"Look, kitten, I'm a feminist too" Fauxminism and men

[Crux]

http://lawsonry.com/2011/07/look-kitten-i-am-too-a-feminist-fauxminism-and-men/ First, before you respond to this make sure to read the follow up article as well.

[Sasha]

mhmm, i guess i know quite a lot of supposedly femminst men who really should take bits of this article to heart, on the other hand, i really cant stand suposedly femminst women who constantly abuse these kind of analysis as proof i'm a sexist and win a discussion by default.
i mean, just look at "proof of fauxminism 1", sorry but i constantly interrupt anyone i debate/speak with, wheter your male of female, maybe i'm just an allround asshole but dont abuse it as proof of my sexism. if i interupt because you are a woman then yes i'm a sexist, but when i interupt you because you are making an idiotic statement i'm just right and your wrong and i'm not going to extend you special privilige because of that you identify as female.
and sorry, but i meet these kind of "feminists" way to often, now i'm no enemy of "white, male, hetero etc privelige" analsys, i think it hold much water but it doesnt suddenly mean you are exempt from al critisism if you tick less or other boxes than someone other. i really seen to many white, upperclass, university educated women or gay guys or self declared feminist men bellitle black or workingclass men and women as inherently sexist or homophobic before they even get to open their mouth. and this goes all ways, its no different with lots of suposedly anti-racist or gay "activists" who will lable anyone who will disagree with them on anything (not only on actvist things but even stupid day to day shit) as "racist" or "homophobic", i seriously got called a homo-phobe last week when i asked a (apperently gay) guy not to piss against a friends frontdoor.
we should all be consious of our priviliges and avoid any behavior that stems from that or gives unfair advantage but the way this article is worded is helping no-one.
dont really want to use the "no you!" argument but i must say its pretty sexist at places...

[Marx Communist]

Lol identity politics.

[The Jay]

A lot of those things are just rude behavior in general. As for the "what about men" thing, I agree with that criticism since the situation of men is less oppressed. I disagree somewhat with the criticism of the "tone of argument" segment since it could be interpreted as excusing rude behavior. As for the "feels entitled to trust" segment I don't really understand that one since I am not currently active in feminist activities so I can't comment on whether or not men expect to be bffs with all the women instantly. Sometimes I slip an anti-woman slur but I try not to and when it happens I try not to repeat it.

[Zav]

Everyone does those things. It's called being an ass.
There is the mention of an attractive woman on some guy's wallpaper. Apparently it's misogynistic to be attracted to fair skin, large chests, and such. Some people need a lesson in evolutionary biology.

[RRRevolution]

Lol identity politics.Identity politics are something which people that feel held back and put down can relate to. I don't see how it's funny.

[Crux]

mhmm, i guess i know quite a lot of supposedly femminst men who really should take bits of this article to heart, on the other hand, i really cant stand suposedly femminst women who constantly abuse these kind of analysis as proof i'm a sexist and win a discussion by default.
i mean, just look at "proof of fauxminism 1", sorry but i constantly interrupt anyone i debate/speak with, wheter your male of female, maybe i'm just an allround asshole but dont abuse it as proof of my sexism. if i interupt because you are a woman then yes i'm a sexist, but when i interupt you because you are making an idiotic statement i'm just right and your wrong and i'm not going to extend you special privilige because of that you identify as female.
and sorry, but i meet these kind of "feminists" way to often, now i'm no enemy of "white, male, hetero etc privelige" analsys, i think it hold much water but it doesnt suddenly mean you are exempt from al critisism if you tick less or other boxes than someone other. i really seen to many white, upperclass, university educated women or gay guys or self declared feminist men bellitle black or workingclass men and women as inherently sexist or homophobic before they even get to open their mouth. and this goes all ways, its no different with lots of suposedly anti-racist or gay "activists" who will lable anyone who will disagree with them on anything (not only on actvist things but even stupid day to day shit) as "racist" or "homophobic", i seriously got called a homo-phobe last week when i asked a (apperently gay) guy not to piss against a friends frontdoor.
we should all be consious of our priviliges and avoid any behavior that stems from that or gives unfair advantage but the way this article is worded is helping no-one.
dont really want to use the "no you!" argument but i must say its pretty sexist at places...I get where you're coming from, but this whole interrupting bussines is decidedly gendered. You might be an equal opportunity but this article wasn't written about you personally but about a general situation. I've seen it happen and I've probably done so myself. now as a marxist I don't see gender oppression as the only thing going on, but this *is* the women's struggle subforum of the discrimination forum so let's try keeping this on topic. What parts of the article did you find sexist? Oh and Zav popscience and biologism? Really?

[#FF0000]

Apparently it's misogynistic to be attracted to fair skin, large chests, and such. Some people need a lesson in evolutionary biology.

man, no.

[RRRevolution]

Everyone does those things. It's called being an ass.
There is the mention of an attractive woman on some guy's wallpaper. Apparently it's misogynistic to be attracted to fair skin, large chests, and such. Some people need a lesson in evolutionary biology.That's not evolutionary biology. That's a pretty cultural and western view of beauty, actually.

[RRRevolution]

What parts of the article did you find sexist?I know you weren't responding to me but here is a very questionable part of the article that I consider at best, a stubborn approach and at worst, a justification for silencing socially progressive viewpoints.


Mansplaining is generally defined as any instance in which a man explains a subject to a woman despite that woman’s personal experience with said subject or proven expertise in that subject.The idea that the personal experience of a woman is always 100% accurate at explaining a societal issue amounts to a denial of the fact that different women have different and often contradictory personal experiences and perspectives. If I am to hear from a women that some women are to be blamed for being sexually assaulted for dressing "slutty" (which is something I have heard from multiple women), am I to go by what they say because they are women, and not point out that that is victim blaming just because I am male and the person presenting the viewpoint which blames victims is female?

I am guessing that this article was written by a feminist from a very liberal area who does not realize that the general female population of the world is not as feminist-oriented as she thinks them to be.

[Zav]

That's not evolutionary biology. That's a pretty cultural and western view of beauty, actually.
People tend to attracted to those perceived as fertile, most of the time. Large breasts mean milk for babies, fair skin (by which I meant clear/smooth/beautiful not pale) means health, and so forth.

[#FF0000]

People tend to attracted to those perceived as fertile, most of the time. Large breasts mean milk for babies, fair skin (by which I meant clear/smooth/beautiful not pale) means health, and so forth.

Except when they aren't attracted to these things which is pretty often, dogg. Different people find a huge variety of different things attractive. What I am saying is that you are p. much just flat out wrong so can we please move on from this point.

[RRRevolution]

People tend to attracted to those perceived as fertile, most of the time. Large breasts mean milk for babies, fair skin (by which I meant clear/smooth/beautiful not pale) means health, and so forth.This isn't scientific or correct.

[Revolution starts with U]

I think the article makes a few valid points. But I can see why there is so much defensive controversy or whatever, around it.

The article starts with a behavior that is just generally considered rude, and then extends that to be a thing men do to women... as if I've never been interrupted by a woman. This is a valid criticism of some men, who only interrupt women. But it was a bad behavior to start the article with.
Starting with it, it now appears to some that the author is really just telling men to shut up because women know better. I know this isn't what the author was trying to say, at least I hope so, but what we say often is very different than what people hear.

[Lynx]

Being supportive of feminism doesn't make you a feminist, or even an 'honorary' one. Groups and individuals have to liberate themselves. They have to fight for their rights. This is as true for women as it is for workers.

I'm not a feminist and it would be pompous of me to claim that I was. I'm not involved in the movement because I'm not in the position of having to fight for my rights. This isn't a struggle that affects me personally.

Frankly, I don't see what males have to offer the feminist movement other than vacuous moral support. Women can speak for themselves, and I suggest that men find their own venues if they wish to do the same. Go elsewhere if you feel defensive.

Apart from the vocal, and apparently rude, male 'feminists', we hear the sound of crickets. While there are some small men's rights groups, do they speak for the majority of males who remain silent?

If I believed feminism threatened my 'privileges' I might be inclined to oppose it. To the best of my awareness, it does not. Maybe someone should enlighten me?

All movements fall short of their goals. There is more to equality than feminism.

[Lynx]

Mansplaining is generally defined as any instance in which a man explains a subject to a woman despite that woman’s personal experience with said subject or proven expertise in that subject.
By definition this is meant strictly for person to person interactions and not for a group setting (a man explaining to an audience of women).
If not, it should be rephrased.

[Crux]

I know you weren't responding to me but here is a very questionable part of the article that I consider at best, a stubborn approach and at worst, a justification for silencing socially progressive viewpoints.

The idea that the personal experience of a woman is always 100% accurate at explaining a societal issue amounts to a denial of the fact that different women have different and often contradictory personal experiences and perspectives. If I am to hear from a women that some women are to be blamed for being sexually assaulted for dressing "slutty" (which is something I have heard from multiple women), am I to go by what they say because they are women, and not point out that that is victim blaming just because I am male and the person presenting the viewpoint which blames victims is female?

I am guessing that this article was written by a feminist from a very liberal area who does not realize that the general female population of the world is not as feminist-oriented as she thinks them to be.
Except that's not what she's saying.
Similarly there are plenty of working class people that support anti-working class politics. But would you disagree if I said the working class have a better understanding of working class issues by default than members of other classes? That's not to say a middle class socialist is therefore wrong and a working class fascist is right but talking about generals here. I do think you are right in that she's from a liberal mileu. Doubtlessly I would disagree with her on other issues but in this instance I agree with her. The problems she outlines are not unique to her liberal mileu but happens in the revolutionary left as well. Hell we've even had issues with some male members in my own organization, and we're the vanguard don't you know. I guess what I am agreeing with her about is that just because you call yourself something that does not undo a lifetime of learned behaviour or being under constant pressure from society. Zav, you don't get out much do you? Or please explain to me with your popscience what evolutionary urge compels me to cum in a guys mouth.

[RRRevolution]

Except that's not what she's saying.I have no idea how that could be construed in any way aside from my interpretation. So tell me, I don't quite understand apparently. I still suspect my interpretation is correct it seems really clear.



Similarly there are plenty of working class people that support anti-working class politics. But would you disagree if I said the working class have a better understanding of working class issues by default than members of other classes?That's not a good analogy to what she said. A better analogy would be "if you're wealthy, and a working class person says that welfare needs to be gotten rid of because they can't stand the parasites around them who live off of government benefits, then shut up and accept their viewpoint as working class politics. Otherwise you're middleclass-explaining by contradicting their social experiences".


Hell we've even had issues with some male members in my own organization, and we're the vanguard don't you know.Joke, right?


I guess what I am agreeing with her about is that just because you call yourself something that does not undo a lifetime of learned behaviour or being under constant pressure from society.This article is written about very specific things, though, which are what I assume this thread is meant for discussing.

[mew]

decent article. not surprised it's lost on men though.

[Crux]

I have no idea how that could be construed in any way aside from my interpretation. So tell me, I don't quite understand apparently. I still suspect my interpretation is correct it seems really clear.


That's not a good analogy to what she said. A better analogy would be "if you're wealthy, and a working class person says that welfare needs to be gotten rid of because they can't stand the parasites around them who live off of government benefits, then shut up and accept their viewpoint as working class politics. Otherwise you're middleclass-explaining by contradicting their social experiences".

Joke, right?

This article is written about very specific things, though, which are what I assume this thread is meant for discussing.
well, I think she explains it pretty well:
He mansplains.

http://www.lawsonry.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/tumblr_lbwpvo6PJt1qekcz0o1_500.jpg (http://www.lawsonry.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/tumblr_lbwpvo6PJt1qekcz0o1_500.jpg)Mansplaining is such a fantastically accurate term for an all-too-common phenomenon. However, it is often controversial. This is mostly because it calls out men for a behavior they often don’t know they’re doing, and this in turn raises the defensive hackles. Mansplaining is generally defined as any instance in which a man explains a subject to a woman despite that woman’s personal experience with said subject or proven expertise in that subject.

[...]
A feminist man should be able to understand the difference between mansplaining and simply explaining something while simultaneously being a man. The difference is the invalidation of the marginalized person’s expertise and experience as well as the general patronizing or condescending tone.
------------------------------------------------------------------

I am sure you can think of a class-based parallel to that as well.

Also here's that other article I asked people to read before responding. (http://lawsonry.com/2012/04/a-second-look-at-male-fauxminists-behaving-badly/)

[Yuppie Grinder]

That's not evolutionary biology. That's a pretty cultural and western view of beauty, actually.

Yea, a person's socialization plays a role in the development of their sexuality. In some cultures breasts aren't sexualized.
As for the wallpaper issue, that wallpaper is a sexual commodity and consuming it perpetuates sexual commodification

[mew]

the problem with the wallpaper wasn't that it featured a picture of a conventionally sexually attractive woman, it was that it was a picture of a sexually objectified woman. he was consuming media that degrades women while claiming to be a feminist. i'm sure you'll argue that that somehow isn't actually sexist though and i don't feel like getting into that argument. exit thread.

[RRRevolution]

Mansplaining is generally defined as any instance in which a man explains a subject to a woman despite that woman’s personal experience with said subject or proven expertise in that subject.So an applicable situation could be one in which a woman thinks that a woman she knows invited sexual assault by dressing "slutty", because from her personal experience those are the women who get assaulted and should know better, and a man tries to contradict her by saying something about victim blaming?


A feminist man should be able to understand the difference between mansplaining and simply explaining something while simultaneously being a man. The difference is the invalidation of the marginalized person’s expertise and experience as well as the general patronizing or condescending tone.Contradicting someone is generally speaking an attempt to invalidate their opinion. This explanation is very vague.

Don't post memes in discussions about serious things.

[Zav]

@Majakovskij
Ask for clarification before negging, ass.
Yes, I am a Masculist. This means I desire equal rights for men in those instances where women have more. This does not exclude me from also wanting equal rights for women in those instances where men have more. The latter is the more common case, but the former still exists. The article linked in the OP was apparently written by either an anti-porn feminist or a gynocentric one, and I expressed my disdain for it, and then explained why certain traits are sexually appealing from an anthropological perspective. Explain what is wrong with this, if you would be so kind.

[Agent Ducky]

This article makes this good points. The "tone" one really spoke to me.
I hate the "tone" argument. I've been called "angry" and "hostile" by guys when I'm not actually being any more angry or hostile than they are. Because a woman being indignant and standing strongly by her opinion makes her apparently "full of rage."

[Crux]

@Majakovskij
Ask for clarification before negging, ass.
Yes, I am a Masculist. This means I desire equal rights for men in those instances where women have more. This does not exclude me from also wanting equal rights for women in those instances where men have more. The latter is the more common case, but the former still exists. The article linked in the OP was apparently written by either an anti-porn feminist or a gynocentric one, and I expressed my disdain for it, and then explained why certain traits are sexually appealing from an anthropological perspective. Explain what is wrong with this, if you would be so kind.
Why? I negrepped you for using a shit biologism argument and used "masculist" as an insult.
You didn't explain shit, probably because you are wrong. Here's an article explaining the most likely reason why you're wrong:
Just Because You Don’t Like a Study Doesn’t Mean It Is Wrong (http://gawker.com/5925897/just-because-you-dont-like-a-study-doesnt-mean-it-is-wrong?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow)

Uh actually the article addresses what you're talking about, assuming you weren't too busy fuming over the scourge of misandry you should have seen that in the article. If you disagree, please address that specific issue instead of throwing your peculiar terminology around. And the article wasn't even about porn, but let me guess you read somewhere the porn industry was created by biological evolution?


So an applicable situation could be one in which a woman thinks that a woman she knows invited sexual assault by dressing "slutty", because from her personal experience those are the women who get assaulted and should know better, and a man tries to contradict her by saying something about victim blaming?

Contradicting someone is generally speaking an attempt to invalidate their opinion. This explanation is very vague.

Don't post memes in discussions about serious things.
Okay. Before I go into explaining this to you I just want to know one thing: Did you read the article? Because I can't for the life of me understand how you think it's saying what you say you do. The meme was a quote from the article, which you would know if you read the article. I mean actually read it, not just scrolled over it and blurted out a knee-jerk response.

[Zav]

Why? I negrepped you for using a shit biologism argument and used "masculist" as an insult.
You didn't explain shit, probably because you are wrong. Here's an article explaining the most likely reason why you're wrong:
Just Because You Don’t Like a Study Doesn’t Mean It Is Wrong (http://gawker.com/5925897/just-because-you-dont-like-a-study-doesnt-mean-it-is-wrong?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow)

Uh actually the article addresses what you're talking about, assuming you weren't too busy fuming over the scourge of misandry you should have seen that in the article. If you disagree, please address that specific issue instead of throwing your peculiar terminology around. And the article wasn't even about porn, but let me guess you read somewhere the porn industry was created by biological evolution?
The 'I disapprove' button is not a replacement for an argument showing why I was wrong, nor is the name of an ideology an insult unless the person you attempt to insult strongly dislikes it.
All I said was that we are wired to like certain things so as to increase our chances of successful reproduction. I assumed this was common knowledge. Do you want me to link sources showing that banannas are yellow when ripe? There is a difference between what a culture views as beautiful and what innately makes people horny. For instance a heterosexual male from any place and time becomes aroused at the sight of a woman's boobs. A culturally-based sexual attraction is weight. Now extremely thin women are sexy. In some ancient cultures obese women raised the most tents.
The article did mention men's rights, and of this I approve. I also approve of the statement against those strains of Masculism that think men should receive 50% of the attention Feminists get. What I disapproved of was the air of superiority the article placed on women. It didn't seem to be intentional, but still.
I did address the issue, and I used no peculiar terminology. The only word I can think of that I used that may have been difficult is 'gynocentric', which isn't hard to break down. The article addressed a sexy wallpaper, and I connected it to the anti-porn arguments. The fact that the man referenced found the woman in the picture attractive enough to use as a wallpaper is not misogynistic. Sure if he paid for it it would contribute to the porn industry which is known for questionable practices, but who actually pays for porn? It was probably found via Google Images.
Here you insult me again just because you disagree. The porn industry was created when someone drew a lewd picture on some bark and decided to trade it for some food or leather. It is obviously not encoded in our DNA.



Being supportive of feminism doesn't make you a feminist, or even an 'honorary' one. Groups and individuals have to liberate themselves. They have to fight for their rights. This is as true for women as it is for workers.
I'm not a feminist and it would be pompous of me to claim that I was. I'm not involved in the movement because I'm not in the position of having to fight for my rights. This isn't a struggle that affects me personally.

So Engles wasn't a Communist because he owned capital? I do not get this logic. Yes people must fight for their rights, but that doesn't mean people not in the group can't help.

[#FF0000]

@MajakovskijYes, I am a Masculist. This means I desire equal rights for men in those instances where women have more. This does not exclude me from also wanting equal rights for women in those instances where men have more. The latter is the more common case, but the former still exists.

No it means you have a misunderstanding of feminism at a very basic level.

[Zav]

No it means you have a misunderstanding of feminism at a very basic level.
Enlighten me, o fountain of knowledge.
Actually I'd say that's a pretty damn succinct definition.

[#FF0000]

Enlighten me, o fountain of knowledge.

Feminism deals with equality between men and women. Virtually all of the issues "masculinists" deal with are pretty much dealt with and paid attention to by feminists.

"Masculinism" is totally unnecessary, is what I'm saying.

[Zav]

Feminism deals with equality between men and women. Virtually all of the issues "masculinists" deal with are pretty much dealt with and paid attention to by feminists.

"Masculinism" is totally unnecessary, is what I'm saying.
*Masculism.
How many Feminists do you know who are anti-circumcision activists? How many speak out against custody rights injustices, forced conscription (only registration in the U.S., but still), and the stereotypes and expectations of masculinity? I have heard of none.

I could say Feminism is unnecessary because we have Gender Egalitarianism and I'd get uber-negged or restricted for misogyny. Unfortunately society still boxes people by sex. People need to fight for their own liberation, according to most on here, so how do you suggest men's rights gain anything if Masculism is unnecessary?

[hatzel]

For instance a heterosexual male from any place and time becomes aroused at the sight of a woman's boobs.

So what you're telling us here is that in those innumerable societies in which women rarely if ever cover their breasts all the guys are walking around with raging hard-ons 24/7? Are you actually trying to make us believe that?

[Book O'Dead]

The article is right inasmuch as genuine feminism isn't just about the emancipation of women from male domination but also about male liberation from patriarchal systems of thought and behavior.

No doubt, men who accept the challenges imposed by feminism are obligated to make good on their commitment by rehabilitating themselves or, at worst, allowing the cause to help them in their rehabilitation.

Even after we abolish capitalist rule we will have to continue the struggle for complete emancipation by creating the material conditions for complete social equality and by building the legal framework in which men can no longer dominate society.

[Zav]

So what you're telling us here is that in those innumerable societies in which women rarely if ever cover their breasts all the guys are walking around with raging hard-ons 24/7? Are you actually trying to make us believe that?
I would say they are desensitized to them.



No doubt, men who accept the challenges imposed by feminism are obligated to make good on their commitment by rehabilitating themselves or, at worst, allowing the cause to help them in their rehabilitation.
All men need rehab? WTF?

[Book O'Dead]

*Masculism.
How many Feminists do you know who are anti-circumcision activists? How many speak out against custody rights injustices, forced conscription (only registration in the U.S., but still), and the stereotypes and expectations of masculinity? I have heard of none.

I could say Feminism is unnecessary because we have Gender Egalitarianism and I'd get uber-negged or restricted for misogyny. Unfortunately society still boxes people by sex. People need to fight for their own liberation, according to most on here, so how do you suggest men's rights gain anything if Masculism is unnecessary?


Your is a very reactionary argument. Firstly, circumcision is not a big deal. It reminds me of the adolescent obsession I once had about the size of my dick!

Also, you seem to misunderstand the true objective and meaning of feminism. Feminism isn't about women's lib, it's about human liberation from patriarchal strictures.

Get it right or join the ranks of fauxfeminists.

[Book O'Dead]

I would say they are desensitized to them.


All men need rehab? WTF?

ALL HUMANITY NEEDS REHAB. You in particular.

[#FF0000]

How many Feminists do you know who are anti-circumcision activists?

I don't know any anti-circumcision activists but I know plenty of people who identify as feminists and who are against circumcision.


How many speak out against custody rights injusticesAgain, virtually all of the feminists I know are aware of this issue and talk about it.


forced conscription (only registration in the U.S., but still), and the stereotypes and expectations of masculinity?Literally all of them.


I have heard of none.Which doesn't surprise me given your near complete ignorance of feminism.


I could say Feminism is unnecessary because we have Gender Egalitarianism and I'd get uber-negged or restricted for misogyny.You'd be wrong, mainly.


Unfortunately society still boxes people by sex. People need to fight for their own liberation, according to most on here, so how do you suggest men's rights gain anything if Masculism is unnecessary?
By organizing around correcting these issues? Men aren't oppressed as a group, dogg. Sure, men do suffer because of patriarchy, that's undeniable, but men aren't second-class citizens.

Like I said, feminism makes masculism pretty much completely unnecessary. Masculism doesn't add anything or deal with any issues that feminism doesn't.

[Lynx]

So Engles wasn't a Communist because he owned capital? I do not get this logic. Yes people must fight for their rights, but that doesn't mean people not in the group can't help.
Of course they can help, and if they are seen as being helpful, may have the label bestowed upon them. This isn't the case with these male feminists.

I would say that any movement has a similar burden. The communist movement may claim to fight on behalf of all workers, but only time will tell if the tactics and strategies were successful. This is because a movement typically involves but a small segment of the population. Feminism is no exception.

[Zav]

Your is a very reactionary argument. Firstly, circumcision is not a big deal. It reminds me of the adolescent obsession I once had about the size of my dick!

Also, you seem to misunderstand the true objective and meaning of feminism. Feminism isn't about women's lib, it's about human liberation from patriarchal strictures.

Get it right or join the ranks of fauxfeminists.
I now declare you my nemesis. Review the latest circumcision thread you reactionary pile of rotting pigeon shit for my arguments against you on this topic. We debated for three days on it if I remember correctly. I won't de-rail this thread any further by bring that into it.

If that is so, then maybe they should be Gender Abolitionists. There is a major semantic problem here.

By that you mean 'Agree with me or have your argument summarily dismissed.'


ALL HUMANITY NEEDS REHAB. You in particular.
Yes I do actually. For alcoholism and sociopathy. What's your point?


I don't know any anti-circumcision activists but I know plenty of people who identify as feminists and who are against circumcision.
Again, virtually all of the feminists I know are aware of this issue and talk about it.
Literally all of them.
Which doesn't surprise me given your near complete ignorance of feminism.
You'd be wrong, mainly.
By organizing around correcting these issues? Men aren't oppressed as a group, dogg. Sure, men do suffer because of patriarchy, that's undeniable, but men aren't second-class citizens.
Like I said, feminism makes masculism pretty much completely unnecessary. Masculism doesn't add anything or deal with any issues that feminism doesn't.
Well then give me names or literature.
You have not proven me wrong but only said I was.
Is it not possible to oppress a group of which one is a part? Monks and some other religious nuts manage well enough.
I still have not read any Feminist literature that deals with these issues beyond saying "Oh, that exists, too." Links, please. I disagree that it is unnecessary. Until I see sufficient proof that Feminism advocates an end to gender I will hold this position.

[Book O'Dead]

[...]you reactionary pile of rotting pigeon shit. [...]

I am not reactionary.

[hatzel]

I now declare you my nemesis.

Hah man I know that my writing style can sometimes be ridiculously 'elevated,' academic and vaguely antiquated when I'm being all super-serious or whatever, to the extent that it actually comes across as downright parodic, but this is too much even for me :lol:


If that is so, then maybe they should be Gender Abolitionists.Maybe they should be, yeah (though many feminists would call themselves gender abolitionists but whatever). That would probably be a pretty good thing for them to be. Though I don't think you're really in a position to criticise them for...like...not being that...you know?


By that you mean 'Agree with me or have your argument summarily dismissed.'Don't know if you noticed but #FF0000 literally just told you exactly why your argument here's all stupid and I think you've been told about a billion times already over the last few months but I don't know what's happening because you're just skipping over his post and others and just going for the guy who probably didn't feel he even had to pick your argument apart because it had already been done so categorically by a whole bunch of other people and raging all 'what, aren't you even going to criticise my argument?!' I mean...c'mon, man, you can do better than this...

[Lynx]

The article is right inasmuch as genuine feminism isn't just about the emancipation of women from male domination but also about male liberation from patriarchal systems of thought and behavior.

No doubt, men who accept the challenges imposed by feminism are obligated to make good on their commitment by rehabilitating themselves or, at worst, allowing the cause to help them in their rehabilitation.
Is giving up pornography part of their rehabilitation? Or just the common courtesy to be more discreet about it.

[Zav]

I am not reactionary.
I'm not, and one of us is.


Hah man I know that my writing style can sometimes be ridiculously 'elevated,' academic and vaguely antiquated when I'm being all super-serious or whatever, to the extent that it actually comes across as downright parodic, but this is too much even for me :lol:

Maybe they should be, yeah (though many feminists would call themselves gender abolitionists but whatever). That would probably be a pretty good thing for them to be. Though I don't think you're really in a position to criticise them for...like...not being that...you know?

Don't know if you noticed but #FF0000 literally just told you exactly why your argument here's all stupid and I think you've been told about a billion times already over the last few months but I don't know what's happening because you're just skipping over his post and others and just going for the guy who probably didn't feel he even had to pick your argument apart because it had already been done so categorically by a whole bunch of other people and raging all 'what, aren't you even going to criticise my argument?!' I mean...c'mon, man, you can do better than this...
I would swear the word was still in common use. Seriously though we have been arguing on numerous threads for weeks. Ze's my personal troll.

I am certainly in a position to criticize gender and those who support it.

I haven't ignored any posts. I've responded to each one with what I find to be a decent counter-argument. I just went back and checked, even. Yes I can probably argue better if I try, however I am simply not in the mood.

[Book O'Dead]

Is giving up pornography part of their rehabilitation? Or just the common courtesy to be more discreet about it.

Probably yes. I think most pornography is demeaning to both sexes as it reinforces the objectification of people into mere instruments of sexual gratification (did I say all that?).

Besides, from personal experience I can tell you that pornography is a poor substitute for the real thing.

[#FF0000]

Well then give me names or literature.
You have not proven me wrong but only said I was.
Is it not possible to oppress a group of which one is a part? Monks and some other religious nuts manage well enough.
I still have not read any Feminist literature that deals with these issues beyond saying "Oh, that exists, too." Links, please. I disagree that it is unnecessary. Until I see sufficient proof that Feminism advocates an end to gender I will hold this position.

nah i don't know hardly anything about the big names o' feminism or feminist lit (you don't need to, either!) but i know the ideas and i know what people i deal with on the daily who identify themselves as feminists believe and they've done a p. good job of explaining the concepts and issues to me.

you could also look at some feminist/feminish blogs like jezebel which just had a p. baller series on how bad it is that men are shamed for being honest in their intentions and sexuality or whatever and how damaging it is when dudes are called "creeps" when they are not in fact creeps.

[Zav]

nah i don't know hardly anything about the big names o' feminism or feminist lit (you don't need to, either!) but i know the ideas and i know what people i deal with on the daily who identify themselves as feminists believe and they've done a p. good job of explaining the concepts and issues to me.

you could also look at some feminist/feminish blogs like jezebel which just had a p. baller series on how bad it is that men are shamed for being honest in their intentions and sexuality or whatever and how damaging it is when dudes are called "creeps" when they are not in fact creeps.
Yes I do. I need evidence that anti-gender opinions are mainstream Feminism. Works by accepted Feminist authors is the only thing for this save a massive study.

I'll take a look, but one blog is hardly enough to prove the intentions of an entire mainstream ideology.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Haha, for some reason this thread reminded me of a quote from (the late) TC, in which she said that male feminism makes about as much sense as white people calling themselves black nationalists.

[Zav]

Haha, for some reason this thread reminded me of a quote from (the late) TC, in which she said that male feminism makes about as much sense as white people calling themselves black nationalists.
That's an invalid analogy as to be a nationalist one must belong to the group in question while to actively support liberation one must merely be in favor of it and do something about it.

[#FF0000]

Yes I do. I need evidence that anti-gender opinions are mainstream Feminism. Works by accepted Feminist authors is the only thing for this save a massive study.

I'll take a look, but one blog is hardly enough to prove the intentions of an entire mainstream ideology.

Or you could, you know, talk to people who identify as feminists.

(you should also remember that feminism isn't one big ol' ideology and there's a lot of people under the umbrella who believe a lot of things!)

[Book O'Dead]

Haha, for some reason this thread reminded me of a quote from (the late) TC, in which she said that male feminism makes about as much sense as white people calling themselves black nationalists.

He must not have read Ibsen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibsen

[Zav]

Or you could, you know, talk to people who identify as feminists.

(you should also remember that feminism isn't one big ol' ideology and there's a lot of people under the umbrella who believe a lot of things!)
Hence I am here debating with you people.

Then there is even less reason for it to invalidate Masculism.

[#FF0000]

Hence I am here debating with you people.

There's nothing to debate though. You have people who identify as feminists or "allies" or who agree with the feminism or whatever sitting here and saying "yo we've already got that covered bro" and you're saying "P-P-P-PROVE IT"

How about this. Before you post again, you go to, say, Something Awful and read the OP for the feminism thread since it's pretty aight and will clear up a lot of the dumb shit you are very confused about.

[Os Cangaceiros]

That's an invalid analogy as to be a nationalist one must belong to the group in question while to actively support liberation one must merely be in favor of it and do something about it.

I'm pretty sure that she was just trolling...

I don't really self-identify as a "feminist", though. I support a lot of the tenets of feminism (which is a big body of thought), like the equalization of domestic labor between the sexes, opposition to sexism etc. But when the topic of women's issues comes up, I don't feel like I really have anything to contribute since I'm not a woman, so I don't really participate. Plus I have a very strong aversion to "white knighting", I think that keeps me away from the topic too.

But it's hard to have a frank discussion about, because someone will tell me, "yeah, but how do you know?" And I don't know. There's no common experience, and god forbid I'd be accused of being a fauxminist!

[Book O'Dead]

Hence I am here debating with you people.

Then there is even less reason for it to invalidate Masculism.

"Masculism" is unnecessary (and pretty silly). Feminism is essential and indispensable.

[Zav]

There's nothing to debate though. You have people who identify as feminists or "allies" or who agree with the feminism or whatever sitting here and saying "yo we've already got that covered bro" and you're saying "P-P-P-PROVE IT"
Well no one has (I don't stutter) in either word or action. Every time a male issue is brought up among Feminists it seems to be shot down without a thought.


"Masculism" is unnecessary (and pretty silly). Feminism is essential and indispensable.
Why is that? Most Feminists ignore the issues Masculism addresses, therefore a separate movement is needed to solve the problems.
Actually, no it isn't. Gender Abolition is necessary. Making one sex equal to another cuts the stalk, not the root. The closest word for Feminism and Masculism is 'reformist'. We should take the reforms we can get while simultaneously working to abolish the system creating the problem.

[Book O'Dead]

Well no one has (I don't stutter) in either word or action. Every time a male issue is brought up among Feminists it seems to be shot down without a thought.


Why is that? Most Feminists ignore the issues Masculism addresses, therefore a separate movement is needed to solve the problems.
Actually, no it isn't. Gender Abolition is necessary. Making one sex equal to another cuts the stalk, not the root. The closest word for Feminism and Masculism is 'reformist'. We should take the reforms we can get while simultaneously working to abolish the system creating the problem.

How would you know since you yourself admit that you're ignorant about feminism?

Feminism is a pan-human response to patriarchal society. Patriarchy is based entirely on your "masculism". Patriarchy oppresses people of both sexes because it places male issues above those of females and fosters the erroneous notion that men, by virtue of their possession of testicles must necessarily play a leading role in the shaping and governing of society.

You seem to be thinking with your foreskin.

[#FF0000]

Well no one has (I don't stutter) in either word or action. Every time a male issue is brought up among Feminists it seems to be shot down without a thought.

How would you even know though? Do you hang out with feminists? read feminist blogs? Have any sort of contact whatsoever with feminists? I mean there are definitely people out there who would shoot down any issue that affects men but like I've been saying, feminism covers these issues already and there are feminists who certainly do have opinions on them and do talk about them.


Why is that? Most Feminists ignore the issues Masculism addresses, therefore a separate movement is needed to solve the problems.

Except no they don't like I said a million times.

[Zav]

How would you know since you yourself admit that you're ignorant about feminism?

Feminism is a pan-human response to patriarchal society. Patriarchy is based entirely on your "masculism". Patriarchy oppresses people of both sexes because it places male issues above those of females and fosters the erroneous notion that men, by virtue of their possession of testicles must necessarily play a leading role in the shaping and governing of society.

You seem to be thinking with your foreskin.
It happens in every instance I have seen. I have said that I know of no authors who do support these issues, not that I knew of no Feminist authors. Pay attention please.
Patriarchal society is based on the fact that males have a higher muscle mass and were thus able to establish rule first, not on Masculism. That is absolutely absurd. Patriarchy places males above females, not Masculism over Feminism. If it did men would have no grievances other than the oppression of half the population.

That isn't possible as I have no such organ.


How would you even know though? Do you hang out with feminists? read feminist blogs? Have any sort of contact whatsoever with feminists? I mean there are definitely people out there who would shoot down any issue that affects men but like I've been saying, feminism covers these issues already and there are feminists who certainly do have opinions on them and do talk about them.



Except no they don't like I said a million times.
I know because I have listened to mainstream Feminist speeches and presentations and read numerous books. It is highly unlikely that I have only seen such ideas out of chance. Actually all my friends are Feminists. I can't stand people who think women are inferior. All of them think I'm silly for having my opinion or don't care.
It was more like six. I have not heard of any Feminists who actually care about such things as those which Masculism addresses.

[Crux]

The 'I disapprove' button is not a replacement for an argument showing why I was wrong, nor is the name of an ideology an insult unless the person you attempt to insult strongly dislikes it.
Indeed it's not. It's a way to show disapproval and so I did. Your point was...?


All I said was that we are wired to like certain things so as to increase our chances of successful reproduction. I assumed this was common knowledge.
And "common knowledge" is like totally scientific and all and not at all defined by the mores of the present society, including sexism and racism. Which in turn are ultimately defined by the ruling class. So where did you get this "common knowledge"?


The porn industry was created when someone drew a lewd picture on some bark and decided to trade it for some food or leather. It is obviously not encoded in our DNA.
Actually it wasn't, I see you're dying to get into a porn defence speech so I'm not going to take the bait.




So Engles wasn't a Communist because he owned capital? I do not get this logic. Yes people must fight for their rights, but that doesn't mean people not in the group can't help.
And that's why he avoided any divisive language that might hurt his class brothers feelings and was always super defensive about issues concerning the working class that didn't also point out that capitalism is bad for some capitalists too. Oh right.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I would say they are desensitized to them.




No. There are cultures in which breasts are not sexualized. The sexual sensibilities of your culture are not universal.

[Zav]

Indeed it's not. It's a way to show disapproval and so I did. Your point was...?


And "common knowledge" is like totally scientific and all and not at all defined by the mores of the present society, including sexism and racism. Which in turn are ultimately defined by the ruling class. So where did you get this "common knowledge"?


Actually it wasn't, I see you're dying to get into a porn defence speech so I'm not going to take the bait.




And that's why he avoided any divisive language that might hurt his class brothers feelings and was always super defensive about issues concerning the working class that didn't also point out that capitalism is bad for some capitalists too. Oh right.
The point was you had no argument.

I got it from Biology 101. Seriously this is contesting evolution.

Well there's nothing wrong with porn.

Obviously he was a Communist. I don't think you understood the point there.

[#FF0000]

I know because I have listened to mainstream Feminist speeches and presentations and read numerous books. It is highly unlikely that I have only seen such ideas out of chance. Actually all my friends are Feminists. I can't stand people who think women are inferior. All of them think I'm silly for having my opinion or don't care.
It was more like six. I have not heard of any Feminists who actually care about such things as those which Masculism addresses.

welp, this is pretty much devolving into "he-said-she-said" more or less with both of us saying "yo I know tons of feminists who do/don't do this" so I guess I'll just ask you what the source of these 'men's issues' are? Do men suffer because they are oppressed or do they suffer because of patriarchy?

[#FF0000]

I got it from Biology 101. Seriously this is contesting evolution.

No it absolutely isn't, dude. Like everyone else has pointed out there are cultures where breasts aren't sexualized in the least. This is one of those shining examples of where evo-psych is absolute bullshit.

[Zav]

welp, this is pretty much devolving into "he-said-she-said" more or less with both of us saying "yo I know tons of feminists who do/don't do this" so I guess I'll just ask you what the source of these 'men's issues' are? Do men suffer because they are oppressed or do they suffer because of patriarchy?
Both. Men are oppressed by patriarchy (an injury to one group is indeed here an injury to all). Circumcision is a popular issue. Why is it done, apart from flawed Victorian medicine? It is an old Jewish tradition done to dedicate a child to the service of his father and Yaweh. Another is conscription. Patriarchy assumes that women are weak, and therefore that men are strong. This is certainly puts men in a social position to be more likely to be sent into battle, but it is also because it simultaneously views men as expendable due to their short involvement in reproduction. The idea is that women are weak and therefore must be protected by worthless men. Here women have a social advantage.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Men are privileged by Patriarchy. That's why they fucking call it that. Of course that doesn't mean that men aren't sometimes harmed by the gender and sexual sensibilities of the culture they belong to. Gender as a social construct is harmful to all in my opinion.
Zav, just give up. You have proven yourself to be massively ignorant of feminism. You strike me as someone who's never read any feminist literature from the last 50 years.

[#FF0000]

This is certainly puts men in a social position to be more likely to be sent into battle, but it is also because it simultaneously views men as expendable due to their short involvement in reproduction.

Who, at what point, has ever said this, though? And again, isn't that in itself a patriarchal attitude since it places a good deal of a woman's value in their role as a baby machine?


The idea is that women are weak and therefore must be protected by worthless men. Here women have a social advantage.Which literally no one would deny (though tons, including myself, would say that this "advantage" is pretty limited, considering all of the other constraints women have on them).

[Zav]

Men are privileged by Patriarchy. That's why they fucking call it that. Of course that doesn't mean that men aren't sometimes harmed by the gender and sexual sensibilities of the culture they belong to. Gender as a social construct is harmful to all in my opinion.
Zav, just give up. You have proven yourself to be massively ignorant of feminism. You strike me as someone who's never read any feminist literature from the last 50 years.
Have you heard of the Flagellants? They harmed themselves because they thought it the best way to serve God. Men in positions of power systematically and institutionally oppress men in general, often indirectly by placing the women they oppress in other ways on a pedestal.
I'm not going to abandon my beliefs because they're unpopular. I'd sooner die, and I mean it.
You strike me as someone who never has anything interesting to say.


Who, at what point, has ever said this, though? And again, isn't that in itself a patriarchal attitude since it places a good deal of a woman's value in their role as a baby machine?
Which literally no one would deny (though tons, including myself, would say that this "advantage" is pretty limited, considering all of the other constraints women have on them).
It is said by opponents of the laws which state that men must join the army and those critical of gender. Yes, it is an example of Patriarchy. I said that.
The social advantage is not being forced to die for a government. That is pretty damn big if you ask me. The fact that women are oppressed in many ways does not justify giving them advantages in others.

[#FF0000]

I'm not going to abandon my beliefs because they're unpopular. I'd sooner die, and I mean it.

we're not asking you to do that thought. we're asking you to abandon them because they are wrong.

[Zav]

we're not asking you to do that thought. we're asking you to abandon them because they are wrong.
Me: I believe that men are in ways oppressed by Patriarchy and that all oppression is wrong and should be ended. I think that a movement to remove this oppression is a necessary counterpart to Feminism. It is called Masculism because it liberates men.
Y'all: No, Feminism already does that. Masculism is unnecessary.
Me: Why? Where are the men's rights activists among the Feminist community?
Y'all: Oh, everyone is one.
Me: Well, give me an example.
Y'all: No, Feminism already does that.
Me: Da fuq?

There are no motions within any Feminist circle that I know of to combat these problems. I'm not going to wait for these groups to decide that men have social grievances that must be addressed.

[Crux]

The point was you had no argument.

I got it from Biology 101. Seriously this is contesting evolution.

Well there's nothing wrong with porn.

Obviously he was a Communist. I don't think you understood the point there.
Neither did you. The difference being, you thought you did and I was giving you a negrep.

I can tell you're a scientist. No, really, it has nothing at all to do with contesting evolution and you using some dumbed down pop-science as a defence of porn isn't helping your supposed argument at all. The way women are portrayed in visual media is not, I repeat, not about evolution.

There's nothing wrong with porn? Really now? I...you know what never mind. I'm still not going for that bait.

And I now know you didn't understand my point.

[Zav]

Neither did you. The difference being, you thought you did and I was giving you a negrep.

I can tell you're a scientist. No, really, it has nothing at all to do with contesting evolution and you using some dumbed down pop-science as a defence of porn isn't helping your supposed argument at all. The way women are portrayed in visual media is not, I repeat, not about evolution.

There's nothing wrong with porn? Really now? I...you know what never mind. I'm still not going for that bait.

And I now know you didn't understand my point.
You thought I didn't. This point is going nowhere.

The hell? I never said it was. I said... Oh, wait, yes I did say something like that. Porn is designed to get people off by fulfilling their sexual fantasies, and the qualities of people most desirable are those associated with fertility.

Nope. Nothing at all. There's a ton wrong with the porn industry, but nothing with porn itself. You're no fun.

And you failed to comprehend mine.

Good day to you.

[Book O'Dead]

Men are privileged by Patriarchy. That's why they fucking call it that. Of course that doesn't mean that men aren't sometimes harmed by the gender and sexual sensibilities of the culture they belong to. Gender as a social construct is harmful to all in my opinion.
Zav, just give up. You have proven yourself to be massively ignorant of feminism. You strike me as someone who's never read any feminist literature from the last 50 years.

Have you ever heard the slogan "An injury to one is an injury to all"?

As long as women are oppressed by men men will never be free.

Oppression hurts the oppressor as well as the oppressed; maybe not in the same way, but certainly in very similar fashion because neither is ever free.

Someone said (and I'll paraphrase): "If you want to measure the level of civilization of a people, all you have to do is look at how they treat their women." Modern Western society is just a fraction of a notch above barbarism when it comes to its treatment of women.

[Zav]

Have you ever heard the slogan "An injury to one is an injury to all"?

As long as women are oppressed by men men will never be free.

Oppression hurts the oppressor as well as the oppressed; maybe not in the same way, but certainly in very similar fashion because neither is ever free.

Someone said (and I'll paraphrase): "If you want to measure the level of civilization of a people, all you have to do is look at how they treat their women." Modern Western society is just a fraction of a notch above barbarism when it comes to its treatment of women.
Now you agree with me? You aren't very consistent, but I appreciate it I suppose.

[Book O'Dead]

[...]

Nope. Nothing at all. There's a ton wrong with the porn industry, but nothing with porn itself. You're no fun.

[..]

Good day to you.


Porn is like being invited to a banquet in which you are allowed only to look at other people eat while you yourself can only fantasize about sitting at the table.

[#FF0000]

Me: I believe that men are in ways oppressed by Patriarchy and that all oppression is wrong and should be ended. I think that a movement to remove this oppression is a necessary counterpart to Feminism. It is called Masculism because it liberates men.
Y'all: No, Feminism already does that. Masculism is unnecessary.
Me: Why? Where are the men's rights activists among the Feminist community?
Y'all: Oh, everyone is one.
Me: Well, give me an example.
Y'all: No, Feminism already does that.
Me: Da fuq?


Except "y'all" is a bunch of people who identify as feminist or pro-feminist so your whole thing that feminists don't look at these issues is dumb. The thing is that they don't act like men are oppressed in particular (they are not) and correctly identify patriarchy as one of the things at the root of the men's issues you're talking about.

(did you ever bother takin a look at that thread I mentioned to you)

[Zav]

Porn is like being invited to a banquet in which you are allowed only to look at other people eat while you yourself can only fantasize about sitting at the table.
No porn is more like being able to receive sexual pleasure from anyone any time, and be able to do anything, all without needing to bother with romance and seduction. Sex, while usually more pleasurable than simple fapping, is only better than masturbation if you hire a prostitute who will do anything or have a Daumer-style sex slave. That sounds really bad, but it's true.


Except "y'all" is a bunch of people who identify as feminist or pro-feminist so your whole thing that feminists don't look at these issues is dumb. The thing is that they don't act like men are oppressed in particular (they are not) and correctly identify patriarchy as one of the things at the root of the men's issues you're talking about.

(did you ever bother takin a look at that thread I mentioned to you)
Looking at and doing something about are worlds apart.
I did say that Patriarchy was the cause of male oppression, so I don't know what you mean by this.

I'm sorry which thread was that? You mentioned a blog...

[Book O'Dead]

Now you agree with me? You aren't very consistent, but I appreciate it I suppose.

I don't know that I was agreeing with you nor over what.

Men and women are oppressed by patriarchy and only Marxian feminism offers the necessary political and philosophical weapons to overthrow it.

Your "masculism' is for the half-baked birds.

[Book O'Dead]

No porn is more like being able to receive sexual pleasure from anyone any time, and be able to do anything, all without needing to bother with romance and seduction. Sex, while usually more pleasurable than simple fapping, is only better than masturbation if you hire a prostitute who will do anything or have a Daumer-style sex slave. That sounds really bad, but it's true.


Looking at and doing something about are worlds apart.
I did say that Patriarchy was the cause of male oppression, so I don't know what you mean by this.

I'm sorry which thread was that? You mentioned a blog...

In your case, I think, porn is about having sex with the only person you truly love: Yourself.

[Zav]

I don't know that I was agreeing with you nor over what.

Men and women are oppressed by patriarchy and only Marxian feminism offers the necessary political and philosophical weapons to overthrow it.

Your "masculism' is for the half-baked birds.
I guess not.

Anarcha-Feminism works too, you know.

I'm not going to stoop to insulting your ideologies.


In your case, I think, porn is about having sex with the only person you truly love: Yourself.
I don't love myself, nor anyone else. I might be a-romantic, actually. Porn is a sort of auto-sex, I suppose.

[#FF0000]

Looking at and doing something about are worlds apart.

Do men's rights groups identify patriarchy/class society as the problem like the (correct) feminists do and work to get rid of those things? Because if not what they do is pretty much useless.

and why can't you just identify as a feminist (which deals with these problems, like we've said) and still take action?


I did say that Patriarchy was the cause of male oppression, so I don't know what you mean by this.Do men's rights groups acknowledge that we live in a patriarchal society?


I'm sorry which thread was that? You mentioned a blog...The Something Awful Feminism OP.

[Book O'Dead]

I guess not.

Anarcha-Feminism works too, you know.

I'm not going to stoop to insulting your ideologies.

Admit it, you just don't know what you're talking about.

"Anarcha-Feminism"? Now I have no doubt you're a crackpot!

[Lynx]

There's an article on Anarcha-Feminism on Wikipedia.

Subtypes - Amazon · Anarchist · Black · Chicana · Christian · Cultural · Cyberfeminism · Difference · Eco · Equality · Equity · Fat · Gender · Global · Individualist · Islamic · Jewish · Lesbian · Liberal · Marxist · New · Postcolonial · Postmodern · Pro-life · Radical · Religious · Separatist · Sex-positive · Socialist · Feminist spirituality · Third world · Transfeminism · Womanism · French feminism

[Zav]

Do men's rights groups identify patriarchy/class society as the problem like the (correct) feminists do and work to get rid of those things? Because if not what they do is pretty much useless.



Do men's rights groups acknowledge that we live in a patriarchal society?



The Something Awful Feminism OP.
The real Masculists identify Patriarchy as the problem. As for class society only the Leftist ones do, as with Feminists.

Yes. There are the loud "Womenz are *****es who belong in the kitchen" groups also using the word, which is a real detriment.

I did read the link in the OP, yes, and my first posts on the thread were about that.


Admit it, you just don't know what you're talking about.

"Anarcha-Feminism"? Now I have no doubt you're a crackpot!
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Emma Goldman would hit you so hard for this dumbassery.

[Vorchev]

The article sucks. It suffers from the typical feminist problem of complaining about what men do wrong without saying what men could do right. It also goes on an abundance of guilt trips as if men are supposed to endure humiliation just to fit in with the group.

I'm not sure if the article even believes men should open their mouths... ever.

Bla, bla, bla...

[Zav]

The article sucks. It suffers from the typical feminist problem of complaining about what men do wrong without saying what men could do right. It also goes on an abundance of guilt trips as if men are supposed to endure humiliation just to fit in with the group.

I'm not sure if the article even believes men should open their mouths... ever.

Bla, bla, bla...
Well it is Wikipedia...

[Lynx]

Probably yes. I think most pornography is demeaning to both sexes as it reinforces the objectification of people into mere instruments of sexual gratification (did I say all that?).
'Most' but not 'all'. Do you agree with sex-positive feminists that some forms of pornography are not objectionable?

[#FF0000]

The real Masculists identify Patriarchy as the problem. As for class society only the Leftist ones do, as with Feminists.

So what is the difference between them and the feminists? Why do they feel the need to distinguish themselves from feminists when they have the same ideas as pro-feminists dudes?

[Lynx]

The article sucks. It suffers from the typical feminist problem of complaining about what men do wrong without saying what men could do right. It also goes on an abundance of guilt trips as if men are supposed to endure humiliation just to fit in with the group.

I'm not sure if the article even believes men should open their mouths... ever.

Bla, bla, bla...
The implied message is: shape up or ship out

[Zav]

So what is the difference between them and the feminists? Why do they feel the need to distinguish themselves from feminists when they have the same ideas as pro-feminists dudes?
Feminists never take action for men's rights, so we needed a movement to end this form of oppression.

[Book O'Dead]

'Most' but not 'all'. Do you agree with sex-positive feminists that some forms of pornography are not objectionable?

Since 'objectionable' and 'not-objectionable' are subjective terms I really don't know how to answer your question. Really.

[Book O'Dead]

Feminists never take action for men's rights, so we needed a movement to end this form of oppression.

Excuse me for stepping out of line here but I must say this: Go fuck yourself (which is probably a habitual thing with you anyway).

[#FF0000]

Feminists never take action for men's rights, so we needed a movement to end this form of oppression.

If patriarchy is oppressing or hurting men, and feminism is all about smashing that patriarchy then, uh, how can you say they don't seek to end that oppression? Unless you think patriarchy isn't hurting men and it's something else?

[Lynx]

Maybe men feel they need their own space.

[Vorchev]

Patriarchy doesn't hurt men.

What hurts men are the few wise guys who ruin patriarchy by making it appear confusing and abusive. Patriarchy means being a confident, reliable, inspiring, decisive leader. It doesn't mean being a vague, opportunistic jerk.

[Book O'Dead]

Maybe men feel they need their own space.

They've had their own space for millenia!

[Ele'ill]

Patriarchy doesn't hurt men.

What hurts men are the few wise guys who ruin patriarchy by making it appear confusing and abusive. Patriarchy means being a confident, reliable, inspiring, decisive leader. It doesn't mean being a vague, opportunistic jerk.

:confused:

[#FF0000]

Patriarchy doesn't hurt men.

What hurts men are the few wise guys who ruin patriarchy by making it appear confusing and abusive. Patriarchy means being a confident, reliable, inspiring, decisive leader. It doesn't mean being a vague, opportunistic jerk.

that is literally not what patriarchy means though. i think you're talking about "masculinity" or something but that is literally not what patriarchy means at all.

[Zav]

Excuse me for stepping out of line here but I must say this: Go fuck yourself (which is probably a habitual thing with you anyway).
Way ahead of you.;)


If patriarchy is oppressing or hurting men, and feminism is all about smashing that patriarchy then, uh, how can you say they don't seek to end that oppression? Unless you think patriarchy isn't hurting men and it's something else?
Ending Patriarchy will end male oppression, yes. Feminism is generally a reformist movement. For instance Feminists tried to pass the ERA in the '70s. Unless/until Patriarchy is abolished, there will be no one to fight for legislation preventing circumcision, ending the draft, establishing equal visiting rights with divorced parents, etcetera. Removing this oppression while we work towards abolishing Patriarchy is the primary goal of Masculism.

[Book O'Dead]

Patriarchy doesn't hurt men.

What hurts men are the few wise guys who ruin patriarchy by making it appear confusing and abusive. Patriarchy means being a confident, reliable, inspiring, decisive leader. It doesn't mean being a vague, opportunistic jerk.

Maybe you don't understand what patriarchy means.

This might help clarify your doubts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy

[Ostrinski]

the people you find on the internet

[#FF0000]

Ending Patriarchy will end male oppression, yes. Feminism is generally a reformist movement. For instance Feminists tried to pass the ERA in the '70s. Unless/until Patriarchy is abolished, there will be no one to fight for legislation preventing circumcision, ending the draft, establishing equal visiting rights with divorced parents, etcetera. Removing this oppression while we work towards abolishing Patriarchy is the primary goal of Masculism.

So why aren't they just feminists and pro-feminists who are working on doing away with these things

I am still struggling to find the point of masclulism here.

[Lynx]

They've had their own space for millenia!
Maybe they don't know how to use it. The ones that flock to the feminist movement are causing all sorts of trouble. They are invading women's space.

[#FF0000]

Maybe they don't know how to use it. The ones that flock to the feminist movement are causing all sorts of trouble. They are invading women's space.

there are dude's spaces I think. I've stumbled across places that are all about cultivating "HEALTHY MASCULINITY" and stuff and they don't seem like those dumb anti-feminist "men's rights" folks.

[Book O'Dead]

So why aren't they just feminists and pro-feminists who are working on doing away with these things

I am still struggling to find the point of masclulism here.

That's because none of us has bothered to demand that he define it with any degree of clarity beyond his bizarre preoccupation with circumcision and vague assertions about "men's rights".

The fault of all this misunderstanding lies with us.

[Zav]

So why aren't they just feminists and pro-feminists who are working on doing away with these things

I am still struggling to find the point of masclulism here.
Most are also Feminists. There are two problems with just being a Feminist here. Firstly, Masculist ideas do not have that much support in the Feminist community. Every time a Masculist brings up a male issue, they get called a whiner or are dismissed as vying for more attention (which we are, but for a good reason, not a selfish one). Secondly, society views Feminists as being either women, Queers, or both, but most strongly as women. A 'white' person advocating for 'black' rights in the '60s would be labeled all sorts of things. By having a movement focused on the rights of the male part of society (in society's eyes, anyway), we are more likely to be seen and heard. If a major Feminist group comes out demanding fixes to Masculist issues, I will love them forever. Unfortunately that hasn't and most likely will not happen.


That's because none of us has bothered to demand that he define it with any degree of clarity beyond his bizarre preoccupation with circumcision and vague assertions about "men's rights".
The fault of all this misunderstanding lies with us.
Circumcision is a human rights violation committed on two billion beings a year in the U.S. alone. You're damn right I'm going to find it important.

[Book O'Dead]

Maybe they don't know how to use it. The ones that flock to the feminist movement are causing all sorts of trouble. They are invading women's space.

Until recently women have had no real space of their own for anyone to invade.

Now that they have created a space in which to make their demands known, we men have been kindly invited to help them make it broader.

No invasion is necessary when all that is required is an alliance of equals.

[Book O'Dead]

Circumcision is a human rights violation committed on two billion beings a year in the U.S. alone. You're damn right I'm going to find it important.

I guess that you're still sore about your own circumcision. You're thinking with the wrong head, buddy!

[Vorchev]

that is literally not what patriarchy means though. i think you're talking about "masculinity" or something but that is literally not what patriarchy means at all.

There was a portion in the article that complained about "mansplaining".

I think it's obvious what feminists think patriarchy is.

[#FF0000]

Most are also Feminists. There are two problems with just being a Feminist here.

But what are the differences between masculinists and feminists? Is there any beyond "they talk about these issues"?


Secondly, society views Feminists as being either women, Queers, or both, but most strongly as women. A 'white' person advocating for 'black' rights in the '60s would be labeled all sorts of things. By having a movement focused on the rights of the male part of society (in society's eyes, anyway), we are more likely to be seen and heard. If a major Feminist group comes out demanding fixes to Masculist issues, I will love them forever. Unfortunately that hasn't and most likely will not happen.

Can you name a feminist group?

[Zav]

I guess that you're still sore about your own circumcision. You're thinking with the wrong head, buddy!
I had a part of me permanently removed for no reason without my consent, causing irreparable damage. Of course I'm not pleased about it.

You aren't thinking at all.

[#FF0000]

There was a portion in the article that complained about "mansplaining".

I think it's obvious what feminists think patriarchy is.

Yeah, a social system in which men dominate central roles of authority and as a descriptor for the structure of a society in regards to its values and the role men and women are supposed to play in that society.

[Vorchev]

Yeah, a social system in which men dominate central roles of authority and as a descriptor for the structure of a society in regards to its values and the role men and women are supposed to play in that society.

No, that's not what they were talking about.

They were talking about communication style. That's why I described leadership before.

[Book O'Dead]

I had a part of me permanently removed for no reason without my consent, causing irreparable damage. Of course I'm not pleased about it.

You aren't thinking at all.

Oh, I get it! It made your dick so small you can't find it!

This is what that French professor in a vid I watched called "phalocentrism"; you're the victim of an acute case of phalocentrism so severe you can't possibly understand why feminists don't come out in defense of your lost foreskin!

You're a sick puppy!

[Vorchev]

Oh, I get it! It made your dick so small you can't find it!

This is what that French professor in a vid I watched called "phalocentrism"; you're the victim of an acute case of phalocentrism so severe you can't possibly understand why feminists don't come out in defense of your lost foreskin!

You're a sick puppy!

Wtf?

Foreskin contains pleasure nerves that make sex excitable.

Are you trying to be a sadomasochist? Genital mutilation is horrifically inhumane.

[Zav]

But what are the differences between masculinists and feminists? Is there any beyond "they talk about these issues"?



Can you name a feminist group?
Masculists and Feminists want to end the oppression of men and women. The former focus on the former and the latter the latter. Both are Gender Egalitarians. The primary difference beyond the focus is in perception. It's like comparing Anarcho-Syndicalists and Anarcho-Communists. They want the same thing (sort of and usually), have a different focus on an aspect of how to get there, and don't talk to each other despite liking each others' ideas. Is there a basic fundamental difference that will keep them forever separated? No.

The European Women's Lobby is a famous one.


Oh, I get it! It made your dick so small you can't find it!
This is what that French professor in a vid I watched called "phalocentrism"; you're the victim of an acute case of phalocentrism so severe you can't possibly understand why feminists don't come out in defense of your lost foreskin!
You're a sick puppy!
My penis is five-ish inches. Average. I am secure enough to admit that. You on the other hand are making insults about penis size. Insecure are you? It's fine. You'll get over it.
You are an asshole. You are also the one afraid to admit that your parents committed a horrible wrong against you as a child. Freud would love you.

[Revolution starts with U]

I had a part of me permanently removed for no reason without my consent, causing irreparable damage. Of course I'm not pleased about it.

You aren't thinking at all.

No actually the damage is easily able to be repaired.


Oh, I get it! It made your dick so small you can't find it!

This is what that French professor in a vid I watched called "phalocentrism"; you're the victim of an acute case of phalocentrism so severe you can't possibly understand why feminists don't come out in defense of your lost foreskin!

You're a sick puppy!

Dude... you haven't meaningfully added to the conversation in like 3 pages :rolleyes:

[Book O'Dead]

Wtf?

Foreskin contains pleasure nerves that make sex excitable.

Are you trying to be a sadomasochist? Genital mutilation is horrifically inhumane.

Another phalocentrist posing as a physiologist!

[Book O'Dead]

No actually the damage is easily able to be repaired.



Dude... you haven't meaningfully added to the conversation in like 3 pages :rolleyes:


Bizzare as it may seem, Zav's ostensible objection to feminism seems to derive from his penis complex.

[Zav]

No actually the damage is easily able to be repaired.

The ridged band cannot be recreated. I have stretched my skin to simulate a foreskin but it still isn't as it should be.


Another phalocentrist posing as a physiologist!
You also just said that I made up Anarcha-Feminism (because apparently I'm a hundred years old). You know jack shit. Do some reading.


Bizzare as it may seem, Zav's ostensible objection to feminism seems to derive from his penis complex.
Troll harder. This claim is ridiculous, and you said PRECISELY the same thing a couple weeks ago in the last circumcision thread. At least be original.

[Vorchev]

This thread is really weird.

[Zav]

This thread is really weird.
There are some debates that will inevitably devolve into insults and phallic insecurity.

Damn that is definitely going in my signature.

[Book O'Dead]

The ridged band cannot be recreated. I have stretched my skin to simulate a foreskin but it still isn't as it should be.


You also just said that I made up Anarcha-Feminism (because apparently I'm a hundred years old). You know jack shit. Do some reading.


Troll harder. This claim is ridiculous, and you said PRECISELY the same thing a couple weeks ago in the last circumcision thread. At least be original.

In the space of a few posts you've admitted to being a compulsive onanist, a porn fiend, a resentfully circumcised dickhead, a manic depressive and a diagnosed sociopath, not to mention an avowed anti-feminist.

What can i say that will insult you?

[Lynx]

Until recently women have had no real space of their own for anyone to invade.

Now that they have created a space in which to make their demands known, we men have been kindly invited to help them make it broader.

No invasion is necessary when all that is required is an alliance of equals.
By some accounts, an invasion is what is happening. By other accounts, nothing is happening that would suggest the movement is becoming broader.

#FF0000 has provided another Google search term, "Healthy Masculinity", and there's no denying that there are alternative spaces out there.

[Zav]

In the space of a few posts you've admitted to being a compulsive onanist, a porn fiend, a resentfully circumcised dickhead, a manic depressive and a diagnosed sociopath, not to mention an avowed anti-feminist.

What can i say that will insult you?
Hmm... yes... yes... ye-well no... no... yes... and HELL FUCKING NO!

I don't know really. I'm disappointed now. I like it when you troll me. Just start making outlandish claims again.

[Hermes]

To be honest, I don't really see the need for such sectarianism.

I think Zav's right that many of the arguments made by the male community go unheard amidst the primarily female-oriented feminism movement, and that these need to be better represented.

However, I don't really see why we need two different movements. Why not just focus on ending oppression and stereotyping based on gender, regardless of what gender it happens to be? Otherwise the weaker of the two groups (Masculism and Feminism) will constantly be misunderstood/downplayed/etc.

(maybe I'm being dumb, dunno)

[Igor]

That article seems kind of... hostile, I don't know. I'm not actively involved in the feminist movement myself but I got to say, that kind of stuff doesn't really make me want to in the first place, even if I agree with feminist principles.

I mean yeah, of course men who get involved in feminist movement and start acting like dicks should be called for it, but it's still kind of annoying to read this kind of articles. I'm not "pissed off" by the article or anything, but you know, getting reminded of how I should not assume any kind of trust by feminists, how my potential gender issues completely pale in comparison to stuff women experience* and how even stuff like interrupting - which happens always in debates - could be considered "fauxminism" kind of turns me away from the movement, but not the ideas it represents.


* yeah no I'm not saying the focus should be at "men's rights" at all or that the issues are really comparable, but that article is being kind of shitty in that regard. Why you should stop listening when the draft is mentioned? Yeah, being sent to fight wars is totally not an absolutely relevant gender issue, especially because in some countries conscription is very real and really shitty, unlike in the United States where you don't have to go the army (of course, there's economic coercion etc etc but let's leave that for other discussions). Underestimating the shit that military service can bring upon young men shouldn't really be shrugged off like that, when you see the situation in countries like Russia.

[Crux]

Most are also Feminists. There are two problems with just being a Feminist here.
This should set off a few warning bells. Mainly because explicitly identifying as not a feminist and a masculist is an infinitely more clear position than claiming to be both.


By having a movement focused on the rights of the male part of society (in society's eyes, anyway), we are more likely to be seen and heard. If a major Feminist group comes out demanding fixes to Masculist issues, I will love them forever. Unfortunately that hasn't and most likely will not happen.
So basically one of the thing's the OP went out of her way to criticize directly because it is ineffective and ultimatly marginalizing for the group that feminism is supposed to represent? And no "masculism" isn't helping either. Please do define it though.


Circumcision is a human rights violation committed on two billion beings a year in the U.S. alone. You're damn right I'm going to find it important.
Be that as it may I am not sure this is the thread for you, or anyone else, to talk about your missing foreskin.

[Crux]

Patriarchy doesn't hurt men.

What hurts men are the few wise guys who ruin patriarchy by making it appear confusing and abusive. Patriarchy means being a confident, reliable, inspiring, decisive leader. It doesn't mean being a vague, opportunistic jerk.
So don't let a few bad apples ruin the great concept of female oppression?

[hatzel]

So I remember seeing the following posted on the website White Whine last month:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m54p3j5b0l1qz5tgbo1_r1_500.png

The owner of the site added the caption under this: "But…the whole country is tailored to your demographic…?"

I think that if we maybe tweak a couple of words here or there we might come to understand the true essence of this 'masculism' malarkey...

[Vorchev]

So don't let a few bad apples ruin the great concept of female oppression?

Patriarchs don't oppress women. They cherish women.

Unfortunately, men aren't as artistic as women. If women want to express their talents most emphatically, it's best for families rather than industry.

This isn't to say women should be stuck in the house all day, nor that men should be kept outside, but failing to recognize material talents is stupid.

Especially in today's world where everyone's so sensitive, people don't want to give men a chance to be artistic anyway since male art tends to be magnanimous, not luxurious.

On the other hand, when a luxurious male pops up who isn't feminine, women complain that he's crowding them out and making things difficult.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Patriarchs don't oppress women. They cherish women.

Unfortunately, men aren't as artistic as women. If women want to express their talents most emphatically, it's best for families rather than industry.

This isn't to say women should be stuck in the house all day, nor that men should be kept outside, but failing to recognize material talents is stupid.

Especially in today's world where everyone's so sensitive, people don't want to give men a chance to be artistic anyway since male art tends to be magnanimous, not luxurious.

On the other hand, when a luxurious male pops up who isn't feminine, women complain that he's crowding them out and making things difficult.

Sorry, this is all just bourgeois family morality. Since the 1800s, "masculinity" has been presented as not showing emotion while "femininity" has been constructed with the view that women are "natural" care-givers and child-raisers. Before that women were, in fact, the FIRST industrial workers in many places. In the US, for example, farmers "sold" their daughters to work in mills. When most laborers in the US were still farmers or apprentices or whatnot, young women were the extra labor that could be used by the capitalists for large-scale manufacturing. With immigration from Europe (for this US example) as well as a more established industrial production system, there was a larger proletariet to use in production and the cities had become large and liberal moralizers dennounced the horrid conditions for industrial workers - think any Dicken's novel. Well if the Victorian middle class didn't like the old "Scrooge" method for dealing with these social problems of modern cities (if they didn't want poor/work-houses and orphans and sexual promiscuity and so on) then their alternative was to bolster this concept of the family unit where men worked full time and women stayed at home - it increased male working class wages and allowed more stability and so many people accepted this as a better alternative.

But it's not "nature" it's definitely "society" and specifically industrial capitalist society.

[Vorchev]

I don't think it has to do with bourgeois mentality at all actually.

It has to do with the analytic-synthetic dichotomy.

Men have bigger brains. Women have stronger corpus callosums.

Therefore, men analyze. Women synthesize. Men are technical thinkers. Women are social thinkers.

Analysis is noumenal. Synthesis is phenomenal.

Industry is abstract. Art is concrete.

Even traditionally speaking, men think and do about what needs to get done. Women think and do about what can get done.

Necessities are industrious. Possibilities are artistic.

[Igor]

I don't think it has to do with bourgeois mentality at all actually.

It has to do with the analytic-synthetic dichotomy.

Men have bigger brains. Women have stronger corpus callosums.

Therefore, men analyze. Women synthesize. Men are technical thinkers. Women are social thinkers.

Analysis is noumenal. Synthesis is phenomenal.

Industry is abstract. Art is concrete.

Even traditionally speaking, men think and do about what needs to get done. Women think and do about what can get done.

Necessities are industrious. Possibilities are artistic.

biotruthism is dumb and you have provided absolutely no sources for your shit.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Most are also Feminists. There are two problems with just being a Feminist here. Firstly, Masculist ideas do not have that much support in the Feminist community. Every time a Masculist brings up a male issue, they get called a whiner or are dismissed as vying for more attention (which we are, but for a good reason, not a selfish one). Secondly, society views Feminists as being either women, Queers, or both, but most strongly as women. A 'white' person advocating for 'black' rights in the '60s would be labeled all sorts of things. By having a movement focused on the rights of the male part of society (in society's eyes, anyway), we are more likely to be seen and heard. If a major Feminist group comes out demanding fixes to Masculist issues, I will love them forever. Unfortunately that hasn't and most likely will not happen.


Circumcision is a human rights violation committed on two billion beings a year in the U.S. alone. You're damn right I'm going to find it important.

2 billion in the US alone? That means 80.000 bizillion a day in the whole world!

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't think it has to do with bourgeois mentality at all actually.Then why do most of these traits associated with masculinity and femininity only become commonly observed in society in the 1800s?


Therefore, men analyze. Women synthesize. Men are technical thinkers. Women are social thinkers.No, this is pseudo-science to explain away why working class men have to work and women have to raise children - this isn't "natural" it's part of the way ideas about gender have been constructed since industrialization.


Even traditionally speaking, men think and do about what needs to get done. Women think and do about what can get done.No tradditionally, women have been kept out of positions of decision-making and have no choice but to "leave the thinking to others" while they have to deal with the social cards they have been delt.

[Vorchev]

No, this is pseudo-science to explain away why working class men have to work and women have to raise children - this isn't "natural" it's part of the way ideas about gender have been constructed since industrialization.

I never said that. Women often work in artistic fields, and men teach their children how to be industrious.


No tradditionally, women have been kept out of positions of decision-making and have no choice but to "leave the thinking to others" while they have to deal with the social cards they have been delt.

:lol:

Well there's a reason for that!

Let's say you and I are competing for decision-making authority.

You're technically talented.

I'm socially talented.

Because of your technique, you've accumulated decision-making authority by creating something to decide over.

Why would you ever want me to make decisions before you? I'm socially talented, so once I'm making decisions, you're never going to recover, and the decisions I make are going to be technically disadvantaged.

[Vorchev]

biotruthism is dumb and you have provided absolutely no sources for your shit.

I'm sorry, but this is hilarious. Even feminists will agree that women think differently from men, so you need organizational diversity to appreciate feminine talents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standpoint_feminism

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm sorry, but this is hilarious. Even feminists will agree that women think differently from men, so you need organizational diversity to appreciate feminine talents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standpoint_feminism

There are no "masculine" or "feminine" talents. Your whole argument is based on stereotypes - relatively recent ones at that.

Men and women may have different social expectations and different treatment and different subjective experiences, not different brains or mental abilities.

Think through the logic of what you are arguing. Since all men don't have the same technical abilities, since not all women are naturally nuturing, does that mean that sensitive men or stay-at-home dads have brain damage? Does a non-artistic woman have some kind of mental handicap? Are female engineers or male caregivers super-geniuses?

[Vorchev]

If you don't recognize different brains or abilities, I'm sorry, but that's just deluded.

It's very well documented that men have bigger brains and women have stronger corpus callosums. It's also well documented that women are prone towards consensus whereas men are prone towards correspondence theory of truth. Women are prone towards communion, men are prone towards agency.

Of course there are exceptions to the rule. Are they damaged? No, but they're certainly different. A socialist society would account for those material differences in deciding how to distribute workloads.

[Igor]

If you don't recognize different brains or abilities, I'm sorry, but that's just deluded.

It's very well documented that men have bigger brains and women have stronger corpus callosums. It's also well documented that women are prone towards consensus whereas men are prone towards correspondence theory of truth.

if all that's "well documented" i don't think it'd be that difficult for you to go and find some of those documents for us to enjoy, especially if it could actually prove that there's actually some kind of connection between these two things. correlation not being causation etc

[Vorchev]

I don't research for people who have questionable attitudes.

There's something very snide here, and I don't like it. You won't get any research from me.

If you treat me nicely, yes. If not, no.

[cynicles]

I don't research for people who have questionable attitudes.

There's something very snide here, and I don't like it. You won't get any research from me.

If you treat me nicely, yes. If not, no.

You could just produce the research for scrutiny or we'll just assume you're making up shit.

[Igor]

You could just produce the research for scrutiny or we'll just assume you're making up shit.

yeah but that would be mean and snide

[Book O'Dead]

If you don't recognize different brains or abilities, I'm sorry, but that's just deluded.

It's very well documented that men have bigger brains and women have stronger corpus callosums.[...]

The myth about brain size in normal humans has been debunked. It belongs to 19th Century pseudo-science.

Read Stephen Jay Gould's book "The Mismeasure of Man" to find out why it is false that brain size plays a significant role in human behavior and mental capacity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

mhmm, i guess i know quite a lot of supposedly femminst men who really should take bits of this article to heart, on the other hand, i really cant stand suposedly femminst women who constantly abuse these kind of analysis as proof i'm a sexist and win a discussion by default.
i mean, just look at "proof of fauxminism 1", sorry but i constantly interrupt anyone i debate/speak with, wheter your male of female, maybe i'm just an allround asshole but dont abuse it as proof of my sexism. if i interupt because you are a woman then yes i'm a sexist, but when i interupt you because you are making an idiotic statement i'm just right and your wrong and i'm not going to extend you special privilige because of that you identify as female.
and sorry, but i meet these kind of "feminists" way to often, now i'm no enemy of "white, male, hetero etc privelige" analsys, i think it hold much water but it doesnt suddenly mean you are exempt from al critisism if you tick less or other boxes than someone other. i really seen to many white, upperclass, university educated women or gay guys or self declared feminist men bellitle black or workingclass men and women as inherently sexist or homophobic before they even get to open their mouth. and this goes all ways, its no different with lots of suposedly anti-racist or gay "activists" who will lable anyone who will disagree with them on anything (not only on actvist things but even stupid day to day shit) as "racist" or "homophobic", i seriously got called a homo-phobe last week when i asked a (apperently gay) guy not to piss against a friends frontdoor.
we should all be consious of our priviliges and avoid any behavior that stems from that or gives unfair advantage but the way this article is worded is helping no-one.
dont really want to use the "no you!" argument but i must say its pretty sexist at places...

Off topic


i just bet that you only like psychos posts (its noting wrong with it) you just liked it because he is an admin. (Kiss ass)
If the same post was made by an regular member it would only get 2 liked posts.

Also this forum is about "equality" so why do admins have bigger avatars than regular users,or is revleft under we are all equal just others are more equal than others rule?


Thanks for reading

Zaphod

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Off topic


i just bet that you only like psychos posts (its noting wrong with it) you just liked it because he is an admin. (Kiss ass)
If the same post was made by an regular member it would only get 2 liked posts.

Also this forum is about "equality" so why do admins have bigger avatars than regular users,or is revleft under we are all equal just others are more equal than others rule?


Thanks for reading

Zaphod


Don't whine about a non-problem.
I, for example, thanked it because I agreed.

[bcbm]

There are two problems with just being a Feminist here. Firstly, Masculist ideas do not have that much support in the Feminist community. Every time a Masculist brings up a male issue, they get called a whiner or are dismissed as vying for more attention (which we are, but for a good reason, not a selfish one).

i can't imagine why people trying to overcome centuries of patriarchal domination would be skeptical when men show up in their groups and try to turn the conversation towards men's issues.


If a major Feminist group comes out demanding fixes to Masculist issues, I will love them forever.

yeah if only the national organization for women would spend a little more time thinking about men, then as a male i could appreciate them more.


Circumcision is a human rights violation committed on two billion beings a year in the U.S. alone.

do they import them or something?


I think Zav's right that many of the arguments made by the male community go unheard amidst the primarily female-oriented feminism movement, and that these need to be better represented.

i don't think there is a need for feminist groups to spend much time addressing 'mens issues' except insofar as they relate to patriarchal society but that said, i can also understand being skeptical of groups who spend more time attacking the feminists they claim are their allies than power structures that are the real problem.


That article seems kind of... hostile, I don't know.

why can't they just be nicer in dealing with this bullshit?!

[The Machine]

"If you are pissed off by this article"

lol you can't really win can you. I'm not sure why anyone on a revolutionary leftist site would care whether they are a feminist or a fauximist in the first place. Feminism is as removed from the class struggle and revolutionary politics as it always has been historically. Anarchists and I'm guessing the more enlightened communists have always been better on womens issues than the feminists. Feminism's role in bourgeoius politics is pretty much done on a mass movement scale and it will remain forever in the liberal activist ghetto.

[Le Socialiste]

"If you are pissed off by this article"

lol you can't really win can you. I'm not sure why anyone on a revolutionary leftist site would care whether they are a feminist or a fauximist in the first place. Feminism is as removed from the class struggle and revolutionary politics as it always has been historically. Anarchists and I'm guessing the more enlightened communists have always been better on womens issues than the feminists. Feminism's role in bourgeoius politics is pretty much done on a mass movement scale and it will remain forever in the liberal activist ghetto.

That's ridiculous. Feminism, like any way or form of thinking, doesn't spring up arbitrarily; it is best understood in its relation to past and present conditions, providing the available means for its development as a legitimate representation of the challenges and obstacles faced by women on a day to day basis. Women are, by decree of social convention, in a precarious situation financially, sexually, reproductively, mentally, physically, and emotionally, bound by a predominantly patriarchal cultural mindset that thrives on the material degradation of female independence.

Women's struggles are an inherent aspect of our fight as a class, arising within a specific context that makes them as integral to our politics as they are in everyday situations. You can't "remove" feminism from the class struggle and denounce it as irrelevant in the same breath.

[cynicles]

*Masculism.
How many Feminists do you know who are anti-circumcision activists? How many speak out against custody rights injustices, forced conscription (only registration in the U.S., but still), and the stereotypes and expectations of masculinity? I have heard of none.

I could say Feminism is unnecessary because we have Gender Egalitarianism and I'd get uber-negged or restricted for misogyny. Unfortunately society still boxes people by sex. People need to fight for their own liberation, according to most on here, so how do you suggest men's rights gain anything if Masculism is unnecessary?
It's funny that you should bring up the "stereotypes and expectations of masculinity?" issue since that was directly addressed in the article. Also wouldn't circumcision be more related to children's rights? And I hear a lot of people talk about the custody thing but I rearely see any evidense for this beyond anecdote, can you provide and statistical data to prove this is the rule and not the exception to the rule. I agree that it's not fair to be bias towards the mother but ever since I learned about that hot coffee incident with the lady and McDonalds and the torte reform obsession I'm suspicious of these claims that elevate anecdotal evidence to vast generalizations. Finally, no one is stopping you from talking about military conscription, but if women we're included in the draft then they would have to fix a whole lot of shit in the military given teh level of sexual abuse, rape, violence against women, and physical limitations that women would face.

[Crux]

I don't research for people who have questionable attitudes.

There's something very snide here, and I don't like it. You won't get any research from me.

If you treat me nicely, yes. If not, no.
oh another scientist? Where did you get your degree?

[Lynx]

Differentiating between male and female skeletons is possible, so why not brains?

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Differentiating between male and female skeletons is possible, so why not brains?
Because the existence of trans[gender] people disproves the notion that male or female bodies are necessarily born with male or female minds.

[Lynx]

Because the existence of trans[gender] people disproves the notion that male or female bodies are necessarily born with male or female minds.
If there are more than two types of brains, then maybe they too can be differentiated.

The functioning of the brain (ie. minds) can be differentiated through observation and gathering of data.

If brain function were not a black box, more could be confirmed or debunked.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

If there are more than two types of brains, then maybe they too can be differentiated.

The functioning of the brain (ie. minds) can be differentiated through observation and gathering of data.

If brain function were not a black box, more could be confirmed or debunked.
Certainly, you could "differentiate" between different brain types. But I was not speaking of brains but of minds. I do not believe they are the same thing. Of course you cannot have a mind without a brain, but one is not reducible to the other. What I am trying to say is that focusing exclusively on biology is a mistake. Biological differences alone cannot account for or explain social differences.

[Lynx]

Certainly, you could "differentiate" between different brain types. But I was not speaking of brains but of minds. I do not believe they are the same thing. Of course you cannot have a mind without a brain, but one is not reducible to the other. What I am trying to say is that focusing exclusively on biology is a mistake. Biological differences alone cannot account for or explain social differences.
Biological differences could explain what is innate, regardless of environment. But in the absence of raising and studying people in a vacuum, it can only suggest what mechanisms lie underneath.

Some brain functions are becoming reducible. For example, whether someone is L1 or L2 multilingual. Or whether someone is lying.

[Le Socialiste]

There is no evidence to support the assertion that men's and women's brains are responsible for the disparate gender roles (and by extension, inequalities) that are expected and enforced daily. There is no basis for the differentiation between male and female minds, plain and simple. Women are, on average, thought to excel at communication, whereas men are more oriented around technical skills - could it be that women are given more opportunities on average to explain what they think and feel than men? Of course females are considered better at communication, they've been doing it since they were young girls! Boys aren't typically expected to voice their emotions; they're given toys and activities that push them to develop their technical skills and use their heads.

Brain size doesn't matter either - men's brains aren't even proportionally larger than women's. As for men's and women's brains being better suited for certain tasks, or testosterone and estrogen playing a role:


Many believe that “male” and “female” hormones differentially shape the brain, leading some to conclude that these hormonal differences cause men to be better leaders and thinkers. Although it is true that males generally have more testosterone, while females have more estrogen, men and women possess both hormones. These hormones perform other functions besides those related to reproduction; for instance, the male brain needs estrogen for normal brain development and function. And testosterone is also important to women; for example, in the development and maintenance of libido.


Although the popular press often touts the importance of testosterone to the behavior of men, this claim is also overstated. A 1996 study showed that even unnaturally large doses of testosterone did not alter the mood or behavior of normal men (although it did exaggerate aggression for men who were already aggressive).


[E]ven if estrogen and testosterone did shape the brain in different ways, it is an unsubstantiated, logical leap to conclude that such differences cause, “…men to occupy top academic positions in the sciences and engineering or top positions of political or social power, while women are hopelessly ill-equipped for such offices.”

http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2011/is-female-brain-innately-inferior

[Hermes]

So I remember seeing the following posted on the website White Whine last month:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m54p3j5b0l1qz5tgbo1_r1_500.png

The owner of the site added the caption under this: "But…the whole country is tailored to your demographic…?"

I think that if we maybe tweak a couple of words here or there we might come to understand the true essence of this 'masculism' malarkey...

See, but this seems to me to argue that just because one race/gender/etc has been on top for however long, now it's someone else's turn to be on top.

I don't think the way to correct this sort of thing is through jerking the wheel the other way as hard as you can. We should work to equalize, not to prefer one or the other.

[bcbm]

i don't think whether or not there are differences in male and female brains has much of anything to do with feminism and destroying patriarchy


See, but this seems to me to argue that just because one race/gender/etc has been on top for however long, now it's someone else's turn to be on top.

i don't think that is the point at all

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Biological differences could explain what is innate, regardless of environment. But in the absence of raising and studying people in a vacuum, it can only suggest what mechanisms lie underneath.
But I find this to be a mechanistic approach. Whatever the "innate" function may be does not at all negate the "environment", as you call it. Reducing the mind to the brain essentially is an invitation to "blot out the role of society in mental development," which could lead to reactionary prescriptions. It plays just as much a crucial role in human life and we must resist this tendency to ignore the social sphere.

[Lynx]

But I find this to be a mechanistic approach. Whatever the "innate" function may be does not at all negate the "environment", as you call it. Reducing the mind to the brain essentially is an invitation to "blot out the role of society in mental development," which could lead to reactionary prescriptions. It plays just as much a crucial role in human life and we must resist this tendency to ignore the social sphere.
The brain evolved in response to its environment; the attempt to isolate what is innate should not be seen as negating the environment, or advocating prescriptions that affect individual freedom.

Reduce, but always reassemble.

[Lynx]

Everyone has the right to complain.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

The brain evolved in response to its environment; the attempt to isolate what is innate should not be seen as negating the environment, or advocating prescriptions that affect individual freedom.

Reduce, but always reassemble.
In regards to the brain evolving in response to the environment, I am not suggesting otherwise. But you can't expect to find what is biologically "innate" by ignoring the environment. Human nature cannot be found this way. Just as nature affects man, man affects nature. It is a intricate relationship that cannot be boiled down to chemicals or brain tissue. On the other hand, the approach you're suggesting has opened the way to precisely what I described as "reactionary" prescriptions. Instead of treating the social causes of mental illness, for example, numerous drugs are prescribed that don't usually work, and vice versa.

Women are routinely denounced as being slaves to their hormones, as well. If we want to scientifically understand humans, we must take a holistic approach, not a reductive one.

Okay, I'm done derailing this thread. Sorry, everybody.

[Le Socialiste]

See, but this seems to me to argue that just because one race/gender/etc has been on top for however long, now it's someone else's turn to be on top.

Nope.


I don't think the way to correct this sort of thing is through jerking the wheel the other way as hard as you can. We should work to equalize, not to prefer one or the other.

Where in that post did anybody advocate "jerking the wheel the other way?" This isn't about giving 'preferential treatment' to any specific demographic at the expense of another (short of combatting privileges socially prescribed based on one's status within patriarchy and the racial spectrum).

[Lynx]

In regards to the brain evolving in response to the environment, I am not suggesting otherwise. But you can't expect to find what is biologically "innate" by ignoring the environment.
To design an experiment that controls for all environmental influences is likely impossible.

On the other hand, the approach you're suggesting has opened the way to precisely what I described as "reactionary" prescriptions. Instead of treating the social causes of mental illness, for example, numerous drugs are prescribed that don't usually work, and vice versa.
Neuroscience is not to blame for the pharmaceuticals pursuit of profit.

[Invader Zim]

Oh, I get it! It made your dick so small you can't find it!

This is what that French professor in a vid I watched called "phalocentrism"; you're the victim of an acute case of phalocentrism so severe you can't possibly understand why feminists don't come out in defense of your lost foreskin!

You're a sick puppy!

Actually a circumcision can have a profound negative influence on the male experience of intercourse.

There are times when it is necessary, such as phimosis and a choice to be made by informed adults, but the religious delusions of parents should not be one of them.

But to be honest, it seems like a rather tangental issue to be discussing in the relation to the article posted in the OP.

[Book O'Dead]

Actually a circumcision can have a profound negative influence on the male experience of intercourse.

There are times when it is necessary, such as phimosis and a choice to be made by informed adults, but the religious delusions of parents should not be one of them.

But to be honest, it seems like a rather tangental issue to be discussing in the relation to the article posted in the OP.

So your reason from bringing up again in this thread is...what?

[Invader Zim]

So your reason from bringing up again in this thread is...what?

Good question. Normally I wouldn't have bothered, but you were being a smug prick... and you were trivializing the wholly unnecessary practice which is effectively the religiously motivated assault of infant boys.

[Veovis]

I guess that you're still sore about your own circumcision. You're thinking with the wrong head, buddy!

"I guess you're still sore about getting raped. Get over it buddy!"

How is this any different?

[Invader Zim]

"I guess you're still sore about getting raped. Get over it buddy!"

How is this any different?

You're comparing rape to circumcision?

[¿Que?]

Majakovskij, this was a good article, imo. I particularly find that when reading feminist critiques, if I find myself getting defensive in some way, it really helps me to get my ideas in order and rethink some of my assumptions. I think a lot of men have similar reactions, and fixate on taking a defensive position, which ends up validating what a lot of the criticisms were talking about in the first place. It is useful rather than indulging in that kneejerk reaction, to take the time to think through what the arguments are and come to a reasoned, thoughtful conclusion.

My problem, however, is that the criticisms of masculinist behavior and assumptions have been done to death. Further, I would argue, a lot of men's incapacity to truly check the their privilege, by giving into their defensive impulse, when their privilege is legitimately challenged, is one reason that there has been so much backlash in recent years to the feminist movement. Primarily, why among greater society, that is, not radicals, academics and people within various social justice movements, the word feminism itself is viewed so disparagingly. I'm really not sure if this is actually the case, but it sure does seem that way when you go to sites like 4chan, or even more moderate "boys club" type sites like reddit.

It seems that we have sort of a feminism without feminism (mostly thinking about western culture here). That is, we often hear of the brutality of this or that Islamic country on the way they treat their women. There really isn't much popular media which actually challenges gender assumptions in western society. Most of it involves either the evildoing muslims, or the evil doing sex traffickers, and both of these lead to, in political discourse, to affirmations of imperialism and censorship (I mean, wasn't one of the arguments in favor of SOPA that it would facilitate tracking down child pornographers).

Meanwhile, well intentioned, although probably imperfect feminist and pro-feminist men (a semantic distinction, really that I don't care to get into here) are constantly attacked on all sides. Anti-feminists label them pussies and manginas, while there is no shortage of feminist critiques about the well intentioned, but still sexist pro-feminist men. This is problematic, but it is not entirely without reason or purpose. The "calling out" of fauxminism is important, but it should be focused on local and/or specific struggles and communities. I don't really find much use in any broad based analysis of fauxminism in general. This has been done plenty of times, and its time to move on.

What I find completely lacking (although this could be due to my ignorance on the subject rather than any objective condition) is a serious broad based feminist critique with a significant reflexive content. That is, feminists should start focusing on where the movement falls short with respect to women. My argument is basically that the project of third-wave feminism is far from complete, and that these sorts of critiques against men, when not situated in specific instances or rooted in particular struggles or communities, marks a step backwards in the progress of feminism. It is no surprise then, that we are seeing a lot of what happened during the 70's and 80's resurface and reenacted in a 21st century context (critiques of sex work, validating traditionally patriarchal institutions as possibly liberatory for women, things like church, traditional marriage, and stay at home moms, basically what is termed choice feminism, and a general resurgence of conservative feminism but with general apprehension on using the actual term "feminism").

Of course, these coincide with other political trends, and feminism as such shouldn't take all the heat. For one thing, third wave feminism, with its specific insistence on focusing on the heterogeneous experiences of feminism, mostly through the lens of race, class, and sexual politics, may have had the effect of balkanizing the women's movement, which may have then lost its original strength in unity. However, this does not invalidate the critiques that were made.

I think the most important part of the article was when it actually referenced men's reaction to reactionary women, the fact that it is still not OK to call someone like Palin, Clinton, or Bachman a whore, *****, ****, etc. However, what is truly lacking is specifically how are men supposed to react to anti-feminist, conservative, and generally reactionary women, while, on the one hand, promoting the feminist project, and on the other hand, not mansplaning or invalidating women's expriences or capabilities.

On the issue of manspalining, I realize that this post may be construed as such, although I am trying my hardest not to. But I was recently in such a situation, where one woman I knew posted something on facebook about how she had no problem cooking and cleaning for her man, and generally making him happy, while another woman chimed in that she had the right attitude, and that those "angry feminists" were making good women look bad. Another time, I got into a heated debate (again on facebook) with a self-avowed anti-choice feminist (who, surprise surprise, spearheaded a campaign against a visit to a book chain store by Larry Flynt). And still another time I was confronted with another "feminist" who said she had no problem cooking and cleaning the house, because of the clearly defined gender division of labor in her home. Her job was to cook, clean and tend to the house, while her husband's job was general maintenance on their vehicles. Apparently, the idea of gendered division of labor, and the fact that some labor is considered more valuable, both materially and culturally, completely escaped what she saw as a perfectly egalitarian arrangement.

And I'm not even going to consider the times when I've seen women of various ethnicities (but mostly Latina and Asian) who have personally told me, but also through browsing dating sites, that they were strictly interested in white men (obviously with well paying jobs, but if economics is the issue, why bring race into it?). Suffice it to say that this is all too common and deserves examination elsewhere, and by other people (particularly feminist women).

How is a well intentioned, albeit imperfect supporter of feminism supposed to react to all of this. Sadly, the literature that I've seen is all too quiet on these issues...

[Lynx]

Comparing which comment is more insensitive?

[Book O'Dead]

Good question. Normally I wouldn't have bothered, but you were being a smug prick... and you were trivializing the wholly unnecessary practice which is effectively the religiously motivated assault of infant boys.

I'm sorry if what i write here makes me sound like a "smug prick". It's not my intention.

But it seems to me that you've come from left field (in the pejorative sense) to take issue with me over something I said about circumcision when what is the main topic of this thread is the question of how thinking men ought to behave when confronted with Feminism and the women who champion its cause.

Can men stop thinking about themselves and the welfare of their penises long enough to be of any use to the true cause of Feminism?

That's the question at hand.

Anyway, you have no right to get mad at me when all i did was respond to the person who first brought up the subject of circumcision.

Read the thread over again. You'll see.

[Book O'Dead]

"I guess you're still sore about getting raped. Get over it buddy!"

How is this any different?

It's different inasmuch as male circumcision is not a form of rape. Whereas if you compared any form of sexual abuse with FEMALE circumcision or genital mutilation of the female sexual organ I will heartily agree with you.

[Book O'Dead]

[...]

On the issue of manspalining, I realize that this post may be construed as such, although I am trying my hardest not to. But I was recently in such a situation, where one woman I knew posted something on facebook about how she had no problem cooking and cleaning for her man, and generally making him happy, while another woman chimed in that she had the right attitude, and that those "angry feminists" were making good women look bad.[...]

The sentence I highlighted is wrong, as far as i know.

The other part is good.
Lets say that I, who am a man, can't find gainful employment in my field in the place where I live. Let's say, also, that my friend, who happens to be a woman and with whom I share bed, board and just about everything else, has gainful employment in an indsutry that still manages to thrive and pay a good salary that covers, within certain limitations, our mutual expenses.

Wouldn't it be logical that I take pride in helping my mate to keep her job so as to provide for the two of us?

Think about it.

[Veovis]

You're comparing rape to circumcision?

You think they're any different?

Here I thought I was in for a thoughtful discussion thread on feminism, but here I find the same ghouls making apologies for genital cutting.

[Book O'Dead]

You think they're any different?

Here I thought I was in for a thoughtful discussion thread on feminism, but here I find the same ghouls making apologies for genital cutting.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." --Wm. Shakespeare

[¿Que?]

The sentence I highlighted is wrong, as far as i know.

The other part is good.
Lets say that I, who am a man, can't find gainful employment in my field in the place where I live. Let's say, also, that my friend, who happens to be a woman and with whom I share bed, board and just about everything else, has gainful employment in an indsutry that still manages to thrive and pay a good salary that covers, within certain limitations, our mutual expenses.

Wouldn't it be logical that I take pride in helping my mate to keep her job so as to provide for the two of us?

Think about it.
And finally, we can clearly point to Book O' Dead's deeply ingrained gender assumptions...

What makes you think my friend is unemployed? I met her in graduate school, and she is currently employed at the university.

It does seem you're the one that needs to do a little more thinking.

[Invader Zim]

I'm sorry if what i write here makes me sound like a "smug prick". It's not my intention.

But it seems to me that you've come from left field (in the pejorative sense) to take issue with me over something I said about circumcision when what is the main topic of this thread is the question of how thinking men ought to behave when confronted with Feminism and the women who champion its cause.

Can men stop thinking about themselves and the welfare their penises long enough to be of any use to the true cause of Feminism?

That's the question at hand (no pun intended).

Anyway, you have no right to get mad at me when all i did was respond to the person who first brought up the subject of circumcision.

Read the thread over again. You'll see.

Damn, son. You're the one obsessing about dicks here, not I, and you laid into another member who had the audacity to disagree with you. And you said something that is factually inaccurate, or at least highly debatable, and I corrected you, because you were wrong... that and I didn't like the tone in which you addressed another member which was pretty mean and unpleasant.

And, if you want to bring the issue from beyond the tangential then consider the issue of circumcision how it should be, and analyse it through the prism of the social construction of gender.


Can men stop thinking about themselves and the welfare their penises long enough to be of any use to the true cause of Feminism?

The two are not actually mutually exclusive.


Anyway, you have no right to get mad

Who say's I'm mad? I actually think the standard of your responses has improved dramatically in this thread since your posts to Zav. So why would I be mad?


when all i did was respond to the person who first brought up the subject of circumcision.

Yes, and I then responded to you, while admitting that the issue was in fact only tangentially relevant. Though, as noted, if we bothered to look at the issue of gender with a little more depth of analysis it would be a little more than tangential. But now I'm in serious danger of being a smug prick myself, so I'll stop.

[Book O'Dead]

And finally, we can clearly point to Book O' Dead's deeply ingrained gender assumptions...

What makes you think my friend is unemployed? I met her in graduate school, and she is currently employed at the university.

It does seem you're the one that needs to do a little more thinking.

I was describing a simple hypothetical scenario and was not making any assumptions about your friend or anyone else, living or dead, etc., etc.

In fact, I was trying to describe in a discrete way my own personal circumstance to illustrate the point that there's nothing wrong with taking pride in being a good housekeeper in behalf of your significant other, regardless of gender or sex or whatever...

It's not an act of servility to be a good and useful companion to your partner when circumstance demands it, nor is it a blot upon feminism.

[¿Que?]

I was describing a simple hypothetical scenario and was not making any assumptions about your friend or anyone else, living or dead, etc., etc.
Except that I wasn't talking about a hypothetical situation. I was talking about a concrete, real life situation in which both people worked, and yet only one of them was responsible for domestic work. And you described it as being good.


In fact, I was trying to describe in a discrete way my own personal circumstance to illustrate the point that there's nothing wrong with taking pride in being a good housekeeper in behalf of your significant other, regardless of gender or sex or whatever...
And I was never arguing against this. You can take pride in your work, and it's often better when you do.


It's not an act of servility to be a good and useful companion to your partner when circumstance demands it, nor is it a blot upon feminism.
It's problematic because a) the majority of cases involving such arrangements have a very distinct and gendered makeup. In the majority of cases, women perform domestic work, and the man brings in the money and b) Such situations have very specific power dynamics. The individual that is responsible for the domestic work is also economically dependent on the other person. That basically means that the relationship has very tangible, material consequences if it doesn't work out. For the working professional, the relationship is simply a matter of personal fulfillment and is not as fundamentally connected to their material well being.

[Veovis]

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." --Wm. Shakespeare

So you're quoting Shakespeare to imply that protesting about rape is somehow wrong?

[Book O'Dead]

So you're quoting Shakespeare to imply that protesting about rape is somehow wrong?

What planet did you say you were from? I'm sorry, I didn't catch it when you first came in.

[Veovis]

What planet did you say you were from? I'm sorry, I didn't catch it when you first came in.

The planet where cutting a minor's genitals without a pressing medical need is seen as wrong and objectionable.

If you're going to continue with ad hominem attacks instead of debate, would you kindly go away and take your childishness elsewhere?

[bcbm]

My problem, however, is that the criticisms of masculinist behavior and assumptions have been done to death.

if the issue has never been solved it is still an issue


Further, I would argue, a lot of men's incapacity to truly check the their privilege, by giving into their defensive impulse, when their privilege is legitimately challenged, is one reason that there has been so much backlash in recent years to the feminist movement.

indeed


Primarily, why among greater society, that is, not radicals, academics and people within various social justice movements, the word feminism itself is viewed so disparagingly. I'm really not sure if this is actually the case, but it sure does seem that way when you go to sites like 4chan, or even more moderate "boys club" type sites like reddit.

i think it has to do with the general conservative backlash that has been happening since nixon won the election way back when. there was a hard push to the left in the 60s by part of society and since we have seen reaction to that, to the point today where complete misogyny can go basically unquestioned.


It seems that we have sort of a feminism without feminism (mostly thinking about western culture here). That is, we often hear of the brutality of this or that Islamic country on the way they treat their women. There really isn't much popular media which actually challenges gender assumptions in western society. Most of it involves either the evildoing muslims, or the evil doing sex traffickers, and both of these lead to, in political discourse, to affirmations of imperialism and censorship (I mean, wasn't one of the arguments in favor of SOPA that it would facilitate tracking down child pornographers). [/quoted]

the feminist project has been hijacked by conservative forces, basically like everything else that could be salvaged by conservatives from the 60s. more specifically i guess this is where you see the divide between feminists, with the wing more sympathetic to the ruling culture supporting this shit and a radical wing continuing the fight.

[quote]Meanwhile, well intentioned, although probably imperfect feminist and pro-feminist men (a semantic distinction, really that I don't care to get into here) are constantly attacked on all sides.

oh the poor bastards



Anti-feminists label them pussies and manginas, while there is no shortage of feminist critiques about the well intentioned, but still sexist pro-feminist men. This is problematic, but it is not entirely without reason or purpose. The "calling out" of fauxminism is important, but it should be focused on local and/or specific struggles and communities. I don't really find much use in any broad based analysis of fauxminism in general. This has been done plenty of times, and its time to move on.

if the issue still exists, and it does, i don't see any reason to downplay or try to 'localize' it to, in effect, make men feel better. i think this just comes into a very common ground for 'feminist' men 'well i am trying, leave me alone!' but in fact the 'feminist' men can be worse than those who are outright chauvinists


What I find completely lacking (although this could be due to my ignorance on the subject rather than any objective condition) is a serious broad based feminist critique with a significant reflexive content. That is, feminists should start focusing on where the movement falls short with respect to women.

there are plenty of women making these analyses i think


I think the most important part of the article was when it actually referenced men's reaction to reactionary women, the fact that it is still not OK to call someone like Palin, Clinton, or Bachman a whore, *****, ****, etc. However, what is truly lacking is specifically how are men supposed to react to anti-feminist, conservative, and generally reactionary women, while, on the one hand, promoting the feminist project, and on the other hand, not mansplaning or invalidating women's expriences or capabilities.

i think it is perfectly clear- we react to them as we react to reactionary men. challenge them on a political basis, not on terms that fall back on their sex.


On the issue of manspalining, I realize that this post may be construed as such, although I am trying my hardest not to. But I was recently in such a situation, where one woman I knew posted something on facebook about how she had no problem cooking and cleaning for her man, and generally making him happy, while another woman chimed in that she had the right attitude, and that those "angry feminists" were making good women look bad. Another time, I got into a heated debate (again on facebook) with a self-avowed anti-choice feminist (who, surprise surprise, spearheaded a campaign against a visit to a book chain store by Larry Flynt). And still another time I was confronted with another "feminist" who said she had no problem cooking and cleaning the house, because of the clearly defined gender division of labor in her home. Her job was to cook, clean and tend to the house, while her husband's job was general maintenance on their vehicles. Apparently, the idea of gendered division of labor, and the fact that some labor is considered more valuable, both materially and culturally, completely escaped what she saw as a perfectly egalitarian arrangement.

i don't think these examples relate to 'mansplaining'


How is a well intentioned, albeit imperfect supporter of feminism supposed to react to all of this. Sadly, the literature that I've seen is all too quiet on these issues...

polite but to the point arguments.


You think they're any different?

Here I thought I was in for a thoughtful discussion thread on feminism, but here I find the same ghouls making apologies for genital cutting.

rape is very, very different from circumcision and i am being very, very, very polite in restraining what i would like to say to you.

[individualist]

You're comparing rape to circumcision?
Circumcision is worse. It cuases permenant damage to the body, unlike rape, which in most cases cause psycological damage that can be treated over time.

[#FF0000]

yo circumcision is not as traumatic as rape holy shit you people

[bcbm]

Circumcision is worse. It cuases permenant damage to the body, unlike rape, which in most cases cause psycological damage that can be treated over time.

jesus christ are you sure they snipped your dick and not your brain?

[¿Que?]

if the issue still exists, and it does, i don't see any reason to downplay or try to 'localize' it to, in effect, make men feel better. i think this just comes into a very common ground for 'feminist' men 'well i am trying, leave me alone!' but in fact the 'feminist' men can be worse than those who are outright chauvinists
I am not trying to downplay this, and I am not implying that the purpose of "localizing" what I would actually call "contextualizing" this is to make men feel better. It is actually the opposite, the purpose is to make men accountable, through pressure from the movement and community, rather than expecting men to read something like this and take self corrective measures. All too often, men will read criticisms like this, and in spite of engaging in one or more of these behaviors, they will be convinced that the criticisms don't actually apply to them. They may say that even if they do some of these things, they don't do it so much, or they may even point to someone else in the movement, and say that their behavior is much worse, or they may even pick and choose (well I agree with this point, but not that other one, so I'm cool).



there are plenty of women making these analyses i think

Well then I'd love to read some.


i think it is perfectly clear- we react to them as we react to reactionary men. challenge them on a political basis, not on terms that fall back on their sex.
Well, it's really not that simple. Let's say you're at a protest, and there's a reactionary counter protester that is getting belligerent. I think the way you deal with this person is really contingent on their gender, don't you?



i don't think these examples relate to 'mansplaining'

Those example were meant to express situations where I wasn't sure how to react, what specifically to say, because I didn't want to invalidate these women's experiences as women, while at the same time object to their opinions. Basically, I didn't want to be mansplaining.



polite but to the point arguments.

Again, things are not that simple. What if the person is not being polite to you, is being belligerent or even potentially violent?

Further, I would argue that being polite is not always a good thing, and does not necessarily imply the absence of mansplaining. I deal with really polite reactionaries all the time, and they make me even more furious than the ones who are honest about how they feel. They'll often use the tone argument discussed in the article to invalidate the points you are making.

In any case, even if what you're saying is true, and I believe to some extent it is, what I'm arguing for is specific strategies, not general one's. Some "don'ts" could be extrapolated from the article - don't interrupt, don't use condescending tones etc, but what about some do's?

[Dumb]

The whole idea of "male feminists" is laughable - to be a male is, by definition, to be a chauvinist, a misogynist, what have you. My favorite is this concise, convincing explanation (http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/patriarchy-blaming-the-twisty-way/men-2/).

[Crux]

So question, how did we go from my OP to a discussion about bullshit popscience, male circumcision and ehrm "masculism"? I just think that "evolution" of the thread itself is rather interesting to the subject at hand.

[Os Cangaceiros]

So question, how did we go from my OP to a discussion about bullshit popscience, male circumcision and ehrm "masculism"?

There are a lot of dudes on this site. The discussion got brought back to dude things.

[Book O'Dead]

The whole idea of "male feminists" is laughable - to be a male is, by definition, to be a chauvinist, a misogynist, what have you. My favorite is this concise, convincing explanation (http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/patriarchy-blaming-the-twisty-way/men-2/).

I disagree. You can spiritually balance the male and the female aspects of your personality without losing what is good in either aspect of your self.

The problem is that we are conditioned by a combination of social convention and biological coincidence to act in specific, often anti-social ways to members of the opposite sex.

Also, you have to acknowledge that men, despite their awful contradictions, are as human as women. In fact, we are indispensable to one another because without women and men there can be no boys and girls.

[Dumb]

This article makes this good points. The "tone" one really spoke to me.
I hate the "tone" argument. I've been called "angry" and "hostile" by guys when I'm not actually being any more angry or hostile than they are. Because a woman being indignant and standing strongly by her opinion makes her apparently "full of rage."

"Go with the flow!" "Relax!" "Take it easy!" "Take a chill pill!" "Don't get your panties all up in a bunch!" - yeah, seen it, and I know what you mean. It's like your own life and experiences suddenly don't matter. :confused:


So question, how did we go from my OP to a discussion about bullshit popscience, male circumcision and ehrm "masculism"?

We got butthurt over having our privilege placed under examination.

[Igor]

We got butthurt over having our privilege placed under examination.

that's not really a sentence where you want to use homophobic language though

[¿Que?]

that's not really a sentence where you want to use homophobic language though
Homophobic? I thought we weren't using that because it trivializes rape. Meh, either way, I think it's one of those words that will probably end up getting you restricted, although I'm not sure if we have an actual systematic list of forbidden words and phrases. I for one have used this word in a recent thread, although another user made a subtle remark suggesting (at least to me) its inappropriateness on this forum, and have stopped employing it ever since.

[Book O'Dead]

I think this Thread has run its course. I move it be closed.

[Quail]

I think this Thread has run its course. I move it be closed.
I think it has run its course but I also think some of the responses have highlighted a problem with some of the posters here. Being too defensive is really counterproductive. If you want to free yourselves from patriarchal conditioning then you have to be willing to listen to and take on board criticisms instead of being on the defensive and you have to be willing to examine yourself. The same goes for any kind of power structure that you're not oppressed by. There isn't any shame in saying, "Okay, maybe I do sometimes deny women's experiences without realising, so I'll try to change that behaviour." I'm sure everyone does things that aren't ideal because we've been brought up in a patriarchal society. I have to challenge stuff that I've internalised and I don't expect any man to be 100% free from patriarchal beliefs, nor do I expect any woman to be. Since challenging beliefs and behaviour is an essential part to being anti-sexist, anti-racist, etc. being defensive and unwilling to see whether criticisms apply to you is a big problem and a barrier to you engaging with the oppressed group.

[bricolage]

Circumcision is worse. It cuases permenant damage to the body, unlike rape, which in most cases cause psycological damage that can be treated over time.
fuck, you haven't got a clue have you?
do one.

[#FF0000]

that's not really a sentence where you want to use homophobic language though

"butthurt" isn't homophobic and literally never was. It's just stupid.


We got butthurt over having our privilege placed under examination.

"We"

[#FF0000]

to be a male is, by definition, to be a chauvinist, a misogynist, what have you.

no

[hatzel]

"butthurt" isn't homophobic and literally never was. It's just stupid.

Electrostal was banned for homophobia last week after calling somebody 'butthurt' and then refusing to accept that it's a homophobic term. So irrespective of whether or not it actually is we're on RevLeft so it very much is and therefore it would obviously be in our best interests to avoid saying it and to avoid denying that it's homophobic...

[Tim Finnegan]

The whole idea of "male feminists" is laughable - to be a male is, by definition, to be a chauvinist, a misogynist, what have you. My favorite is this concise, convincing explanation (http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/patriarchy-blaming-the-twisty-way/men-2/).
That author is a racist and a transphobe, so why should I listen to what she has to say? I mean, yes, I have no reason to believe that she has ever in her life said or done anything racist and transphobic, but she's white and cisgender, so, clearly, she must be. But, then, what do I know, I'm an anti-Semitic homophobe.


If you see where I'm going with this.

[Invader Zim]

That author is a racist and a transphobe, so why should I listen to what she has to say? I mean, yes, I have no reason to believe that she has ever in her life said or done anything racist and transphobic, but she's white and cisgender, so, clearly, she must be. But, then, what do I know, I'm an anti-Semitic homophobe.


If you see where I'm going with this.

And the people who post in the comments are ridiculous. They believe that all men are out to get them.

[Tim Finnegan]

Eh, I browsed it a little bit out of interest, and both the writer and the commenters had some decent enough insights. Even the claim made in the link post isn't absurd- it's quite true that patriarchy is constituted through social action, and that all men pretty much through dint of being men reproduce this to some degree or other- she just overloaded it at one end. It's just that weird combination of structuralism and individualism that seems to permeate a lot of radical feminism; the idea that we're not really in control of our actions, but still morally responsible for them. (Speculating baselessly, this seems to have something to do with the awkward genealogy that radical feminism have, incorporate both radical and Marxist theory on the one hand, and bourgeois liberalism on the other, which as far as I can tell they've never really reconciled.)

[Lynx]

How can you tell if this is 'radical' feminism? The articles seem fairly mainstream to me. (Mainstream as in white, academic, and book authoring)

[Tim Finnegan]

The "about" box at the right-hand side describes it as "radical feminist", so I'm happy to go with that. If it looks white and academic, that can probably be chalked up to the fact that radical feminism is mostly white and academic, and has been since the women's lib movement imploded in the late-'70s.

[Lynx]

I can't find the about box, but point taken.

[individualist]

jesus christ are you sure they snipped your dick and not your brain?

1 i'm not circumcises
2 that is not a counter argument

[individualist]

fuck, you haven't got a clue have you?
do one.

One what?

[Dumb]

Electrostal was banned for homophobia last week after calling somebody 'butthurt' and then refusing to accept that it's a homophobic term. So irrespective of whether or not it actually is we're on RevLeft so it very much is and therefore it would obviously be in our best interests to avoid saying it and to avoid denying that it's homophobic...

It derives from spanking (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/butthurt).

[hatzel]

It derives from spanking (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/butthurt).

I'm not really the one you should be telling because my opinion is largely irrelevant in this regard...I also don't think this is the thread to have that discussion...

Hey let's all stop talking about dicks and stuff and maybe talk about feminism for a second. I mean yeah it's pretty audacious to speak about women's struggle in the women's struggle section but what can I say? maybe I'm just a proper rebel :cool:

[Book O'Dead]

I'm not really the one you should be telling because my opinion is largely irrelevant in this regard...I also don't think this is the thread to have that discussion...

Hey let's all stop talking about dicks and stuff and maybe talk about feminism for a second. I mean yeah it's pretty audacious to speak about women's struggle in the women's struggle section but what can I say? maybe I'm just a proper rebel :cool:

Next person who mentions the "d" word or the "c" word in this thread should be restricted post haste.

We are trying to discuss how men ought to think and behave in order to become real feminists and help our womenfolk achieve their liberation and we together ours.

I for one, don't know, and I want to learn!

[Jimmie Higgins]

"I guess you're still sore about getting raped. Get over it buddy!"

How is this any different?

Even if this is an unnecessarily medical procedure, it's not "rape" any more than getting your wisdom teeth or tonsils removed unnecessarily as a teen/kid.

It is a highly imbalanced comparison to try and equate circumcision and rape. Rape is a function and result of the commodification of sex to the point where it can be "stolen". And even before capitalism, rape always has to do with some kind of power dynamic - we took over your villiage, so we rape and pillage what we want.

Where do any of these social dynamics come into play with circumcision? Are males somehow being oppressed by it? If it truly is an unnecessary procedure, it is more like baby ear-piercings than female circumcision, let a lone the rape of people of either sex. If it is unnecessary, then it is just a useless social custom, not a vehicle or tool for oppression.

[Book O'Dead]

Even if this is an unnecessarily medical procedure, it's not "rape" any more than getting your wisdom teeth or tonsils removed unnecessarily as a teen/kid.

It is a highly imbalanced comparison to try and equate circumcision and rape. Rape is a function and result of the commodification of sex to the point where it can be "stolen". And even before capitalism, rape always has to do with some kind of power dynamic - we took over your villiage, so we rape and pillage what we want.

Where do any of these social dynamics come into play with circumcision? Are males somehow being oppressed by it? If it truly is an unnecessary procedure, it is more like baby ear-piercings than female circumcision, let a lone the rape of people of either sex. If it is unnecessary, then it is just a useless social custom, not a vehicle or tool for oppression.


This discussion is not about circumcision.

Please take that topic to a different thread and I will gladly participate in the discussion.

[#FF0000]

Electrostal was banned for homophobia last week after calling somebody 'butthurt' and then refusing to accept that it's a homophobic term. So irrespective of whether or not it actually is we're on RevLeft so it very much is and therefore it would obviously be in our best interests to avoid saying it and to avoid denying that it's homophobic...

Yeah I still won't ever say it because it's a dumb phrase but still anyone who thinks it is homophobic is living under a rock and is a dummo.

[Lynx]

Roll call for self-professed male feminists:

a) declare yourselves
b) state what changes are necessary for you to better live up to your label(s).
c) optional: provide additional observations

[Veovis]

Even if this is an unnecessarily medical procedure, it's not "rape" any more than getting your wisdom teeth or tonsils removed unnecessarily as a teen/kid.

Of course it's not rape because tonsils and wisdom teeth aren't part of the sexual anatomy. Unnecessarily removing them without consent would simply be assault.


It is a highly imbalanced comparison to try and equate circumcision and rape. Rape is a function and result of the commodification of sex to the point where it can be "stolen".

That is a spurious analysis. Rape has been happening since time immemorial - before anything like a 'commodity' ever existed. It has nothing to do with commodification or stealing. It's an assault of a sexual nature.


And even before capitalism, rape always has to do with some kind of power dynamic - we took over your villiage, so we rape and pillage what we want.

"I gave birth to you and have power over you so we cut what we want off your body."

[Jimmie Higgins]

This discussion is not about circumcision.

Please take that topic to a different thread and I will gladly participate in the discussion.

Yeah I thought it was a thread about things that male allies to women's liberation that are seen as insensitive or counterproductive towards winning the trust of women. I think comparing male circumcision - a painless and pretty slight procedure - to rape, particularly rape of women, would fit in that category of counterproductive.

[bcbm]

1 i'm not circumcises

so they did snip the brain then


2 that is not a counter argument

yes it is


That is a spurious analysis. Rape has been happening since time immemorial - before anything like a 'commodity' ever existed. It has nothing to do with commodification or stealing. It's an assault of a sexual nature.

rape is about power though not sex

[Quail]

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120213055636/uncyclopedia/images/5/52/Double-facepalm.jpg

Sorry to post an image as a response, but really. The fact that a thread about feminism and how men can support women turns into a discussion about male circumcision, and people are arguing that a procedure a baby boy can't remember, that in the vast majority of cases has no complications, is in any way comparable to rape, which leaves lasting emotional scars is really depressing. I know that revleft is overwhelmingly male, but if attitudes like this are common among people on the left then is it any wonder women are massively under-represented in leftist organisations? You need to grow up and take women's issues seriously. How do you expect to create a free and equal society if you personally, someone who is supposedly politically aware, are unwilling to even talk about women's issues without derailing the discussion so that it's all about men?

[¿Que?]

Sorry to post an image as a response, but really. The fact that a thread about feminism and how men can support women turns into a discussion about male circumcision, and people are arguing that a procedure a baby boy can't remember, that in the vast majority of cases has no complications, is in any way comparable to rape, which leaves lasting emotional scars is really depressing. I know that revleft is overwhelmingly male, but if attitudes like this are common among people on the left then is it any wonder women are massively under-represented in leftist organisations? You need to grow up and take women's issues seriously. How do you expect to create a free and equal society if you personally, someone who is supposedly politically aware, are unwilling to even talk about women's issues without derailing the discussion so that it's all about men?
Isn't a central tenet of feminism the right to bodily autonomy? I don't think this is an appropriate place to have this discussion, mind you. On the other hand, I don't believe that discussing circumcision, both male and female, have no place within the context of feminist theory. To be fair, you probably weren't suggesting that, tho...

[Quail]

Isn't a central tenet of feminism the right to bodily autonomy? I don't think this is an appropriate place to have this discussion, mind you. On the other hand, I don't believe that discussing circumcision, both male and female, have no place within the context of feminist theory. To be fair, you probably weren't suggesting that, tho...
You're missing the point. Whether male circumcision is something feminists should be against is completely irrelevant to a discussion about how men can be good allies to feminists.

[Tim Finnegan]

Although the de-rail does stand as a pretty good example of how they can fuck it up.

[Lynx]

The only place I read about women's issues is on the internet, and the only place I have participated in a discussion is on revleft. I'm not involved in the feminist movement at all. I'm not alone - a majority are not involved in a meaningful way.

[¿Que?]

You're missing the point. Whether male circumcision is something feminists should be against is completely irrelevant to a discussion about how men can be good allies to feminists.
How so? I acknowledged this isn't the place to have this discussion. However, your post struck me as a bit dismissive of the concerns of many men and yes even feminist women have about circumcision (contrary to Zav's assertion that anti-circ feminists do not exist). Thus I felt it was necessary to comment.

I'm probably the last person who would compare male circumcision to rape. However, simply because in the majority of cases there are no complications, there are times when serious complication do arise. In these situations, there can be deep, lifelong emotional as well as physical scars. Like I said, I really don't agree with the analogy of male circumcision to rape, however, there is no need to trivialize the experiences of victims of brutality to make this point.

Perhaps we should petition a mod to split this thread, and move all the circumcision discussion to a different place...

[Quail]

We already had a long thread about circumcision. Take it there.

How was my post dismissive of men's concerns? Circumcision and rape are so different that it's insulting to compare the two, and I don't think that pointing out that most people suffer no ill effects from circumcision whereas most people suffer a hell of a lot from being raped trivialises circumcision as a violation of a child's bodily autonomy. Circumcision doesn't devastate lives on a huge scale. Rape does.

Imagine if this thread had been about racism, for example, and it got derailed into a discussion about the concerns of white people. Or if a thread about homophobia was derailed into a discussion about the concerns of straight people. I don't think that either of those situations would be tolerated on revleft, so why is it okay to turn every thread in women's struggle into something about men?

[Rottenfruit]

Probably yes. I think most pornography is demeaning to both sexes as it reinforces the objectification of people into mere instruments of sexual gratification (did I say all that?).

Besides, from personal experience I can tell you that pornography is a poor substitute for the real thing.

Porn is never going away face it, for example have a hardcore pornograhpic full length movie on my computer that was made in SOVIET RUSSIA in 1981 Librianna: ***** of the Black Sea (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0249711/)
And if you want my opinon of the articale

Psudeointellucal garbage that´s trying to be offensive, in your face and hip

[Rottenfruit]

The real Masculists identify Patriarchy as the problem. As for class society only the Leftist ones do, as with Feminists.

Yes. There are the loud "Womenz are *****es who belong in the kitchen" groups also using the word, which is a real detriment.

I did read the link in the OP, yes, and my first posts on the thread were about that.


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Emma Goldman would hit you so hard for this dumbassery.



IT´s not THE Patriarchy, its CAPTALISM, This idea that the real reason for all social inequality is because of genetila is absurd, the Patriarchy is 90% myth 10% true, the 90% = capitalism .
This drivel about Patriarchy is on level with Alex Jones New world order conspiracy theory nonsense

[Rottenfruit]

The whole idea of "male feminists" is laughable - to be a male is, by definition, to be a chauvinist, a misogynist, what have you. My favorite is this concise, convincing explanation (http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/patriarchy-blaming-the-twisty-way/men-2/).

Nice.. please tell me you are kidding

[Crux]

IT´s not THE Patriarchy, its CAPTALISM, This idea that the real reason for all social inequality is because of genetila is absurd, the Patriarchy is 90% myth 10% true, the 90% = capitalism .
This drivel about Patriarchy is on level with Alex Jones New world order conspiracy theory nonsense
So you basically know nothing at all about sexism?