman (a traditionally feminine trait, one that is frequently beat out of boys), and a woman is deemed equal in evilness to a man, then the justice system will treat us all justly.

[+]theatxag1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

I know you think you are being reasonable and reaching out to the other side, but you really aren't its condescension at best and ignoring the other person's points.

[–]Bibiloup 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]4x8x16 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Thevoicefromtheabyss[S] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]4x8x16 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Thevoicefromtheabyss[S] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]4x8x16 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bibiloup -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Of course you can be a masculine man, my friend! The same way a woman can be a feminine, stay-at-home mom if she wants to. The words of the day are liberty, and choice.

But my point was that the fact that men can’t really be feminine without being bumped down the “man hierarchy” points to a continued devaluing of womanhood — it infects men, taints them, makes them lesser than they could be if they were into masculine things. It’s the essece of homophobia, and one of the core battles of feminism. When women are truly equal to men, things that are traditionally associated with women won’t be a “contaminant” to men — it’ll just be another way of being yourself. Same as a woman who does masculine things (like working a non caretaking job) won’t be bumped up the “woman hierarchy”. A stay-at-home mom is not lesser than a working mom, though that’s what it’s been made to feel like these days.

Please continue to be your awesome masculine self :) We’ll keep working on the feminist branding because it’s not so good right now.

[–]4x8x16 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bibiloup 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

You are mistaken. Feminism has worked. I am able to vote, and go to school, and make my own decisions concerning my body because of feminism.

How could we ever be having the conversation about child custody if I had never gotten the right to oversee my children after divorce? (They were the men's property). How could we be talking about gender parity in caretakimg positions like school teacher and nurse if it weren't for women being allowed to be in the workforce?

The thing is I had cancer, and my doctor prescribed me chemo, and while the cancer is mostly gone now I have to deal with hair loss and nausea. So let's focus on the hair loss and nausea and stop pretending there was no cancer and my doctor maliciously gave me those symptoms.

It's a process. The deconstruction of society is complicated, and just because we're hitting roadblocks doesn't mean we should be jumping out of the car, or even saying we haven't already come a long way.

[–]6space6space6 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So feminism has helped YOU. Men and women used to both be forcibly circumcised. Now it's just men. How is this equality? In other words women have escaped the dark ages, but men stay stuck there forever. Men and women have been oppressed throughout history, men and women have oppressed throughout history. There has always been some powerful female dictators who have ordered genocide, and some male slaves / peasants at the bottom of society who suffered their entire lives, while women in certain areas lived a life of luxary. This has always been a trend throughout history. What about bloody Mary, who ordered the deaths of some men? What about the women who kill their children in Argentina, and have done so throughout history? How have women been the only opressed throughout history? Throughout history, women have been opressive, murdering, scum, just like men. There have been plenty of evil men throughout history, there has been plenty of evil women throughout history. It is as simple as that. The concept of 'feminism' somehow being a justified term, as if before it there was nothing but female oppression throughout history? There has always been oppressed men, women, blacks, whites etc. Everyone's been oppressed, so drop the fucking victim card that your ancestors gave you, because it's meaningless, every ancestor line, of men and women contains victims, and every one also contains oppressors. There has always been male and female attackers, murderers, abusers, and there has always been male and female victims.

[–]Bibiloup -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well of course. I never denied any of that. And I certainly didn't mean to paint myself as a poor little victim.

But even in regimes where women temporarily held ultimate power, the structural integrity of society placed women below men. Women were not considered people in most aspects - obviously money and power could play a big role in each individual case, but you can bet your angry butt that those were tokens and not the norm. We're not here to talk about exceptions. We're here to talk about rules, about foundations. No queen became the head of a nation without all the men in front of her dying first. No father would have given his daughter property if he had had sons. Throughout history, when there was a lack of a better option we were reminded that women also happen to be pretty competent, but as soon as that party was over no one was really lining up to throw another. It was back to normalcy.

So yea, there have always been male and female victims. But if you're being honest, you would admit that it was a skewed proportion. The oppression of men happened because of money, or religion, or skin colour, and it was equally so with women. The oppression of women happened because of vaginas, and there was no equal (or comparable) oppression of penises in that time.

Do you want to talk general oppression or do you want to talk gender inequality? Because those are two distinct conversations.

Quick edit to add that by the way, I have been trying to convince my boyfriend to NOT circumcise our baby, but he is adamant that it is his business and not mine what happens to the boy's penis, and I sort of have to agree with him on that one. You're battling men just as much as women on that one my friend.

[–]6space6space6 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Not to mention the fact that men were sent off to war while women stayed home in ww1 and 2, in the UK, young boys some younger than 18 were guilt tripped into going overseas and having their brains blown out, having their bodies destroyed, seeing their friends lives end in front of them. The people who guilt tripped these men into going to this war, was the same women who stayed home, none of them were forced to go. I wonder if the women would have been so supportive of the reality of these men being forced to go to war if the women had been forced to go also. Look up the feather movement, an early form of womens movements, and what was it supporting? The reality of men being forced to be sent overseas, to go to war and be executed if they showed 'cowardice'. Yeah, that's right cowardice. These women, who stayed at home while their sons, their brothers, were shot to peices in a trench in another country, these women had it in them to call the men cowards who tried to avoid going. Meanwhile no one asks her to go, she knows she's safe, because she's not a disposable utility like the men. Then when all the men return, some in body bags, some blinded and crippled for life, the same women who called those men 'cowards' get to then spend the rest of their lives whining about how 'opressed' they are. How 'throughout history' men have always had it 'so good' and women have always had it 'so bad'. There has always been bad times for some men, there has always been bad times for some women. Feminism is not pro equality, it is anti equality. Calling men evil, calling men monsters, calling men the historical oppressors, mean while women are called the historical 'victims'. Neither men or women deserve the title of victim or abuser as a historical fact. There has always been abusers who are male and female, and victims who are male and female and there still is today. Time for equality.

[–]Bibiloup 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Glad I waited before I replied, nice ninja edit.

I assure you that men were just as guilty of guilting the boys as the women were. And you are certainly right - had women been enlisted to go get their brains blown out many of them would have been singing a different tune (or would they? The men certainly weren't, and they were getting their brains blown out).

All this to say that you sort of gave me my point: when we are put in the same positions, we can get a better perspective of the issues. Now that women are pretty much in the same position as men, men get a better perspective of their own gendered oppression. And in turn, women are more open to understanding your oppression too. It was feminism that convinced me that you're not being treated right either.

Men have had it better than women throughout history. I'm not calling men monsters or devils. I'm saying that we have evolved from a beginning where violence and brute strength were necessary for leadership, and that leadership eventually started downplaying the necessity for gentleness and sensitivity. Not out of some conspiracy against vaginas! Just out of logical sequence. If you need to be strong to survive and protect your family, then being soft and sensitive will get your family killed. Women were delegated to the backup position - actually, they were in many societies considered paramount to property, because they had no value outside of the man's house in that day and age. Don't convince yourself that women and men were equally oppressed by the same forces - yes men were dying in wars, but there was honour in that, it was something men aspired to. There was no honour in getting raped and pillaged. The oppression of men wasn't oppression at all - it was the favourable way of being (violent and strong, in charge, and with power). I guess you could say that women just got the short end of the genetic stick on that one, and it wasn't really oppression either - just a sucky deal.

But in the last centuries we have been rethinking a lot of things, we have transitioned from a strong leadership to an eloquent leadership, and in that context women were very much oppressed. Not in terms of warfare, perhaps, but life wasn't all war anymore. And you know that women still dressed up as boys and went to fight because they thought it was stupid that they couldn't be out there protecting their country with their fellow men. There's a reason we have female soldiers today, and that's because feminism agreed with you. It brought equality (although it shouldn't have lowered the bar to achieve that. That's another mistake that must be corrected).

[–]4x8x16 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

If I read you correctly, you are always going to consider yourself the 'worse' victim.

You accept that men have it bad but you insist that women have it worse.

And yet, women today, don't have it worse.

If feminism has succeeded in putting women into privilege, then it's not doing what it claims to have been working toward - equality.

Once women reached an equal position did the machine of feminism turn off?

Hell no. In fact, it keeps chugging right along until now women are proud oppressors.

There is active gender discrimination against men in everyday society brought about by your favorite brand of feminism.

And you want to keep selling that mess?

Guess what, we aren't buying it.

Look around. Mere accusations have become weaponized to destroy.

Where is the equality in that?

Let's talk about that. When a woman can falsely accuse and succeed in destroying a life, career, etc. is that the equality feminism has been fighting for?

Well that means that men must also be able to falsely accuse and destroy, right?

Is that happening?

Where are all the news stories about men making false accusations resulting in a woman's life irreparably damaged?

Talk to me about this right here. Don't go off on a tangent about historical oppression. Don't talk about long dead kings and queens or how things USED to be.

Talk to me about how things are right here, right now, 2018.

Talk to me about all the supposed inequality taking place right now.

Tell me what feminism is going to do for me, this guy right here, to make my life as privileged as that woman over there.

Tell me what feminism is doing to stop women from oppressing others.

[–]Bibiloup 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm a feminist, and I'm here talking to a Men's Rights Activist to get him to participate in feminism in order to fix it. Why do I think we need to fix it and not just scrap it altogether? You pointed to it yourself.

I believe women are still not considered equal to men.

Equality is not limited to the wage gap or the legal system listening to one person over another in a specific type of dispute. You know that. It's about deeper things than that. It's about the ideological foundations of our society.

The core value of our culture is numbers, right? Money makes the world go round. Money is logical, it's rational. It's about numbers, and the best decisions to make those numbers bigger. It's the lens that shapes political perspectives (taxes, debt...); the most pressing priority of businesses (profit, bottom line...); the rational, logical types of subjects are also the most studied and valued at every educational level -- science, math, etc.

I'm not saying those are bad things, in and of themselves. Money is important, as are science and math. But what about kindness, and compassion, and empathy? Why are those not guiding principles of our economy, politics, and educational systems? They're not even considered serious topics. If I were in a war room and my advice to the general were to "reach out and be nice to the enemy, maybe you can talk it out", I'd probably be accused of treason.

I said earlier how femininity is considered lesser than masculinity. I'm not trying to make myself a victim here. I'm saying we're all victims of the one-sided perspective we're looking at society from. We need equality of gendered ideas in our ideologies.

When there's affirmative action to get women into managerial positions or whatever, it's not just so they are present in the world and little girls can look up to them and be like "ooh I wanna be like her when I grow up!". It's about what they do while in those managerial positions. What perspectives they're bringing to the table, and how they're changing our culture from the inside.

On some scales we've gone too far and caused harm. But on others we haven't even gotten close yet. It's a difficult, multifaceted problem, and by building up the steam to tackle the deeper ideologies some pistons burst and some people got hurt. Let's fix those pistons and keep the machine pumping, we're not done yet.

[–]4x8x16 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bibiloup 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What is all the supposed inequality taking place right now?

The ideological thing I pointed out in the last comment. How femininity and everything associated with it is not considered valuable. How women need to masculinize (be less emotional, less sensitive, etc) in order to be perceived as competent, because those feminine traits are considered incompetent. The inequality is ideological.

What is feminism going to do for me, this guy right here, to make my life as privileged as that woman over there?

What it has already done: made it so that if you get raped, it's a crime, even if it's a woman forcing you to penetrate her; made it so that in many places you can get parental leave, and in others you can get paternal leave on top of that; made it so that we're having these conversations about gendered issues in the public sphere, and not the private sphere.

What it's going to do: continue to deconstruct all of our actions and policies so that we see how we're treating each other differently based on genitals in non-relevant circumstances -- whether it's discriminating against a boy because he displays feminine traits or sending women to jail for less time; work toward adding feminine perspectives into our ideological framework so that we live in a balanced society.

What is feminism doing to stop women from oppressing others?

Well I for one am studying Law so I can play my personal role in fighting the injustices in any direction, and as a movement the feminist wave is acting, learning, and reacting. We're having debates with each other and with society because that's the only thing that we do, really. We talk about things. You can find all kinds of debates on feminist forums about the topics you guys are bringing up.

[–]4x8x16 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The inequality is ideological.

That's it? You believe that women aren't valued by society (which is patently false) even though they have an overwhelming majority of physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual resources allocated from public sources?

If women aren't valued, why are they so well taken care of from mental health to life coaching? From financial assistance to no-consequence safe surrender sites to abandon their children?

Could it be that because women need so much help and support that they are viewed as less able?

How women need to masculinize (be less emotional, less sensitive, etc) in order to be perceived as competent, because those feminine traits are considered incompetent.

This is false. Countless hours and who knows how much money is spent on sensitivity training.
Affirmative action is forcing businesses to hire women that may be less qualified than their male counterpart, because some people think sensitivity is more valuable than competence.

You can't have it both ways. Are you competent on your own and don't need affirmative action or do you need a policy to magically produce a job for you instead of having to compete for it like the rest of us?

How much of our social conversation portrays women as capable of doing anything they want while men are shown as bumbling fools?

When a man takes his child to a park and the women leer at him like he's up to no good, where is this wonderful sensitivity you speak of?

Where is all the feminine sensitivity in today's world of man-hatred?

I do not believe that personality traits are gender specific per se. There are some very kind, sensitive women, and kind, sensitive men. Likewise, there are rude, obnoxious women, and rude obnoxious men.

if you get raped, it's a crime

As far as I know, rape was already considered a crime before feminism came along.

made it so that in many places you can get paternal leave

The following is an article from Time magazine from June 2015.

This week, the man most celebrated for his impact on paternity leave policies is Richard Branson: the Virgin founder made news by announcing that some employees at Virgin Management would be eligible for a full year of paid new-dad time off.

Almost exactly 45 years ago, a very different man—a teacher, not an executive—was the one making strides for paternity leave. His name was Gary Ackerman, and he was a teacher in New York City who had a daughter in late 1969. When his daughter was about 10 months old, he applied for a leave (without pay) for childcare purposes. As a resulting lawsuit laid out, the principal did not recommend to the district that Ackerman’s application be approved; unsurprisingly, the superintendent followed suit by not approving the leave. Ackerman tried to appeal the decision several ways, and was told by many people that the childcare leave policies of the Board of Education only applied to female teachers.

As TIME later reported, “[t]urned down, he went AWOL from his job, [and] with his wife Rita filed a complaint of discrimination with the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sued the board in U.S. district court. Their argument: granting child-care leaves only to women is an invasion of privacy because it forces mothers to be housekeepers and child rearers and prevents husbands and wives from dividing up family responsibilities as they see fit.”

In 1973, the EEOC, TIME continued, “found that the mothers-only rule ‘discriminates against male teachers as a class.’ As a result, the board says it will reword its bylaws to ensure equal rights for fathers.” That autumn, the relevant section of the Board of Ed bylaws was amended so that it no longer referred to an affected teacher as “her” or relied on the timing of the teacher’s pregnancy, thus expanding its relevancy to fathers and to adoptive parents. The determination is widelyregarded as the groundbreaking first step toward paternity leave’s existence.

Just how groundbreaking was it? Ackerman’s motion to have a lawsuit he filed against the Board of Ed (separate from the EEOC case) considered as a class-action suit was denied because, though 40% of the Board of Ed’s teachers were men, he was the first male teacher ever—and one of two in total—to apply for childcare leave before that 1973 change. According to a New York Times article about the EEOC’s decision, at the time about 2,000 to 3,000 female teachers took a maternity leave in the city each year.

Ackerman was eventually denied compensation in his suit, because he had already stopped teaching and the relevant bylaw had already been changed, but that doesn’t mean his story came to an end. Though his first job after leaving teaching was at a local newspaper, he soon transitioned to a life in politics. Elected to the state senate in 1979, he went on to serve in Congress for three decades, until January of 2013.

Source: http://time.com/3916437/paternity-leave-gary-ackerman/

I see no reference to feminism in this article about men fighting for men's rights and men supporting other men in the exercise of their rights.

Maybe you were hoping it was feminism that did this?

made it so that we're having these conversations about gendered issues in the public sphere, and not the private sphere.

False. People have publicly discussed gender issues for a lot longer than feminism has been around.

You keep wanting to attribute to feminism things that it hasn't done. You can rewrite history as you like, however, it doesn't mean it will work.

What it's going to do: continue to deconstruct all of our actions and policies so that we see how we're treating each other differently based on genitals in non-relevant circumstances

Here I agree with you that we need to self-reflect and examine if our current direction is taking us where we want to go.

The problem is, you want to perform this examination from a female perspective. You aren't going to get clear results from a subjective analysis.

One of the most difficult aspects of gender differences to come to terms with is the reality that you, as a woman, can never fully understand my lived experiences as a man; and vice versa.

But you want me to believe that a movement of mostly women fighting for women's superiority is going to be capable of an unbiased deconstruction of society in terms of how we treat each other?

Nah, not buying that one bit.

whether it's discriminating against a boy because he displays feminine traits

Women discriminate against women that are too masculine. It's best to clean your own house before you try to clean somebody else's.

or sending women to jail for less time

All these years of feminism and we still have major bias in the judicial system. That's not a good indicator that feminism is trying to or can actually achieve that goal.

If your horse dies, are you going to keep beating it in the hopes that it will miraculously come back to life? Of course not.

Why do you keep beating the dead horse that is feminism?

work toward adding feminine perspectives into our ideological framework so that we live in a balanced society.

They already exist to the point that we've become off-kilter in so many ways. Society is so concerned for the fragile woman and her inability to compete in the real world that we've lowered the bar so much that it's almost on the ground.

I remember rough and tumble activities in grade school. Dodge ball for example. Awesome for physical fitness, fun and exciting to play. Your feminine perspective has steadily removed dodge ball from many schools. Why? Because there's a chance to get hurt?

Do feminism intend to bubble wrap the world?

If young boys are active and physical and you remove those activities from their lives. If they learn through these physical expressions and you take that away, how exactly are you helping them?

Feminization of grade school is sucking the life out of young boys.

What is feminism doing to stop women from oppressing others?

You can find all kinds of debates on feminist forums about the topics you guys are bringing up.

Where are these forums? Where is all this discussion?

In the midst of massive female privilege, where can I find actions of women actively changing the inequalities men face?

I am completely unconvinced by your sales pitch. What else do you have? Any evidence of feminists changing men's lives for the better?

Not ideas. Not conversations.
Real, tangible results of balancing the equation.

Got any of that?

[–]Thevoicefromtheabyss[S] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bibiloup -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]1493271 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link

What has feminism done for men?

[–]Bibiloup 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

The post you linked is very relevant. I wasn't personally aware of the extent to which men's issues have been systematically silenced, but I figured there was something like that happening. That is wrong, and we are working toward solving it my friend.

But you know that every movement that wants to bring difficult topics into the public sphere goes through this. When feminism began, it was the exact same thing - the women who dared to propose that they were not objects to be owned through marriage, and could actually speak for themselves politically, were framed as social corruptors (much like being labelled as a hate group is framing the MRA as social corruptors).

I'm sorry that my answer to your comment is basically "keep on carrying on, it'll be ok in the end", I know it's not very satisfying. But you ask what has feminism done for men?

It has brought gender, and gender issues, to the public sphere. It has made the private political. It has built the framework through which you are able to view male oppression as a social problem, and something that demands societal solutions. It has given us all the perspective to see that telling people who they are, how to live, based on their genitals does not go with our values. Now we have reached the moment when expansion of that vision is necessary. It's not a different vision - it is the same one: all genders are equal.

[+]1493271 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

Can you define patriarchy theory for me?

[–]Bibiloup 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

You mean like the "illuminati" idea that men are in control of society? Is that a definition? :p

If that's what you meant then I hope you realize that's not what I was trying to imply at all. Society comprises all of us, men and women, and women can be just as patriarchal as men.

Although the society we live in was designed to value male roles above female roles (think the non-family-friendly workplace, or the glorification of violence and brute strength in media, or the denigration of emotions in favour of cold hard logic in our economic and political systems), that's not something that we can point at men and exclusively blame them for. That's something that organically grew over millennia from a seed of survival in a cruel world.

We're at a point where we can safely add some softness into our systems though.

[+]1493271 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

No I was curious about your own personal definition of patriarchy theory, how you see it.

[–]Bibiloup 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]1493271 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

So patriarchy to you is that society as a whole holds the male gender role in higher importance than that of the female gender role?

[–]Bibiloup 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]1493271 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Men feel that feminism is trying to emasculate them (pretty widespread idea, I'm sure you've heard) though, by that logic, they're attempting to lower men's value.

Look feminism has (by a large margin) intentionally hurt men more than it has unintentionally done good for them.

Patriarchy theory the way I know it, is that men are an oppressive force over women, which pits men and women against each other, and that's nice you think of patriarchy the way you do, but the organizations that run the show, the real feminists, are the ones doing the hurting, and the ones pushing the narrative about mens oppression over women.

The trope that, "feminism is for equality, its in the definition", isn't really a good one, when (as you've seen) feminist organizations getting in the way of equality. Its great on paper, but it doesn't translate to reality.

I'll support feminism when they don't just benefit me as a by-product of their work, but an intentional product of their work, when they fight for equality.

[–]Bibiloup1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You've been nothing but polite my friend, and any anger you feel is justified.

I think our main disagreement is that on a balance, you believe that feminism has hurt men more than it has helped, while I believe the opposite. I've found from all of these comments that I've received that my arguments are more abstract, less concrete, than you would appreciate.

To me the fact that we're even having this conversation is more than anything else combined. The fact that we are able to debate gender, gender norms and inequalities on a public forum very important. We are able to have genuine conversations about how society has too many expectations for gendered individuals. This is what changes culture, and policy.

You're looking for policy action directly. I've got a few, like the feminist victory of getting male rape (anal or forced) recognized as a real sex crime, or parental leave beyond maternal leave, and in many places paternal leave on top of that.

Unfortunately, if both of us were to find concrete policy changes that directly affected men in the name of feminism, you would have more negative than I would have positive. I could point to more ways in which men are indirectly positively affected, through gender-neutral language which implies that both sexes are protected, but I don't think you would value that as much. And that's where our disagreement stems from.

I think society has come a long way down the path of gender equality thanks to feminism. We are still on that same path, but now that we've passed the greatest and most salient obstacles, we have the perspective to see the more subtle, abstract ideological issues. Because all of these movements are fueled by human passions, we built up a lot of pressure to push past those first obstacles, and in that passionate movement we stepped too far in some respects. That was a mistake which many, if not all, civil revolutions make.

Here's another disagreement: I think we still have not reached gender equality for women.

A measure of equality, as you are aware, is a complex algorithm. There're economic, social, political, and cultural scales to this problem. On some of these scales, such as in some legal cases as OP has shared, the cursor was pushed over the equality line.

On others, such as cultural objectification or sexual abuse, we have not reached that equality line yet. I believe all of that stems from a deep collective subconscious belief that femininity is not as valuable to society as masculinity. Men are feeling emasculated because they hear us saying "be more feminine!" when really it's "don't consider being more feminine a negative thing". It's not about making all men more feminine, at all. We want masculine men, and feminine men, and feminine women, and masculine women, and everyone else. We want gender equality in any combination it may appear.

Please take my word for it, as a self-identifying feminist in a feminist academic setting: feminism is about gender equality. The passion is misguided lately, but it is not over. We still have a ways to go, so this passion must be steered justly. We need every perspective to guide it -- beyond Intersectional Feminism, we need Ungendered Feminism. We need you.

[–]1493272 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think our main disagreement is that on a balance, you believe that feminism has hurt men more than it has helped, while I believe the opposite. I've found from all of these comments that I've received that my arguments are more abstract, less concrete, than you would appreciate.

Our disagreement stems from feminist organizations intentionally harming men, intentionally getting in the way of progress for mens equality.

I could point to more ways in which men are indirectly positively affected, through gender-neutral language which implies that both sexes are protected

I'd be interested to see examples of this.

Here's another disagreement: I think we still have not reached gender equality for women.

Men are sexually objectified, they are abused, on a scale that can't be measured. Even when it comes to little boys being abused, its ignored. Last night I went out, had some drinks with some friends, was dancing with a girl for a while, and she leaned in for a kiss, I didn't want it so I leaned back, she throughout the night kept leaning in for a kiss that I didn't want several times, until she aggressively pulled my head into hers. That's sexual assault... The question isn't if I will/wont say something, the question is, can I say anything. The moment I say something, to anyone I will not be taken seriously, I will be ridiculed, I'll be asked why I didn't go for more, I'll be asked why I didn't defend myself (I'm 6'2", and 220lbs, and regardless of that, if I fought back I might have walked out of the bar in cuffs), I'll be asked why I led her on, all of which are blaming the victim. You're right we have not reached gender equality in the sexual sphere, when women can ruin a mans life with an allegation, but a man can't say anything to anyone without ridicule. Even when men do come forward they are ignored. Let me know about any other inequalities.

Men are made to penetrate, with women as the perpetrators, at a surprising rate, and that's just what we know about because the CDC changed the terminology

Please take my word for it, as a self-identifying feminist in a feminist academic setting: feminism is about gender equality. The passion is misguided lately, but it is not over. We still have a ways to go, so this passion must be steered justly. We need every perspective to guide it -- beyond Intersectional Feminism, we need Ungendered Feminism. We need you

Feminism had its time and did good things, but it is time something else steps in. Again feminism is about equality and sounds great on paper, but that does not translate to reality. Although it is good to know we have some feminists on our side.

[–]Thevoicefromtheabyss1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Thevoicefromtheabyss[S] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bibiloup -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This movement

You mean the Men's Rights movement? Don't you end up with the same branding problem? :p

You have a very valid point in saying that FEMinism seems to by its very name center only on women. But the thing is that the name indicates the origin of the movement for gender equality - women who stood up for their own agency - as well the deepest underlying problem of gender inequality in the first place: the fact that femininity is considered lower than masculinity. For men that translates into homophobia, into the idea that men can't be gentle or sensitive or emotional, that they're tough and can take longer prison sentences and less time with their children. Because we don't think that femininity is appropriate for men (and honestly it's starting to show up in our treatment of women too - a stay-at-home mum will be treated as a lesser woman than a working mum). The hierarcherization of masculinity over femininity is the core of the problem of gender inequality on both ends of the spectrum, so it is appropriate to name the movement feminism.

At least to me ;)

[–]PeonSupreme 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bibiloup -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

9-11, Pearl Harbor, and the GD, eh? That's pretty brutal.

Sorry you feel that way my friend. I do agree that there has been a loss of due process in the upheavals of the last few months, but that is being directly addressed. It is wrong, and it will be fixed, because it must be.

But if you don't think the MeToo movement was important, and that it has struck a huge blow to one of the deepest issues women continually face in the workplace, then I'm definitely not going to be the one to convince you otherwise. You're not going to care about what I have to say.

I for one am excited about the conversation, I think it was a big step forward in terms of eradicating the serious problem of sexual harassment in the workplace (every workplace, from cinema to factory), and while we must slow down and ensure proper legal procedures now that we are being heard, the vast majority of cases did, and I think overall the effects have been positive. We have moved from "internet justice or no justice" to "real justice" (because that was the core of the whole MeToo thing).

No victim is a collateral casualty, to be dismissed -- they must be compensated for the harm they have been done -- but they have also contributed to making this movement better and more just. They are the reason due process must be protected moving forward.

But you don't agree with any of that :p

[–]PeonSupreme 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bibiloup 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PeonSupreme 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bibiloup -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PeonSupreme 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bibiloup 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]PeonSupreme 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bibiloup 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PeonSupreme 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Freddyuranium -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Doogle89 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Thevoicefromtheabyss[S] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bibiloup -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Meyright 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Thevoicefromtheabyss[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Meyright 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think we'll get men to organize in a way which benefits only men in the near future.

Such a march needs to be framed in a way which aims to benefit kids. Like for example a march against infant male genital mutilation, or that kids have a right to their fathers (for fathers rights).

Men like to protect women and children, not other men. It's in our nature (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274)

In Experiment 1, only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem (A. G. Greenwald et al., 2002), revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference. Experiments 2 and 3 found pro-female bias to the extent that participants automatically favored their mothers over their fathers or associated male gender with violence, suggesting that maternal bonding and male intimidation influence gender attitudes. Experiment 4 showed that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women.

[–]Thevoicefromtheabyss[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bibiloup 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Thevoicefromtheabyss[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bibiloup 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well here's the thing, feminism is about equality. That's literally the definition of the word. It's about the ideological hierarchy we have about the worth of masculinity and femininity. One is deemed lesser than the other - masculinity makes a woman stronger, more able, while femininity corrupts men. So the movement for supporting equality should first and foremost deconstruct why inequality is happening in the first place.

You are right, though. The movement has swung the pendulum too far. It's not something that will be fixed with a name change. It's something that we need deep conversations for. Consider the whole gender battle thing from the perspective of history: for so long women were truly oppressed in every sense of the word, and only recently (and I mean like within my grandma's and mum's times!) have substantial changes been achieved. Those women are still alive today, you know. It's not in the past. They were angry, and got their kids angry too, and gained so much traction so fast that they blew over some center lines in he opposite direction. From a sociological standpoint that was completely predictable, and it is totally reversible. Feminism is not a lost cause - it is only going through humanistic phases.

[–]GreyTortoise 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

You shouldn't have been downvoted, this is important to move forward, but feminism must be put in a different place than the one it is in.

Yes, being a reactionary movement is like not being a movement at all. However, people are seeing how men are left with less than what women have lately. The MRM being in direct protest to feminism says a lot, and could possibly be key to forcing feminism to level back down to honest egalitarian goals and pursuing equality. If feminism gets down to the same level as the MRM, it could mean a wildly fast level of social advancement for society, and ultimately improve quality of life for all.

We're not trying to push against it, we're trying to cure the sickness that has taken over it. The MRM cannot exist alone, if feminism collapsed for some foolish reason the MRM would do its job for it, albeit in the patronizing way of old, coddling and holding doors the whole way. It's male nature, we have an outgroup bias toward women and helping them. Women have an ingroup bias toward themselves and self-preservation, just a simple part of being a female mammal. Biology is ultimately the enemy of our group. We're the disposable gender, the test group, the throwaways. We're supposed to, in support of furthering the species as our instincts dictate, die in the stead of our child-bearing counterparts.

We shed the patriarchal leadership structure that we lugged all the way from prehistoric cave-dwelling, eventually we will shed the gynocentric instinct that has caused chivalrous men to coddle and patronize women for generations so we can all have absolute equality. We just have to push for it.

[–]Meyright 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bibiloup -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link