Earthstrike
Member
Maybe you believing the first statement you posted being true is related to the second statement you made being true. I wouldn't be friends with anyone who thought atheists were pieces of shit.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The "Men's Rights Movement" is apparently having a resurgence. Awkward.
- Thread starter NotTheGuyYouKill
- Start date
- Status
Maybe you believing the first statement you posted being true is related to the second statement you made being true. I wouldn't be friends with anyone who thought atheists were pieces of shit.
I doubt you actually know any feminists outside of some random article or forum you read on the internet, since you basically said the same useless stuff almost every man says when they join this kind of debate.
The "patriarchy" is a real thing and a useful concept, but it's not a "secret male illuminati", maybe it's better to see it as "historic inertia", and feminism as a force trying to brake it.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
The name is fine and representative.
Check the definition:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminism
It is not about gender equality, it's about equal rights FOR WOMEN. If there is an inequality that men face, feminism is not going to fight it directly. They may claim to fight it indirectly and men are asked to just join feminism and wait for the indirect results.
No, it's not worth considering because it would be virtually impossible. No one owns feminism.
Alcotholic
Banned
I'm aware that it exists in definition and at some point in our history did have prevalence in our government, but it is in no shape or form still around today. Tell me in what ways are women still being oppressed by the "Patriarchy"?
rocketknight
Member
You can bicker about the name as much as you want, but the fact of the matter is there isn't any movement that has worked harder to or has a better infrastructure for dismantling the cultural gender norms that hurt us all. With the recent advent of intersectional feminism, we aren't even limited to inequalities based in gender, but instead face head on the full spectrum of oppression to which everyone participating in modern society is to some degree exposed.
Devolution
Member
rocketknight
Member
All of those old men look totally qualified to testify about my reproductive rights, I don't know what you're trying to imply
Forceatowulf
G***n S**n*bi
The only thing Men's Rights Groups have a genuine gripe with are how the courts seemed rigged as FUCK in favor of women when it comes to child custody and divorce settlements. Child support is also bullshit because it can be manipulated by women so easily. It's another one of those "Great in theory, horrible in practice" type of deals to me.
I think overall the whole men's rights movement thing is mostly goofy bullshit by a bunch of goofy bullshitters. But I also do feel like men in our current society are not taken as serious as parental figures as women are. The kids are always seen as more the mothers than the fathers. That's just the reality of it. And I think that's pretty god damn shitty.
I think overall the whole men's rights movement thing is mostly goofy bullshit by a bunch of goofy bullshitters. But I also do feel like men in our current society are not taken as serious as parental figures as women are. The kids are always seen as more the mothers than the fathers. That's just the reality of it. And I think that's pretty god damn shitty.
Earthstrike
Member
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of posters who identified as feminists agreed with you on this subject, but funnily enough, this is one of the strongest cases of patriarchy causing a gender disparity. What is the origin of women being perceived as being the innate better parent? Could it be the thousands of years of cultural establishment of the home and kids being the duty of women while the man worked?
Oh, did the United States finally grant equal rights to women while I wasn't looking?
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
It's terrible how all those Family Court judges force women to take custody of the kids. Even when women say they want the father to have custody.
ElectricBlue187
Member
Probably has more to do with men having less of a biological imperative to take care of the young. Or the perception of such or what have you. Men leave more easily, that's a headache for society but that doesn't make it ok to deny the ones that stay
All of those old men look totally qualified to testify about my reproductive rights, I don't know what you're trying to imply
The fallacy here is the idea that women in positions of power would automatically lead to equality. The issues with reproductive politics are idealogical, not gender based. You could have people like Ann 'women shouldn't be allowed to vote' Coulter heading up panels and get the same results.
Likewise, Margaret Thatcher didn't exactly usher in an era of sisterly love. She was as hard line in her views on gender and sexuality and any male peer.
Men have just as much of a want to protect their kids and take care of them as women do.
If you lived in Iceland I'd agree with you. In pretty much the rest of the world, things are improving (to different degrees), specially in the developed world, but there's still ground to cover in matters of gender equality.
In the US the most emblematic issue is the fact reproductive rights are a political issue, when they should be an exclusively personal matter.
ElectricBlue187
Member
Hmmm the statistics don't bear that out, whether its biology or society or whatever men leave more often. Many men do have that feeling, I'm a single dad personally and I would do anything for my son, but one must be realistic about these things in a macro sense. Like I said it shouldn't matter in either case. You can't apply society-wide metrics to individual cases, that's inhuman.
rocketknight
Member
The definition is deprecated. If I'm understanding modern feminism correctly; it has become the collective banner for equality.
If not... then stop promoting feminism and start promoting equalism. It's more inclusive and encompasses the goals of rational feminism as a subset of its overall goals.
i.e. Equalism is the idea that all people irrespective of colour, creed, gender, religion should be able to occupy any role they desire within society, without social/cultural bias/predisposition against or for any colour/creed/gender/religion.
I mean... I think this stated ideal could be found to be agreeable for a fairly sizeable contingent of MRA that find their ideas entangled with some truly cretinous mens rights (over everyone else) types.
The problem is, the movement is constantly maligned and misinterpreted by most (except those that take sufficient time to avail themselves of a proper understanding of what it's about - which is sadly far fewer than should be) as what can be characterized as an 'extreme feminist' movement. It's in the name itself - it invites misunderstanding of its ideals.
Even if no one 'owns' feminism... there can be a concious collective effort to rebrand from feminism to equalism (or some other similarly neutral name). Start by conflating the two actively. Feminism IS equalism. Then as the association grows, the feminism part of the name can be reduced or deprecated.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
The definition is accurate. You have never and likely will never see feminists directly fighting for equality for men in the Family Courts.
Sorry, I know some feminists say gender equality but most feminists will flat out tell you that they fight for equal rights for WOMEN.
The name is accurate and representative.
And then when there's extreme equalists, what then? This shell game only leaves people even more confused.
IHaveCandy
Banned
I would imagine that a majority of people bringing up real issues that go against men do so with the intent of actually having those problems addressed. I mean, I don't see why or how anybody would link feminism when trying to get people to stop thinking prison rape is some sort of joke.
Men are behind women in education from grade school all the way through college, where it's approaching a 60/40 split (meaning women outnumber men by 50% in college). My own workplace slightly exceeds 60/40.
Men are behind women in life expectancy, health awareness, health spending, and health rights.
Men have fewer reproductive rights (essentially none).
Men are jailed at a far, far greater rate than women. Men are more likely to commit crimes than women, men are more likely than women to be convicted of crimes that they did commit, and men are given much harsher sentences than women when convicted.
Men are the victims of violence at a far, far greater rate than women.
Men routinely and systematically get screwed in divorce, custody, and child support.
Men are forced to register for the draft.
Etc.
Claiming that men have it easy because the top fraction of a fraction of a percent in terms of wealth and power are mostly men is ridiculous - the vast, vast majority of men are poor and powerless.
To say that men's rights is not a valid issue is absurd.
Men are behind women in life expectancy, health awareness, health spending, and health rights.
Men have fewer reproductive rights (essentially none).
Men are jailed at a far, far greater rate than women. Men are more likely to commit crimes than women, men are more likely than women to be convicted of crimes that they did commit, and men are given much harsher sentences than women when convicted.
Men are the victims of violence at a far, far greater rate than women.
Men routinely and systematically get screwed in divorce, custody, and child support.
Men are forced to register for the draft.
Etc.
Claiming that men have it easy because the top fraction of a fraction of a percent in terms of wealth and power are mostly men is ridiculous - the vast, vast majority of men are poor and powerless.
To say that men's rights is not a valid issue is absurd.
rocketknight
Member
Really? You don't see why anyone would link feminist concepts like don't blame the victim, don't be scared to speak up, or the gender role forcing you to keep silent is bullshit in reference to rape of any kind? I have to imagine (although obviously I have no idea) that the people posting implicitly in favor of prison rape in GAF threads are generally not feminists.
This isn't and has never been feminism, but the misunderstanding sure is common :/
IHaveCandy
Banned
All of those old men look totally qualified to testify about my reproductive rights, I don't know what you're trying to imply
Eh, that's kind of a weird argument to make. Assuming you've hired the proper legislators that are qualified to represent the people, it shouldn't matter if they aren't your sex on issues like abortion. I myself don't really have a lot of conviction about abortion either way. It's a dilemma I often cannot really resolve. But for myself, the question has never been "What are the woman's rights?" I think for most people, the issue comes down to "What are the rights of the fetus?" If you take the view that the fetus does not have the same rights as humans, then you'll be accepting of abortion. If you take the view that the fetus does have the same rights as humans, then you'll be against abortion. So the question of abortion often isn't about women's rights, but how we as a society determine when we are actually given our rights.
With that said, I'm obviously not against female politicians. I just don't think it's fair to dismiss a male politician's view of abortion for being male.
ElectricBlue187
Member
It's funny how people who disparage the men's rights movement for attracting extreme misogynists and such are the very same who deny even the existence of misandry from some who call themselves feminists. Weird.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
Just jumping in randomly, but I don't know if court bias towards women in custody cases is as prevalent as we may think. I understand that of course it is an issue at times, but it appears that ma majority of the cases are decided pro mother without litigation. And most of the time it appears that the mother wants sole custody as opposed to the fathers. Anyway, these stats are from 2000 I think, so Im not sure of the accuracy at this point, but Im sure that this train of thought regarding men in custody cases isn't new.
http://www.divorcepeers.com/stats18.htm
http://www.divorcepeers.com/stats18.htm
It's funny because what you said is not bs.
In a sexist society, that assumption isn't safe to make, which is kind of the point.
That's the problem though, the panel was stacked with old religious men instead of being representative of different viewpoints. It's especially mind-boggling because it's woman's health issue (birth control being covered as a benefit). Imagine if a panel on male circumcision was comprised entirely of women.
rocketknight
Member
Women are more pro-choice and less pro-life than men are. I'm not dismissing men's views of abortion (like I might their views on women's birth control), but it's hard to pretend that our legislature is 100% representative of the people when it's so stacked with men (and positions of power within the legislature are also similarly stacked).
What exactly would an extreme equalist look like?
IHaveCandy
Banned
This is an issue that can at times go both ways, but it largely is written to impact men. I do not understand why on Earth a spouse being divorced is deserving of 50% of your money as well as a percentage of future earnings. To start off, I'm not saying there isn't ever a reason for the ex to get SOME money, but half is an absurd rule. For example, what sensible reason is there to say that Tiger Wood's ex is deserving of half of his money? The common arguments are that the wife sacrificed her chance to become an earner for herself for the sake of raising kids. That is sometimes true, but there should be a limit to this. The fact that Tiger Woods earned that much money on his own doesn't mean she was going to make anywhere close to that much. There should be a reasonable limit to how much you can get in divorce.
That's a rather naive question. It's because some people think that government should heavily regulate individual's social freedoms for the 'good' of society. Due to religious beliefs or otherwise.
Why? Are you saying the men are inherently incapable of fairly representing women? If that's true, should men be wary of women politicians, as they are equally incapably for representing men?
Vote for your representatives due to their political views and voting histories, not their gender, or age.
The issue with reproductive politics in the US comes from the religious right. It has nothing to do with the sex of the politicians but their ideologies and the extremist voting base they are representing / pandering to.
ElectricBlue187
Member
The hearing was a hatchet job by republicans that blew up in their face, it is not representative of patriarchy or the US government as a whole or power structures controlling the reproductive rights of women or ....anything other than how sad and out of touch republicans are and how likely they are to lose elections from now on.
IHaveCandy
Banned
That's not the best way to determine that. A pro-lifer could just as easily argue that women are biased to allowing abortion because it personally benefits them. You allow those kinds of arguments on both sides when you start tallying which sex is saying what.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
That would be a luxury. First we should be more concerned with getting a panel on male genital mutilation at all and then worry about it's member makeup.
Oh shoot, did I just bring up another Mens Rights Issue? My bad.
I think that may be a stance some people take, but for many its about the woman. She is the one who has to carry the child. Nurture it. Raise it. Put her career on hold. A whole plethora of effects. And although I suppose that its the fetus's rights that have to be decided upon first, alot of pro choice advocates decide this based on the fact that the fetus not really a person independent of the woman, again a stance that focuses on the woman.
I also respectfully disagree about mens perspective about abortion. It really is a womens issue, that I think women should honestly be allowed to decide upon. Its not fair for men, who have no understanding of the effects, and strains that pregnancy puts on ones health and life should decide that a woman should be forced to keep a baby. Men can essentially abort a baby from their life. Pregnancy has no effect on their lives or jobs. They can leave. they can never see the child. They can at times simply remove that child from their lives. Men don't really have an understanding of the effects that a child has on a womans life at times.
BobbyRobby
Member
it's funny how feminists will always go for the top shelf when describing anything remotely critical of women or their ideology. how is what this guy saying "hate" speech?
they gotta learn the story of the boy who cried wolf.
they gotta learn the story of the boy who cried wolf.
IHaveCandy
Banned
I really don't think you will find many pro-choice people that view a fetus and an adult human as equals. You also don't see many pro-life people that do not view a fetus and an adult as equals. What rights women have are obviously a factor in the question, but they aren't really the most influential one. It would be really odd for a pro-choicer to say "This fetus is just s much of a human I am and the mother has the same responsibilities to her fetus as I do to my child. With that said, I think she should have the right to kill her baby because she said she isn't ready to take care of a baby and is unwilling to accept the physical requirements of childbirth."
If somebody does not know how to feel about what the rights of a fetus should be, they may err their judgement on what they believe women's rights should be. But if they have conviction on fetus rights, that's gonna override any view on women's rights one way or the other.
les papillons sexuels
Banned
wow, honestly, all i can say to this type of post is wow. It's so, wrong.
I agree, feminism is a broken system of thought which is predicated on false beleifs in a patriarchy. By agreeing you're practically saying it's a matriarchy, women are a more dominant influence on children, therefore have more influence on them as they develop, informing them of their social structure and ehtics. This influence is greater than any patriarchal system. This in turns means that any feminist argument is actually one against a matriarchal system, and is inherently mysognisitic. Feminism is anti-equality.
It's this type of reasoning that's so present in feminism that makes the entire ideology a joke. You can't prove a patriachy exists, you can't prove a matriarchy exists, and so you're left making claims from thin air in hopes they stick. It's practically a religion.
no it's not. Nothing about it is real or useful. In fact, it masks the real issues, such as socio-ecenomic issues, class issues, wealth disparity, gender issues, cultural issues, and lumps all of this under a magical guiding force with no evidence, and is completely impossible to actually change. People end up attacking the symptom as opposed to the cause, and all we end up with is wheel spinning.
There is solid logic in your argument, however, especially for pro choice, women's rights had to come first in the thought process. I doubt, ( but I suppose I could be wrong) that there was a faction of people who held that fetuses and women were not equals, and out of that group, the pro choice movement was born. It seems more likely that a faction of people who questioned the need for a woman to have an unwanted child was created, and the mindset about fetus inequality was formed and became prevalent after that
rocketknight
Member
This is what most people do, and it still doesn't work out all that well because of historical and societal inertia that results in fewer women running for office. Men are welcome to fear the 18.3% of Congress who are women, I guess, but I really don't think they have to worry. I'm simply saying that as it exists our legislature isn't particularly demographically representative and it's probably okay to be uncomfortable with that. I am.
Republicans are half of the US government. You're telling women that half of the US government can't be expected to understand them because they're sad and out of touch? I hope you understand that that's kind of crappy!
What? So women ought to recuse themselves from abortion votes?
This isn't generally what happens, though. The underlying claim isn't that males are in principle unqualified to speak on abortion because they lack uteri. People often confuse slogans for arguments.
The concern is that there is at least some reason to think that various rules that impact women's sexuality are partly or wholly motivated by a desire to control women's sexuality, even when such rules are sometimes publicly justified on different grounds. Certainly this is obviously the case for many historical policies. Complementarian thinking about gender was clearly really about giving men effective ownership of their wives. This is not to say that complementarians or pro-lifers are liars; they may be deceived about their own motivations.
Abortion restrictions are suspect because it is often the case that the same people supporting them are in favor of a bunch of other things that are more clearly about controlling female sexuality. Look at the overlap between abortion opponents and those who want abstinence-only sex ed and those who oppose subsidies for birth control. Even the history of abortion as a political issue in the US is pretty damning. Nobody other than devout Catholics cared particularly much until the leadership of the religious right decided that they had to back away from blatant racism as their main selling point.
So the idea isn't that abortion restrictions would be just fine if panels of pro-life speakers had women on them. No one doubts that there are at least five women in the pro-life movement who could have been persuaded to testify in front of Congress. Rather, the lack of women on the panel is merely indicative of the opinion that the pro-life movement has of women. If the religious right were actually such that women held roughly half of the leadership positions in it, it would probably not be nearly as anti-abortion. Not because women necessarily have better positions on abortion but because probably a lot of anti-abortion sentiment is actually motivated by the same sexism that keeps women from achieving prominence of the sort where they'd be natural choices for things like this panel.
IHaveCandy
Banned
I don't know how shitty the MRM is as an organization, but that group being bad shouldn't get in the way of a more sensible ideology about male issues. You certainly wouldn't dismiss animal rights as a whole because of how much of a fuck up PETA is, right?
googleplex
Member
I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I'm not sure that "Patriarchy" is a useful concept or useful language.
At least Mumei is always consistent with his crazy.
The gist of which is anyone who isn't a self identified feminist only wants equality for men because they're a women hating, bigoted, homophobic racist. And that any claims that similar extremism exists in the feminist movement is fallacy, just lies spread by those those pesky MRA wankers.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked