What is feminism? PZ rape thread derail

[Cormac]

Well, I'm all for feminism in terms of equal treatment of women. No argument here. But some of the complaints leveled on behalf of women as a group are made without regard for the fact that men also suffer the same difficulties, or equivalent difficulties.

For example, we often hear about how women are "forced" to choose between being a homemaker/stay-at-home-mom and being in the working world, and this is somehow some sort of sexist injustice. The thing is, men also are, to the same extent, also "forced" to choose between being a homemaker/stay-at-home-dad and being in the working world. Men, like women, cannot "have it all," and men who "choose" to stay home with their offspring will suffer at work for it. Why? Because if they're home, they're not working at their job/occupation. They will not be at the meetings, they will not be handling the work-a-day problems, and when it comes time for reviews and promotions, the men and women who are at work all year doing the job at the employer's place of business will be seen as more deserving of good reviews and promotions because they were there every day engaged in the employer's business.

So, on that point, I never really understood the complaint feminists had about having to "choose" between career and homemaking. Of course you do. Everyone does. The only thing that can be done is some sort of balanced compromise, where men and women could have things like time-off for defined periods of time and such.

And, men's issues in life ought not be mocked as "problemz of teh menz." This belittles men's issues and suggests that they are not as important as women's issues. If we truly are to achieve feminism as a measure of "equality", then certainly it ought not to start with the general proposition that women's issues are serious issues and men's issues are trumped up false complaints of "teh menz."

Basically agree. I've not personally heard folks complain about having to balance work/life as a feminist issue, but that's immaterial.

Men's issues shouldn't be mocked, no, but when folks are discussing women's issues like casual forms of sexism (catcalls, inappropriate flirting, general objectification as sexual objects), it is not totally appropriate to bring up issues like absent fathers or myths surrounding male rape. That's when I've seen men's issues being trivialized. I don't necessarily agree with that trivialization and mocking, but I can see how it would be annoying for it to constantly come up. I mean, we have the separated subfora here for a reason. Folks don't want to see shit posted about gods in The Pub.

At this point, though, there haven't been a lot of venues to speak about those issues in a productive manner, especially not on feminist forums. After all, those folks are talking about issues that appear to primarily affect women and are negative. That said, I have been seeing more and more people talk about men's issues in a productive manner. By productive, I mean in a way that isn't inherently inflammatory or anti-feminist.

That seems bullshit to me. They're either equivalently important or they're not about "equality" (whatever "equality" is). Consequently, feminism, in that analysis is not about equality at all.

[Audley Strange]

Men's "issues" are ignored because most men have always been considered culturally as disposable drones. Similarly most women were considered breeding stock. The problem seems to me that a lot of people think society should give a fuck who they are. It only cares what you can do for it and we have internalised that. The problem with splitting mens and women's issues into two different catagories is that it sets up an opposition rather than cooperative dynamic.

The masses were never valued as people, only as chess pieces, each with specific functions. We do this because it is simple and easier to say "Bill Smith Fireman, father of two" than write a text about the rich inner life of Bill Smith. Most of the time he's going to be fighting fires or raising his kids. That's all that mattered. What he could do.

We only broke out of that game fairly recently. Pointing out the transgressions of one side while excusing your own is to always keep that game going. Its the kings and queens we need to take down, not other pawns.

[Cormac]

Men's "issues" are ignored because most men have always been considered culturally as disposable drones. Similarly most women were considered breeding stock. The problem seems to me that a lot of people think society should give a fuck who they are. It only cares what you can do for it and we have internalised that. The problem with splitting mens and women's issues into two different catagories is that it sets up an opposition rather than cooperative dynamic.

The masses were never valued as people, only as chess pieces, each with specific functions. We do this because it is simple and easier to say "Bill Smith Fireman, father of two" than write a text about the rich inner life of Bill Smith. Most of the time he's going to be fighting fires or raising his kids. That's all that mattered. What he could do.

We only broke out of that game fairly recently. Pointing out the transgressions of one side while excusing your own is to always keep that game going. Its the kings and queens we need to take down, not other pawns.

Correct.

Mind you. I still don't give a shit about Bill the Fireman's internal life... he's a boring cunt!

[DaveDodo007]

Men's "issues" are ignored because most men have always been considered culturally as disposable drones. Similarly most women were considered breeding stock. The problem seems to me that a lot of people think society should give a fuck who they are. It only cares what you can do for it and we have internalised that. The problem with splitting mens and women's issues into two different catagories is that it sets up an opposition rather than cooperative dynamic.

The masses were never valued as people, only as chess pieces, each with specific functions. We do this because it is simple and easier to say "Bill Smith Fireman, father of two" than write a text about the rich inner life of Bill Smith. Most of the time he's going to be fighting fires or raising his kids. That's all that mattered. What he could do.

We only broke out of that game fairly recently. Pointing out the transgressions of one side while excusing your own is to always keep that game going. Its the kings and queens we need to take down, not other pawns.

Correct.

Mind you. I still don't give a shit about Bill the Fireman's internal life... he's a boring cunt!

But but what about fireman Sam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwqW2BT-KVQ

[epepke]

Well, I'm all for feminism in terms of equal treatment of women. No argument here. But some of the complaints leveled on behalf of women as a group are made without regard for the fact that men also suffer the same difficulties, or equivalent difficulties.

For example, we often hear about how women are "forced" to choose between being a homemaker/stay-at-home-mom and being in the working world, and this is somehow some sort of sexist injustice. The thing is, men also are, to the same extent, also "forced" to choose between being a homemaker/stay-at-home-dad and being in the working world. Men, like women, cannot "have it all," and men who "choose" to stay home with their offspring will suffer at work for it. Why? Because if they're home, they're not working at their job/occupation. They will not be at the meetings, they will not be handling the work-a-day problems, and when it comes time for reviews and promotions, the men and women who are at work all year doing the job at the employer's place of business will be seen as more deserving of good reviews and promotions because they were there every day engaged in the employer's business.

So, on that point, I never really understood the complaint feminists had about having to "choose" between career and homemaking. Of course you do. Everyone does. The only thing that can be done is some sort of balanced compromise, where men and women could have things like time-off for defined periods of time and such.

And, men's issues in life ought not be mocked as "problemz of teh menz." This belittles men's issues and suggests that they are not as important as women's issues. If we truly are to achieve feminism as a measure of "equality", then certainly it ought not to start with the general proposition that women's issues are serious issues and men's issues are trumped up false complaints of "teh menz."

Basically agree. I've not personally heard folks complain about having to balance work/life as a feminist issue, but that's immaterial.

Men's issues shouldn't be mocked, no, but when folks are discussing women's issues like casual forms of sexism (catcalls, inappropriate flirting, general objectification as sexual objects), it is not totally appropriate to bring up issues like absent fathers or myths surrounding male rape. That's when I've seen men's issues being trivialized. I don't necessarily agree with that trivialization and mocking, but I can see how it would be annoying for it to constantly come up. I mean, we have the separated subfora here for a reason. Folks don't want to see shit posted about gods in The Pub.

At this point, though, there haven't been a lot of venues to speak about those issues in a productive manner, especially not on feminist forums. After all, those folks are talking about issues that appear to primarily affect women and are negative. That said, I have been seeing more and more people talk about men's issues in a productive manner. By productive, I mean in a way that isn't inherently inflammatory or anti-feminist.

That seems bullshit to me. They're either equivalently important or they're not about "equality" (whatever "equality" is). Consequently, feminism, in that analysis is not about equality at all.

I agree with that, but more importantly, they are intimately interrelated.

For example, let us posit Alice, a feminist. Let's say that Alice doesn't care about men at all. I'm not saying that feminist don't care about men at all; I'm taking the most extreme example for the sake of argument. Alice does care about catcalls, harassment, sexual battery, etc. She doesn't care about men's issues per se.

Now, of all the emotions that men have, only anger (and related emotions such as hatred) is recognized or validated. This starts at birth. Way back in 1976, Condry and Condry did a study. They showed some adults witnessing an infant. Same infant, same behaviors in all cases. Then they asked the adults to guess the emotions of the infant. When told the infant was a girl, they said "fear," and when told the infant was a boy, they said "anger."http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1 ... 2633936623 Other studies have shown that female infants were held and comforted twice as long as males.

The interesting thing was, though there were slight correlations with the sex of the adult and their experience with children, there was no correlation with the ideologies of the adults. That is, people to claimed to be sexually egalitarian did this just the same as traditionalists.

Mightn't this have something to do with males' higher rates of aggressiveness? And mightn't a boy's observations of what happens to his sister compared to him set up a resentment toward females that he might act upon? Mightn't a reduction in this lead to fewer catcalls and sexual battery of women?

It seems plausible to me.

But that's something that only men's rights bring up. Alice doesn't care about that. As Boyle says, it's inappropriate to bring it up. It is declared, before trying it, before even thinking about it, that it cannot possibly be related in any way. It's wrong and an affront to women even to broach the subject, to explore the possibility.

It's all bad. Note that the Southern Poverty Law Center declares all men's groups, not just specific ones, as hate groups. Isn't that interesting? Isn't that exactly what everybody, including feminists, does always to males, treat them as angry and hateful, all the time? That is completely essential to do, and it is so essential that it is not even possible to consider the possibility that it increases problems for women.

[Robert_S]

There is a definite stream of resistance to talking about men;s in some feminist circles.

How much of that is down to long experience with people derailing conversations with men's issues and how much is down to some feminists just not giving a damn about men or outright hating them?

[Audley Strange]

There is a definite stream of resistance to talking about men;s in some feminist circles.

How much of that is down to long experience with people derailing conversations with men's issues and how much is down to some feminists just not giving a damn about men or outright hating them?

Well if you are claiming you are for equality and pointing out injustices and others point out that similar injustices happen to them and you consider that derailing, then I guess you're not about equality after all. Which I think is the point. If feminism is about women's issues, fine, but stop making a pretence otherwise. If it is about human issues then perhaps they might consider that what they consider exclusive oppression is not exclusive at all and that perhaps their view of such might actually be skewed and they could be guilty of the same kind of dismissing of concerns of a group that they blame others of.

[charlou]

There is a definite stream of resistance to talking about men;s in some feminist circles.

How much of that is down to long experience with people derailing conversations with men's issues and how much is down to some feminists just not giving a damn about men or outright hating them?

Well if you are claiming you are for equality and pointing out injustices and others point out that similar injustices happen to them and you consider that derailing, then I guess you're not about equality after all. Which I think is the point. If feminism is about women's issues, fine, but stop making a pretence otherwise. If it is about human issues then perhaps they might consider that what they consider exclusive oppression is not exclusive at all and that perhaps their view of such might actually be skewed and they could be guilty of the same kind of dismissing of concerns of a group that they blame others of.

Yes.

Words of wisdom on this, from over at MR ..

Making it into some kind of gender competition is wrong: if there is a need, it should be met, and people should demand it and work towards meeting those needs.

[Cormac]

Men's "issues" are ignored because most men have always been considered culturally as disposable drones. Similarly most women were considered breeding stock. The problem seems to me that a lot of people think society should give a fuck who they are. It only cares what you can do for it and we have internalised that. The problem with splitting mens and women's issues into two different catagories is that it sets up an opposition rather than cooperative dynamic.

The masses were never valued as people, only as chess pieces, each with specific functions. We do this because it is simple and easier to say "Bill Smith Fireman, father of two" than write a text about the rich inner life of Bill Smith. Most of the time he's going to be fighting fires or raising his kids. That's all that mattered. What he could do.

We only broke out of that game fairly recently. Pointing out the transgressions of one side while excusing your own is to always keep that game going. Its the kings and queens we need to take down, not other pawns.

Correct.

Mind you. I still don't give a shit about Bill the Fireman's internal life... he's a boring cunt!

But but what about fireman Sam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwqW2BT-KVQ

That is a disgraceful desecration of the work of John Sparkes, about whose genius I've ranted and evangelised before on these hallowed pages.

[Cormac]

There is a definite stream of resistance to talking about men;s in some feminist circles.

How much of that is down to long experience with people derailing conversations with men's issues and how much is down to some feminists just not giving a damn about men or outright hating them?

I think this is simply bullshit.

[Cormac]

There is a definite stream of resistance to talking about men;s in some feminist circles.

How much of that is down to long experience with people derailing conversations with men's issues and how much is down to some feminists just not giving a damn about men or outright hating them?

Well if you are claiming you are for equality and pointing out injustices and others point out that similar injustices happen to them and you consider that derailing, then I guess you're not about equality after all. Which I think is the point. If feminism is about women's issues, fine, but stop making a pretence otherwise. If it is about human issues then perhaps they might consider that what they consider exclusive oppression is not exclusive at all and that perhaps their view of such might actually be skewed and they could be guilty of the same kind of dismissing of concerns of a group that they blame others of.

[Cormac]

There is a definite stream of resistance to talking about men;s in some feminist circles.

How much of that is down to long experience with people derailing conversations with men's issues and how much is down to some feminists just not giving a damn about men or outright hating them?

Well if you are claiming you are for equality and pointing out injustices and others point out that similar injustices happen to them and you consider that derailing, then I guess you're not about equality after all. Which I think is the point. If feminism is about women's issues, fine, but stop making a pretence otherwise. If it is about human issues then perhaps they might consider that what they consider exclusive oppression is not exclusive at all and that perhaps their view of such might actually be skewed and they could be guilty of the same kind of dismissing of concerns of a group that they blame others of.

Yes.

Words of wisdom on this, from over at MR ..

Making it into some kind of gender competition is wrong: if there is a need, it should be met, and people should demand it and work towards meeting those needs.

Well, not all needs should be met, simply because they exist. But the general thrust I agree with.

[Cormac]

There is a definite stream of resistance to talking about men;s in some feminist circles.

How much of that is down to long experience with people derailing conversations with men's issues and how much is down to some feminists just not giving a damn about men or outright hating them?

This is simply bullshit, in my opinion.

Over on Apelust, this is how they decry "mansplaining" - and is a hallmark of their bile.

[charlou]

Then there's Rebecca Watson's take on circumcision (among other things) .. a NZ radio interview dated December 2012. Totally dismissive of male circumcision, while waxing on about misogyny, in the same breath.

[charlou]

Well, not all needs should be met, simply because they exist. But the general thrust I agree with.

Needs, as distinct from wants/desires.