The false "Facts" of the MRA movement.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

nyysjan:
One instance of a fire alarm being pulled, and another instance of a woman trying to be heard while being harassed and interrupted,

The delightful flame-haired lady was part of the group that previously disrupted the MRA meeting. If you can't see some irony in her insisting on her right to speak after her group's crass act if censorship, I'm not sure what to say.

Of course, not all feminists are like that, but it's easy to disprove your statement that feminists are never in the business of silencing MRAs.

Oirish_Martin:

nyysjan:
One instance of a fire alarm being pulled, and another instance of a woman trying to be heard while being harassed and interrupted, great examples of female oppression of poor MRA's just trying to be heard in a world where women control all media (not).

Again, show me MRAs doing this to feminists.

Why are you making excuses for these people? MRAs get very little media coverage, and they were meeting to discuss male suicide iirc. Why is that so awful a thing that it merits breaking the law, pulling a fire alarm, and calling a fire crew to a false report, potentially putting lives at risk?

If the woman is who I'm thinking it is, then she is arguably the one doing the harassing. I don't see how someone yelling Cry Me a River when male suicide stats are brought up and constantly yelling shut the fuck up is being harassed.

Instead of just looking at antics lets look at what one apparently popular(one of her videos got posted here for example) MRA believes:
http://manboobz.com/2012/08/16/girlwriteswhat-on-the-necessity-of-domestic-violence-i-dont-really-find-too-much-thats-seriously-ethically-questionable/

You can ignore the commentary of the article and it'll still give some lovely insights into what's wrong with some MRAs. Apparently some women are just *demanding* to be hit. A popular MRA days that and yet you wonder why people think its anti-woman crap. I can see why this one would oppose feminists for daring to paint that beatiful domestic violence that results I'm great sex as evil. Oh and notice the sexism against men too. They just get outnof control of they can't hit their women regularly when they're 'demanding' it

Dijkstra:

Oirish_Martin:

nyysjan:
One instance of a fire alarm being pulled, and another instance of a woman trying to be heard while being harassed and interrupted, great examples of female oppression of poor MRA's just trying to be heard in a world where women control all media (not).

Again, show me MRAs doing this to feminists.

Why are you making excuses for these people? MRAs get very little media coverage, and they were meeting to discuss male suicide iirc. Why is that so awful a thing that it merits breaking the law, pulling a fire alarm, and calling a fire crew to a false report, potentially putting lives at risk?

If the woman is who I'm thinking it is, then she is arguably the one doing the harassing. I don't see how someone yelling Cry Me a River when male suicide stats are brought up and constantly yelling shut the fuck up is being harassed.

Instead of just looking at antics lets look at what one apparently popular(one of her videos got posted here for example) MRA believes:
http://manboobz.com/2012/08/16/girlwriteswhat-on-the-necessity-of-domestic-violence-i-dont-really-find-too-much-thats-seriously-ethically-questionable/

You can ignore the commentary of the article and it'll still give some lovely insights into what's wrong with some MRAs. Apparently some women are just *demanding* to be hit. A popular MRA days that and yet you wonder why people think its anti-woman crap. I can see why this one would oppose feminists for daring to paint that beatiful domestic violence that results I'm great sex as evil. Oh and notice the sexism against men too. They just get outnof control of they can't hit their women regularly when they're 'demanding' it

You do know Manboobz is poorly written, researched even worse, sensationalist? He pretty much is the FOX News of the Anti-MRA-o-sphere. Written for an audience that already agrees with you, using your own articles as evidence(which uses other articles written by him as evidence), with comments that spend more time taking about pies than the articles, and when evidence, that is not his articles, is used it is either false, or so shaky that is requires such a leap of faith to believe it I wonder where the hay-cart is.
And considering must of his stuff is quote-mined from reddit, I pretty sure we can discount anything with manboobz in the url as junk.

Dijkstra:

Oirish_Martin:

nyysjan:
One instance of a fire alarm being pulled, and another instance of a woman trying to be heard while being harassed and interrupted, great examples of female oppression of poor MRA's just trying to be heard in a world where women control all media (not).

Again, show me MRAs doing this to feminists.

Why are you making excuses for these people? MRAs get very little media coverage, and they were meeting to discuss male suicide iirc. Why is that so awful a thing that it merits breaking the law, pulling a fire alarm, and calling a fire crew to a false report, potentially putting lives at risk?

If the woman is who I'm thinking it is, then she is arguably the one doing the harassing. I don't see how someone yelling Cry Me a River when male suicide stats are brought up and constantly yelling shut the fuck up is being harassed.

Instead of just looking at antics lets look at what one apparently popular(one of her videos got posted here for example) MRA believes:

So instead of responding to the points I actually raised, you talk about something else?

Would you care to stay on topic for just a second and actually respond to my post rather than quotemine GWW? Appreciate it.

Now, try again.

Oirish_Martin:

Dijkstra:

Oirish_Martin:

Again, show me MRAs doing this to feminists.

Why are you making excuses for these people? MRAs get very little media coverage, and they were meeting to discuss male suicide iirc. Why is that so awful a thing that it merits breaking the law, pulling a fire alarm, and calling a fire crew to a false report, potentially putting lives at risk?

If the woman is who I'm thinking it is, then she is arguably the one doing the harassing. I don't see how someone yelling Cry Me a River when male suicide stats are brought up and constantly yelling shut the fuck up is being harassed.

Instead of just looking at antics lets look at what one apparently popular(one of her videos got posted here for example) MRA believes:

So instead of responding to the points I actually raised, you talk about something else?

Would you care to stay on topic for just a second and actually respond to my post rather than quotemine GWW? Appreciate it.

Now, try again.

Sooo you're just throwing up a flimsy "oh its a quote mine but I don't have to prove it even though there's a link to the post" defense. Gawd stop quoteining me. See I can accuse people of quote mining whenever I want to ignore stuff too.

And apparently you don't care why people see your sort as woman hating

Dijkstra:
Sooo you're just throwing up a flimsy "oh its a quote mine but I don't have to prove it even though there's a link to the post" defense. Gawd stop quoteining me. See I can accuse people of quote mining whenever I want to ignore stuff too.

I'll consider amending it to strawman. Either way, for one that is complaining about flimsy defences, what was your ignoring of my original post exactly?

And apparently you don't care why people see your sort as woman hating

My sort?

Did you miss the posts where I've stated repeatedly that I'm not an MRA?

Again, would you care to address my original post that you replied to first, then we'll get to yours? Or are you too busy flinging emotive rhetoric around to have an actual discussion?

chaosord:

Dijkstra:

Oirish_Martin:

Again, show me MRAs doing this to feminists.

Why are you making excuses for these people? MRAs get very little media coverage, and they were meeting to discuss male suicide iirc. Why is that so awful a thing that it merits breaking the law, pulling a fire alarm, and calling a fire crew to a false report, potentially putting lives at risk?

If the woman is who I'm thinking it is, then she is arguably the one doing the harassing. I don't see how someone yelling Cry Me a River when male suicide stats are brought up and constantly yelling shut the fuck up is being harassed.

Instead of just looking at antics lets look at what one apparently popular(one of her videos got posted here for example) MRA believes:
http://manboobz.com/2012/08/16/girlwriteswhat-on-the-necessity-of-domestic-violence-i-dont-really-find-too-much-thats-seriously-ethically-questionable/

You can ignore the commentary of the article and it'll still give some lovely insights into what's wrong with some MRAs. Apparently some women are just *demanding* to be hit. A popular MRA days that and yet you wonder why people think its anti-woman crap. I can see why this one would oppose feminists for daring to paint that beatiful domestic violence that results I'm great sex as evil. Oh and notice the sexism against men too. They just get outnof control of they can't hit their women regularly when they're 'demanding' it

You do know Manboobz is poorly written, researched even worse, sensationalist? He pretty much is the FOX News of the Anti-MRA-o-sphere. Written for an audience that already agrees with you, using your own articles as evidence(which uses other articles written by him as evidence), with comments that spend more time taking about pies than the articles, and when evidence, that is not his articles, is used it is either false, or so shaky that is requires such a leap of faith to believe it I wonder where the hay-cart is.
And considering must of his stuff is quote-mined from reddit, I pretty sure we can discount anything with manboobz in the url as junk.

All talk no evidence. Why do you expect anyone to take your accusations seriously again? The full post is given along with a link.

Given your rhetoric filled, evidence lacking post I think we cak discount what you have to say

Oirish_Martin:

Dijkstra:
Sooo you're just throwing up a flimsy "oh its a quote mine but I don't have to prove it even though there's a link to the post" defense. Gawd stop quoteining me. See I can accuse people of quote mining whenever I want to ignore stuff too.

My mistake. Strawman then. Either way, for one that is complaining about flimsy defences, what was your ignoring of my original post exactly?

And apparently you don't care why people see your sort as woman hating

My sort?

Did you miss the posts where I've stated repeatedly that I'm not an MRA?

Again, would you care to address my original post that you replied to first, then we'll get to yours? Or are you too busy flinging emotive rhetoric around to have an actual discussion?

Wow now you're strawmanning me? I hope you take this accusation as seriously as I do yours given that I have provided ten times as much evidence. Ten times zero still being zero

Dijkstra:

Wow now you're strawmanning me? I hope you take this accusation as seriously as I do yours given that I have provided ten times as much evidence. Ten times zero still being zero

Ok, so you have no response to my original post.

Duly noted. Now run along.

Oirish_Martin:

Dijkstra:

Wow now you're strawmanning me? I hope you take this accusation as seriously as I do yours given that I have provided ten times as much evidence. Ten times zero still being zero

Ok, so you have no response to my original post.

Duly noted. Now run along.

I see. You complain about random feminists, ignore problems with popular mras and defend their blatant sexism by shouting about strawmen and quote mining without actually showing evidence of either. When called on the random accusations the response is to run along to stuff that's easier to defend.

Dijkstra:
I see. You complain about random feminists, ignore problems with popular mras and defend their blatant sexism by shouting about strawmen and quote mining without actually showing evidence of either. When called on the random accusations the response is to run along to stuff that's easier to defend.

This coming from the person who dodged responding to the videos posted earlier? You've got your order mixed up, champ.

Try again, and try not to be a hypocrite this time.

I've said to you TWICE now, and I'm saying it a THIRD time - we'll get to GWW. But you can respond to my initial points first.

evilthecat:

Frankly, there is no reason to say that unless it is true. The men's rights lobby isn't actually going to believe you because they're too caught up in a completely an arbitrary discourse of claiming personal "rights" which don't actually exist for anyone, so what is the advantage of saying that? Who are you going to convince who isn't already convinced or otherwise about the prospects of gender equality or how to achieve it?

Incidentally, an anti-feminist means something quite specific. It doesn't mean some random man who labors under the deluded belief that feminism is about female privilege, because actually that person is probably not anti-feminist at all. It means someone who openly and explicitly denies or rebukes the existence of gender or the general equality of the sexes. Anti-feminists may be sociobiologists who couch their arguments in differences in "natural" male and female abilities and competences, they may be religious conservatives who feel that men and women have a "natural roles" in God's plan. They may be functionalist sociologists or conservative psychologists who argue that the social stratification of men and women or their division into separate spheres of life is necessary for society to function or for emotional health, or they may occupy any point between these three positions. An anti-feminist can mean many things, but someone who believes in sexual equality and who believes that male and female positions in society are subject to social action and change, no matter how poorly and inadequately they are equipped to theorize and pursue it, is most certainly not an anti-feminist.

Now. There are libraries and libraries of gender critical and feminist work on men. Granted, they don't tend to assume that "male issues" are down to some simplistic denial of "rights", but maybe, just maybe, that's because it's a stupid position to take. It's a position which has been systematically counterargued and destroyed every time it has come up. If you don't want to listen, if you don't want to read anything, if you just want to keep shrieking about how your rights are being denied when actually what you're generally arguing for is rights which no-one else has, then fine, but you can't then expect to be considered a meaningful part of the discussion because you're not engaging in it.

Sadly, that is how the world is. Your opinion is not looked down upon because you're a man. Your opinion is not looked down upon because you're an "anti-feminist" (hint: you're not), your opinion is looked down upon because it is simply inadequate. You cannot explain, much less hope to do anything about the problems facing men using an outmoded conception of men having arbitrary "rights" which mysteriously only apply to them as men. You cannot hope to do anything about the problems facing men by setting out to effectively undo the past 50 years of social change in the name of ensuring that men aren't "oppressed" by having the socially damaging elements of their behavior challenged or called into question. If the evidence is anything to go by, this is the single worst way to try and help men, but I don't think you care. I think you just believe you're entitled to things which "society" owes you as "rights" and as long as you get yours that's fine.

Like I said, just don't expect to be part of the serious discussion until you start taking yourself and this issue seriously.

Hmm i actually used the introductory definition of anti feminism from wiki. "Antifeminism is opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms."

Anywho. I'm not saying men's issues can simply be explained by being denied rights. Heck i've often mentioned stereotypes in discussions about men's issues. (Which affects both the male victim's attitude and his environment. For instance the stereotype a real man wouldn't let himself be victimized by a woman would probably make him minimize his own victimization but also result in his environment minimizing it)

This said when I judge feminism, as I said, I judge it on its activism. These books you mention are picking up dust in shelves of a library and consequently are of little importance for me when it comes to judging the impact of feminism. Having a nice theoretical library is all fine and dandy but what matters is the practical aspect. Because it's that latter which will impact you and me the most.

And yes society owes me rights. It's pretty much written in our constitution and human right declarations.
But no it's not just about my rights. I would fight pretty hard against people trying to take away rights from women. But there is a difference between taking a right away from women and being against giving them special privileges. And i find your attempt to equate both to be quite dishonest.

"You cannot explain, much less hope to do anything about the problems facing men using an outmoded conception of men having arbitrary "rights" which mysteriously only apply to them as men."
=> What are you even talking about here? I'm starting to think we don't agree on what a "right" is. I do not consider ANY right to only apply for men. That's absurd.

Dijkstra:

chaosord:

Dijkstra:

Instead of just looking at antics lets look at what one apparently popular(one of her videos got posted here for example) MRA believes:
http://manboobz.com/2012/08/16/girlwriteswhat-on-the-necessity-of-domestic-violence-i-dont-really-find-too-much-thats-seriously-ethically-questionable/

You can ignore the commentary of the article and it'll still give some lovely insights into what's wrong with some MRAs. Apparently some women are just *demanding* to be hit. A popular MRA days that and yet you wonder why people think its anti-woman crap. I can see why this one would oppose feminists for daring to paint that beatiful domestic violence that results I'm great sex as evil. Oh and notice the sexism against men too. They just get outnof control of they can't hit their women regularly when they're 'demanding' it

You do know Manboobz is poorly written, researched even worse, sensationalist? He pretty much is the FOX News of the Anti-MRA-o-sphere. Written for an audience that already agrees with you, using your own articles as evidence(which uses other articles written by him as evidence), with comments that spend more time taking about pies than the articles, and when evidence, that is not his articles, is used it is either false, or so shaky that is requires such a leap of faith to believe it I wonder where the hay-cart is.
And considering must of his stuff is quote-mined from reddit, I pretty sure we can discount anything with manboobz in the url as junk.

All talk no evidence. Why do you expect anyone to take your accusations seriously again? The full post is given along with a link.

Given your rhetoric filled, evidence lacking post I think we cak discount what you have to say

Spell check. Please use it. Sorry but it is a pet-peeve.
People are more than welcome to go to his site and make their own opinion on it. Though I would suggest looking up both his "apology" to AVfM, and his "proof" of him being harassed by someone who comments on AVfM. Also feel free to check out the Men's Right and Against Men's Rights sub-reddits. Honestly, if the MRM is so problematic you must have better sources than a Z-list blogger. I can wait.

thaluikhain:

Specter Von Baren:
Then I ask this, who's perpetuating this benevolent sexism? Cui bono? Is it the men that are often the ones that lose out in such situations? Or is it the women who gain from them?

Firstly, it's not a matter of who benefits. By comparison, the US military only recently stopped banning openly gay soldiers. There was no reason to exclude them, many other western nations had stopped doing so, it was actively to the detriment of the US military to arbitrarily exclude them. But they kept doing it because that was just the way the military was, and had always been.

Secondly, women ultimately aren't benefiting from this. An attitude that a group of people are inferior is going to occasionally result in things that are favourable to them, but on the whole it's very much not helping them.

Believing that women are more important does not equate to seeing them as inferior. If it was all about seeing women as inferior, and thus, not worth as much as a man, then why would there have been phrases like 'women and children first'? That's putting a woman's importance over a man's. When is it a case of seeing women as unfairly inferior, and when is it a case of seeing women as unfairly more important?

DANGER- MUST SILENCE:

Abomination:
Being a "boy's club" and women who wish to be grunts needing to essentially become "one of the boys" is just going to have to be a fact of life until women prove themselves capable of not being the minority of riflemen (riflepeople?) or whatever term we're using to describe your basic front-line combatant.

We're not talking about grunts incidentally, we're talking about male soldiers actively spreading an attempt to undermine a female officer's authority on the basis of their opinion of her sex appeal.

But even in your case, why should women have to adapt to a "boy's club"? See below:

To expect the baseline military dynamic that has been prevalent for CENTURIES to have a sudden paradigm shift is both unreasonable and absurd.

This would be a wonderful rebuttal if for but one small problem: Undermining officers' command on the basis of their sex appeal is not a long-standing military tradition. In fact, I suspect that in most modern militaries, if a soldier actively spread gossip about what they sexually think of their (traditionally male) CO's ass, the tradition is that there would be severe consequences for the offending soldier.

So it's not part of a military tradition. In fact, treating women in the command structure as sexual objects really shouldn't have anything to do with the military. It doesn't increase combat readiness. It doesn't make soldiers fight more effectively. There is no benefit to it whatsoever. There is no reason people should be apologists for it.

Now I'm not here to rant and rave about how we have to end the practice. I would rather leave that fight to stakeholders in the military. But it's a perfect example of male privilege. Batou attempted to defend soldiers undermining a female officer's authority on the basis of her ass because he linked that behavior with masculinity, which he then linked with military effectiveness. Men should be allowed to undermine women because men undermining women makes them more effective is the implied, perhaps even subconscious message. Men, by virtue of simply being men, have an attribute construed as positive associated with them that lets them get away with unprofessional behavior. Women have a barrier imposed upon them simply because of their being women. That's privilege.

The grunts matter because it's the grunts that are the ones attempting to undermining an officer's authority.

And you know what? That happens to men too, they just use different reasons for it. So yeah, women officers have a problem that they're different from all the MEN grunts serving under them. You know how there's no fraternization between officers and enlisted right? So we have that all-male society interacting with an outsider female and, similar to an all-female society interacting with an outsider male, the mind wanders to sex. Men serving in men's barracks with little contact with females. Expecting this to change IS absurd. The men do not fraternize with women in their immediate roles enough. Of course they're going to behave the way they will. And if women officers are complaining because the people who they could order to their deaths have noticed they have tits and a vagina? Too fucking bad.

These men do not see women very often, so the few that are seen WILL become topics of discussion. Stand out officers are discussed and a female officer stands out more than male officers because THERE ARE LESS OF THEM.

If the only women men are going to interact with in their roles are those in a superior position how are they supposed to empathize with them? War has been a boys club for thousands of years. Modern military organization has been a boys club for hundreds of years. Women serving on the front lines is a very recent development. The drill sergeants of today were drilled by the drill sergeants of generations past and generations before them. Military culture won't be broken easily. If you want to see it happen quickly then women need to be enlisted and serve on the front lines in both the same capacity as men as in far higher proportionate amounts.

You're right, it sucks in how it's a thing and all that moralizing stuff. But it isn't going away any time soon and the only way to make it go away faster is if more women enlist and make it into those roles... and even then the benefits of doing so have not been made apparent. Hell, more women in the military could actually be a BAD thing for the women of nations that US troops are stationed in.

Specter Von Baren:
Believing that women are more important does not equate to seeing them as inferior. If it was all about seeing women as inferior, and thus, not worth as much as a man, then why would there have been phrases like 'women and children first'? That's putting a woman's importance over a man's. When is it a case of seeing women as unfairly inferior, and when is it a case of seeing women as unfairly more important?

Er, note how women and children have been lumped in together there. You'd hardly argue that children are more important than men.

Depicting women as childlike and in need of men to protect them isn't really helping women much.

Abomination:
And you know what? That happens to men too, they just use different reasons for it.

Which is irrelevant to my point. Some male officers get their command undermined because they look funny, or because they have a funny voice, or because their personality is unusual or whatever. That doesn't mean that this isn't still an example of male privilege. Women have an extra hurdle. Men don't automatically have that hurdle- they have to have something extra and unusual about themselves to be undermined the same way. So all other factors being equal, a male officer has an easier time of it than a woman will.

Sorta like how we could talk about white privilege and how black people are suspected by police more often simply for being black- that doesn't mean that white people will never be stopped by police.

So yeah, women officers have a problem that they're different from all the MEN grunts serving under them.

This doesn't make it not privilege. You can have every reason in the world for why privilege happens, and your reasons may even be right. But in the end it's still privilege.

These men do not see women very often, so the few that are seen WILL become topics of discussion. Stand out officers are discussed and a female officer stands out more than male officers because THERE ARE LESS OF THEM.

Privilege.

You're right, it sucks in how it's a thing and all that moralizing stuff.

You seem to be missing my point. I'm not trying to stop the practice, I'm just saying it's an example of male privilege.

DANGER- MUST SILENCE:

Abomination:
You're right, it sucks in how it's a thing and all that moralizing stuff.

You seem to be missing my point. I'm not trying to stop the practice, I'm just saying it's an example of male privilege.

No, I understand it's there and it's an advantage men have over women in the military.

I also think it doesn't matter very much in the grand scheme of things. The solution to the problem isn't worth the effort required in order to extract the minor reward that would be obtained from stamping it out.

Signing up for the military and complaining about bad conditions is pretty much a parimary example of buyer's remorse.

thaluikhain:

Specter Von Baren:
Believing that women are more important does not equate to seeing them as inferior. If it was all about seeing women as inferior, and thus, not worth as much as a man, then why would there have been phrases like 'women and children first'? That's putting a woman's importance over a man's. When is it a case of seeing women as unfairly inferior, and when is it a case of seeing women as unfairly more important?

Er, note how women and children have been lumped in together there. You'd hardly argue that children are more important than men.

Depicting women as childlike and in need of men to protect them isn't really helping women much.

................ Let me see if I can explain to you what's wrong with what you just said. Under the logic of what you just said, men should not help children because it is belittling to them. Let me also note that, YES people do in fact consider children more important. You think parents go through all the trouble of rearing a child without thinking they're more important than themselves? That they'd stay up late, feed them, wipe them, and care for them without that implying that they think they are more important than them? No... of course you don't. I know that's not what you meant, it's just a case of showing how far people are willing to go to make things out to be sexist to women. Good grief...

Specter Von Baren:
Under the logic of what you just said, men should not help children because it is belittling to them.

Belittling to whom, men or children?

Men help children because it's assumed that the children are lesser than men, incapable of helping themselves. Now, this is quite reasonably, though there's problems over where to draw the line and so on.

Men help women for the same reasons. This is a problem.

thaluikhain:

Specter Von Baren:
Under the logic of what you just said, men should not help children because it is belittling to them.

Belittling to whom, men or children?

Men help children because it's assumed that the children are lesser than men, incapable of helping themselves. Now, this is quite reasonably, though there's problems over where to draw the line and so on.

Men help women for the same reasons. This is a problem.

So by your logic I shouldn't help out my female coworker take-down, lift, and carry a desk that weighs twice her weight because its a "problem".

Or maybe people help other people because they have empathy. Sweet God-Emperor on Terra, do you realize what you are saying?

chaosord:
So by your logic I shouldn't help out my female coworker take-down, lift, and carry a desk that weighs twice her weight because its a "problem".

No, it would be better if you get her to help you with your strawmen instead.

Women, and I'd like to make this absolutely clear, are not automatically less capable than men due to being women. You cannot pretend that I am saying that no given woman is less capable than a given man at a given task.

thaluikhain:

chaosord:
So by your logic I shouldn't help out my female coworker take-down, lift, and carry a desk that weighs twice her weight because its a "problem".

No, it would be better if you get her to help you with your strawmen instead.

Women, and I'd like to make this absolutely clear, are not automatically less capable than men due to being women. You cannot pretend that I am saying that no given woman is less capable than a given man at a given task.

I can think of a few. Peeping standing up and erections come to mind. You walked into that one. Also please point out the straw man.

You said, "Men help women for the same reasons. This is a problem." Now my understanding of your, lets face it laughable, logic was if I were to help a person out and if that person was female it would be a "problem" because I am male. So I then point out how that really doesn't hold weight, namely a 200+ lbs. wooden desk. And that's straw manning you. Please.

Also your logic in "given woman and man for a given task" is shaky. Since we are a sexual diamorphic species the averages for the sexes are different, so the capabilities, on average, for each sex are going to differ. Then you also have race, age, body type, and diet, to factor in. And it all becomes a cluster-fuck trying to figure out what average even is. So it is impossible to say what "given" is. Unless of course you have "given" to mean, same everything just different sex, then in which case omit what I just typed. (While we are at it, where did I say a woman was less capable than a man? Methinks you are projecting your straw-manning upon others.)

But hey lets, ignore that and stick with these PC feel good sound bytes.

PS. Nice of you to leave out the rest of my post in your quote. You know the part where I made the point about empathy and helping.

Specter Von Baren:

thaluikhain:

Specter Von Baren:
Then I ask this, who's perpetuating this benevolent sexism? Cui bono? Is it the men that are often the ones that lose out in such situations? Or is it the women who gain from them?

Firstly, it's not a matter of who benefits. By comparison, the US military only recently stopped banning openly gay soldiers. There was no reason to exclude them, many other western nations had stopped doing so, it was actively to the detriment of the US military to arbitrarily exclude them. But they kept doing it because that was just the way the military was, and had always been.

Secondly, women ultimately aren't benefiting from this. An attitude that a group of people are inferior is going to occasionally result in things that are favourable to them, but on the whole it's very much not helping them.

Believing that women are more important does not equate to seeing them as inferior. If it was all about seeing women as inferior, and thus, not worth as much as a man, then why would there have been phrases like 'women and children first'? That's putting a woman's importance over a man's. When is it a case of seeing women as unfairly inferior, and when is it a case of seeing women as unfairly more important?

By this logic you think they believe children are superior. Fact of the matter is, the sole reason to put them first is not just viewing them as superior and the fact children are included proves that point. They do not view children as superior, I'm pretty sure they view them as incapable. Considering they're getting lumped in with children I rather think it lends more credence to the idea that it's viewing women as inferior.

I think the common trait that people for saving women and children seem to think they have in common is helplessness btw.

DevilWithaHalo:

Jarimir:
I'd like to see an MRA group not mention feminists or feminism for a year while and still exist and be doing things after that year.

Not that I'm a group in of myself, but it's extremely difficult to bring up for a lot of people without them responding with "feminism" of some kind. Just the mention that I'm an MRA sends a few foaming at the mouth. Then they get confused when I say I'm also a feminist.

I get your point about the blame though; I've been guilty of it myself. It's easy to pick a faceless ideology such as feminism or patriarchy over accepting that these are individual people making these choices and sadly creating unfortunate consequences for others in the process.

But I speak only for myself, as I have been both ejected from feminist and MRA circles for voicing dissenting opinion.

Hell, I count myself as a feminist but I also freely admit that I am also sexist at times. I feel it's ok because I try to keep my sexism on the harmless side of things. So, I am sure that on paper I am on the MRA side of some issues.

Oirish_Martin:
snipety

I am going to try to address your post point by point. If I skip something it's because I am in agreement/don't have anything to say. If I miss something you feel is important, let me know, I will try to address it.

1. Will get to "right to exist" later...

2. Statistical data is good. Take this statement as less of an ultimatum/accusation, and more of a suggestion to improve the credibility of the MRA movement. If a feminist tried to use an anecdote to prove a point I would tell them the same thing.

3. "We hate feminists. Look at the problems feminism has caused", then in fine print it reads "Oh, and here are some issues we would like to work on once (while) we've dismantled the feminist movement."
-
This is how the MRA movement comes off to me and I am sure many others. Since this is more of an impression and any examples I give are going to be anecdotal and attributed to just one person, I don't know what good providing examples will do.

4. The equality of shit: everyone should expect to be treated like shit from time to time. If it's ok for feminists to be treated like shit, as I have seen several self-proclaimed MRA's advocate and do, then it has to be ok for MRA's to be treated the same way, if THEIR group is all about EQUALITY. I would like to harken back to my statement, "I frequently find myself thinking that the whole of humanity needs to "not exist", nevermind various groups of humans". There is a flip side too. As in, it's rather presumptuous after the LONG and difficult struggle feminists have had for MRA's to presume that the obstacles they want to overcome will just roll out of the way for them and/or evaporate at the mere mention of a few that it is a problem to begin with (the MRA is a rather small movement). Also I would say that one is being rather sensitive and/or playing the victim if the mention of "needs not to exist" constitutes being treated like shit.

Captcha: the other side

Vegosiux:

What would indicate such parity? A 50/50 split, give or take a few percent? We could easily achieve that by enforcing quotas, but we both know that might not be the best idea.

As a result, though, a 50/50 split achieved by quotas is no different than a 50/50 split achieved by any other means. Also, I'm not sure I buy this "once you cut down the nepotism, more women will have a chance" insinuation, since men tend to not only be friends and acquaintances with other men. At least not in the region and social class I live in.

Still, the question about what would indicate such parity is a relevant one. Because it's basically the same old question about equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome. Quotas enforce equality of outcome, and while sometimes they happen to actually be beneficial, I'm not sure they're a feasible measure across the board. Or do we start enforcing 50/50 gender quotas (give or take a few percent) in all professions that are skewed? Just wait till people start raging about how their kids in kindergarten are being looked after by pedophiles, because obviously any mentally healthy man despises kids, and love for kids is something only a pedophile would express.

I am for quotas temporarily in fields that fail to regulate themselves. The Norwegian example is a great way to do it, force up gender parity for a decade or so and then abolish it, because by that point you have broken the hegemony of men and the chances it will go back to being just men is much lower.

A particular problem for the higher levels of society, where this is arguably the biggest problem, is that there are many social venues and approaches that are shut down to women but are very important to men's career networking. Most common are the "lodges" which are more or less social clubs for successful men (like the free masons) where women aren't allowed. There's a serious problem when women can't get access to the social arenas where most of the important networking goes on.

So yeah, as long as there's enough people of both genders available that pass the requirements for the job, temporary quotas might just be the way to go. This doesn't mean you'll let untrained women be firemen or that men without a nursing education can become RNs, just that a man would be chosen over a woman should he go looking for a RN job (but that happens anyway in Sweden).

Vegosiux:

I dare say this will take more than one generation to fix though, as it's not only a gender issue, it's a social issue. I'm lead t believe that the "successor" will basically be picked long before they're in a position to succeed the last head, and be "groomed" for it. Even in entertainment industry. Basically, fighting against that now will only bring results in a couple of decades.

Agreed. All the more reasons to keep fighting it.

Vegosiux:

I'm going to be a bit contrarian and "Both sides do it!" here but at least where I live women are going to be discussing cocks (or speculations thereof) and butts and biceps of passing males, and won't be held in contempt for it. A thing I like to bring up is when my ex-girlfriend was talking about how she was out for a drink with her girl-friends and how usually the main topic of their discussion was, well...males and their physical attributes. She was genuinely surprised to hear the male company I frequented preferred to discuss sports and cars. As I was genuinely surprised that she and her girlfriends always ended up talking about cocks and butts.

Anecdotal, I know, but I think this isn't an institutionally sexist thing; if you're a lone member of your gender in the presence of a larger number of the opposite gender, you will be checked out.

So your ex is an asshole? I don't really feel it becomes any better just because "women do it too". From my own professional experience however, women dominated workplaces tend to have a lot less of that creepy sexism in the workplace whereas the men dominated workplaces I've worked at have all had various forms of this sexist behavior. Yeah, I know that's anecdotal but my experience seems to match up to the what little research I've read on the topic.

See, the problem isn't really that a group of people discuss the other gender or check people of the other gender out. Especially not on their free time. The problem is that, as Batou667 showed, this kind of behavior is so intrinsically linked to displays of masculinity in some fields that it is accepted as "part of the job" when it should be treated as the workplace problem that it really is.

thaluikhain:

Specter Von Baren:
Believing that women are more important does not equate to seeing them as inferior. If it was all about seeing women as inferior, and thus, not worth as much as a man, then why would there have been phrases like 'women and children first'? That's putting a woman's importance over a man's. When is it a case of seeing women as unfairly inferior, and when is it a case of seeing women as unfairly more important?

Er, note how women and children have been lumped in together there. You'd hardly argue that children are more important than men.

I wouldn't but just look at anyone saying children are the future.

thaluikhain:

Depicting women as childlike and in need of men to protect them isn't really helping women much.

And yet in that situation their lives are given precedence over men. Spin that however you want there's no way women don't have the advantage here.

evilthecat:

Now. There are libraries and libraries of gender critical and feminist work on men.

Appeal to authority. And anyone can write bullshit in a book.

evilthecat:

Granted, they don't tend to assume that "male issues" are down to some simplistic denial of "rights", but maybe, just maybe, that's because it's a stupid position to take. It's a position which has been systematically counterargued and destroyed every time it has come up.

Then debunk it. You can't just give a vague 'people debunked it before' and leave it at that.

thaluikhain:

That would seem to be "benevolent sexism", treating women as fragile and delicate. While this might sometimes seem like a good thing, ultimately it comes from the same attitude that sees women as less capable, with all sorts of obvious problems.

EDIT: The quote marks around "benevolent sexism" are important, that's what it's called, but no sexism is actually benevolent.

Ah yes, when it happens to men it's "privilege" when it happens to women it's "benevolent sexism".

MuffinMan74:

Appeal to authority. And anyone can write bullshit in a book.

Don't be silly. Evilthecat specifically responded to the claim that "feminists don't care about men's problems" and did so by pointing out that there's lots of feminist and gender studies work written on the issue of the male gender role and how it hurts men. That's countering the argument and even if he wasn't it would still not be an appeal to authority, since libraries are not an authority of any kind on any subject but rather repositories of knowledge.

Okay, I seem to have kicked the hornets nest and due to my schedule right now I'm basically limited to replying in 15 minute intervals, but let's see if I can get started.

Oirish_Martin:
Do you seriously think every feminist in the rank and file knows any more about that library of feminist work than the average MRA/antifeminist?

Not "every", that's the kind of essential rule which is ultimately doomed to fail, there will be self-professed feminists out there who are entirely ignorant, and there may be self-professed MRAs out there who have actually bothered to read a book which wasn't by Warren Farrell or Robert Bly or something (I've yet to encounter any, but they must exist, it's a big world). Generally though, I would say the difference in levels of knowledge is in my experience staggering.

Oirish_Martin:
This is partly why I asked you about the academic-activist divide.

And, as I tried to make clear in my answer, I don't think the academic/activist divide is really about knowledge versus ignorance. Activists can be very well read. Heck, activists can also be academics or former academics sometimes. The problem is actually the notion of identifying "women". Academia today is increasingly skeptical of the notion of fixed and stable identities like "women", and the idea that "women" have a shared experience which binds them together doesn't hold up any more for a number of reasons I'm not going to get into. However, some activists (though by no means all) feel they rely on the concept of "women" in order to campaign for gender equality, that in essence once you've got rid of that shared commonality who is it you're fighting for? Now, these aren't universal positions, in fact the whole conflict is kind of manufactured. Actually, the most successful "feminist" activism in Western Europe and America today tends to be highly inclusive and inspecific on the subject of "women", because actually many young feminists don't feel they identify primarily as women above anything else or that they really need ideas like "sisterhood" or "feminist consciousness" in order to express their desire for gender equality.

Oirish_Martin:
Given that ignorance, it seems entirely plausible to me that some of the attitudes of rank and file feminists that come across as sexist towards men could be put down to something else?

I think sometimes they engage with issues in a way which is ill-thought-through or counterproductive or an inadequate tool to express their ideas, and sometimes those ideas can be intensely perverted (I'm seriously considering making a thread on Femen when I have the time, because a lot of seriously dodgy shit has recently come out about Femen) But positing an equal and opposite state of ignorance doesn't really work.

Oirish_Martin:
My defence has not been uncritical. But it's nice to see that you've given up trying to be reasonable here.

If you suggest people use a term for a reason that they don't in reality, you are being insufficiently critical. It would be more useful for you to address this deficit rather than pretend people who call you on it are being unreasonable.

Jarimir:

3. "We hate feminists. Look at the problems feminism has caused", then in fine print it reads "Oh, and here are some issues we would like to work on once (while) we've dismantled the feminist movement."
-
This is how the MRA movement comes off to me and I am sure many others. Since this is more of an impression and any examples I give are going to be anecdotal and attributed to just one person, I don't know what good providing examples will do.

This seems like a very legitimate point.

I think it comes about partly by the way internet sensationalism happens; it really helps if someone is shouting back at you to generate buzz. I mean, people have been campaigning for most of these issues since the 70s, but it's only by opposing feminism that the movement has become as well-known as it has, but perhaps at the expense of diluting the message.

But, suffice to say, plenty of folks are interested in the issues, but they're not the ones that internet controversy is drawing attention to.

MuffinMan74:
Ah yes, when it happens to men it's "privilege" when it happens to women it's "benevolent sexism".

When what happens? When men have an advantage in society in general, compared to when women have an advantage on a sinking ship?

I've never been on a sinking ship. I don't know anyone who has, or in a similar situation where women could have this advantage.

I do know lots of people living in society in general.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked