Feminism?

[prisonermonkeys]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

But it's totally okay to provide a self-published source, right?

I see where he is coming from. However, the MRA does not. In fact, here's a quote from the http://mensrightsassociation.org about page.

Sources should be verifiable - we should be able to go out and confirm it for ourselves. The problem with a self-published source is that it can say whatever the hell it wants to say about itself and we have no way of confirming it. You've been critical of me for posting unsubstantiated claims, but your idea of a source is itself unsubstantiated.

 

[jake2013guy]

But it's totally okay to provide a self-published source, right?


Sources should be verifiable - we should be able to go out and confirm it for ourselves. The problem with a self-published source is that it can say whatever the hell it wants to say about itself and we have no way of confirming it. You've been critical of me for posting unsubstantiated claims, but your idea of a source is itself unsubstantiated.

This is clearly going nowhere. I'm out.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Sources should be verifiable - we should be able to go out and confirm it for ourselves.

You've got that part right. And yet, still no posted source backing up your claim.

Again, this isn't optional.

 

[Tornado]

Though it's pretty hard to go out and confirm a source may even be unverifiable when you refuse to even provide one.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

This is clearly going nowhere.

If you created a website called jake2013guyisawesome.com and then provided it as a source to support the claim that you are awesome, do you think it would be considered a legitimate source? You wrote it about yourself and then used it to support a claim about yourself.

 

[Biggles]

Would people please stop doing this. It's not clever, takes up space & doesn't contribute anything to the discussion.

 

[Johnnypenso]

If you created a website called jake2013guyisawesome.com and then provided it as a source to support the claim that you are awesome, do you think it would be considered a legitimate source? You wrote it about yourself and then used it to support a claim about yourself.

Based on your "behaviour in other threads", I'd believe the website jake2013guyisawesome.com calling jake2013 awesome before I'd believe the website prisonermonkeysfacts.com claiming that water is wet and the sun is hot.

 

[Northstar]

doesn't contribute anything to the discussion.

Neither do posts like these.

Would people please stop doing this. It's not clever, takes up space & doesn't contribute anything to the discussion.

Don't like it, ignore it or report it, neither are difficult.

 

[LeMansAid]

If it's about equality, why call it feminism? Why not call yourself egalitarians?

The great thing that comes with absolute clarification like that is it serves to properly expose misogynists and sexists, removing the ambiguity and leaving it blatantly clear that if a person says they're against it, they're stating that they are anti-equality. No more muddy waters.

I say, ask for what the actual aim is, and call the group/movement something that accurately fits the aim, and is not context/era sensitive. Feminism is a context sensitive term. When it came about, it signified the need to address rampant and blatant inequality. In a hypothetical world, completely dominated by women though, context would dictate that feminism would effectively be an attitude of a constant thrust to keep the "foot on the throat" of men. "Women's rights", on the other hand, simply asks for women to have their due rights. In that world completely dominated by women, woman's rights might be an odd thing to champion, but the meaning wouldn't have changed, since it's not subject to context.

So, it follows that men's rights, in name at least, is a different animal to feminism. Sure, one can say feminism but think equality, but do we really want that ambiguity? I see no valid reason to use feminism over egalitarianism, so I'd be left thinking that there's really just stubborn or anti-equality attitudes left to characterise the people that insist on it's use.

Weird example - If the Earth did indeed have a problem with global warming, and global-cooling-ism sought to, and could, address it, there would be a point in time when global-cooling-ism would become a negative force. Global-perfect-temperature-ism however would not be subject to the same fate. Just as the aim shouldn't be making the world cooler, it shouldn't be making the world better for women. They might be the action plans, but they shouldn't be the actual aims.

 

[Imari]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Or indeed, any evidence at all.

Would people please stop doing this. It's not clever, takes up space & doesn't contribute anything to the discussion.

Some of us find it pretty amusing. Some levity is sometimes needed, especially in the face of Prisonermonkeys blatant hypocrisy.

I say, ask for what the actual aim is, and call the group/movement something that accurately fits the aim, and is not context/era sensitive. Feminism is a context sensitive term. When it came about, it signified the need to address rampant and blatant inequality.

Correct. Feminism came about as a movement to address the vastly different treatment of the sexes. The most powerful women in the world were in some ways afforded less rights than the least powerful men, which is pretty odd. It's implicit in the idea that women should be treated equally to men that the reverse is also true, but at the time it was a reasonable term to describe a movement that was going to spend the vast majority of it's resources on rights for women.

Move on to present day, and while there are still a number of issues that need to be addressed for women, the gap is not even close to what it was when feminism started. As such, there are disparities between men and women that go both ways that are large enough to no longer be able to be waved away with "but look at all your other privilege!"

Unfortunately, there's a fairly strong movement within parts of feminism that are pretty anti-male. These are the ones ranting about the patriarchy keeping people down. SJWs often belong to this group. It's a shame that what I'm going to call extremist feminists have adopted the same name as traditional feminists, of which there are still a lot and who still believe in equality for all. Many people now shy away from calling themselves feminists because of the potential association with extremist feminists instead of traditional feminism, and I think it unfortunately undermines the cause a bit.

Ultimately the name isn't super important, but since feminism appears to also be used by a radical splinter group with some pretty different views there's potentially reason for a more accurate term to be used instead. Extremist feminists do not believe in equality, and would not call themselves egalitarians.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

especially in the face of Prisonermonkeys blatant hypocrisy

You want to talk about hypocricy? I'm apparently the only person who needs to provide evidence. There were obvious issues with the original "evidence" that was presented, but you chose to ignore it even after I pointed those problems out. So who is the hypocrite here - me for not providing valid evidence when nobody else is providing valid evidence, or you for holding different people to different standards?

 

[eran0004]

Feminism came about as a movement to address the vastly different treatment of the sexes. The most powerful women in the world were in some ways afforded less rights than the least powerful men, which is pretty odd. It's implicit in the idea that women should be treated equally to men that the reverse is also true, but at the time it was a reasonable term to describe a movement that was going to spend the vast majority of it's resources on rights for women.

Move on to present day, and while there are still a number of issues that need to be addressed for women, the gap is not even close to what it was when feminism started. As such, there are disparities between men and women that go both ways that are large enough to no longer be able to be waved away with "but look at all your other privilege!"

Unfortunately, there's a fairly strong movement within parts of feminism that are pretty anti-male. These are the ones ranting about the patriarchy keeping people down. SJWs often belong to this group. It's a shame that what I'm going to call extremist feminists have adopted the same name as traditional feminists, of which there are still a lot and who still believe in equality for all. Many people now shy away from calling themselves feminists because of the potential association with extremist feminists instead of traditional feminism, and I think it unfortunately undermines the cause a bit.

Ultimately the name isn't super important, but since feminism appears to also be used by a radical splinter group with some pretty different views there's potentially reason for a more accurate term to be used instead. Extremist feminists do not believe in equality, and would not call themselves egalitarians.

Out of the hundreds of feminists I know, and myself included, I don't know anyone who could be described as anti-male. So if such a branch does exist it's probably not a very big one.

Asking a movement to change its name due to some mariginal group's behaviour is like asking a country to stop flying its flag because neo-nazis are using it as a symbol.

 

[Imari]

You want to talk about hypocricy? I'm apparently the only person who needs to provide evidence.

You're not. In fact, in the past you've usually been the only person in the conversation that you think you don't.

So who is the hypocrite here - me for not providing valid evidence when nobody else is providing valid evidence, or you for holding different people to different standards?

It's you, because at least everyone else has provided their evidence so that we can critique it. If it turns out to be invalid, fine, we disregard that person's contribution. But you don't allow the people talking with you to look at your evidence and come to their own conclusion.

I've said this to you before. You don't get to decide what other people think.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

everyone else has provided their evidence so that we can critique it

Except that you haven't offered any critique of that evidence. Like I said, a self-published source is unreliable. It's useful if you want to compare what somebody says they do with what they actually do, but if you only consider the self-published source, it becomes far more subjective.

you don't allow the people talking with you to look at your evidence and come to their own conclusion

I would have been happy to provide evidence if I felt that the people critiquing it would have been fair and balanced in doing so. Given that nobody sought to critique the evidence that was provided before I entered the conversation, I didn't have much confidence that people would be fair and balanced.

 

[Com Fox]

Statements like this are just as ridiculous as @prisonermonkeys' latest I-won't-bother-with-pesky-facts MRA comments. Just a heads-up.

I was in a rush to get somewhere so it wasn't all that thought out so even I would take that with some salt.

 

[Imari]

Except that you haven't offered any critique of that evidence.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise that I had to publically critique their evidence before I could see yours. Is that in the AUP or something? Can you give me a list of the members posts that I have to critique before I can get adequate information from you?

I would have been happy to provide evidence if I felt that the people critiquing it would have been fair and balanced in doing so.

Hey look, it's Prisonermonkeys Diversionary Tactic #3: I didn't trust you to be fair, so I refuse to let you see my evidence. You'll have to trust me that it says what I tell you it says.

Do you actually read what you write, or does it just sort of spew forth? You can't possibly be a teacher and think that what you just said is a valid way to have a discussion, debate or conversation. "You can't see my sources in case you view them differently to me" is pretty much How to Stifle Conversation 101.

Why don't you just stop pretending that your opinions are based on facts?

 

[Famine]

Circumcision removes the foreskin for hygiene reasons; the extra skin can trap semen, urine or dirt, which can lead to a pretty serious infection.

If a toddler is getting spaff trapped under his helmet, he's got far bigger problems than a foreskin...

Here's a list of all of the other routine prophylactic surgeries performed on minors without medical necessity:


Yet circumcision gets a totally free pass for some reason. The fact is that people don't even see that amputating a part of a child's anatomy without informed consent or any immediate medical need simply because he's a boy is morally wrong, and this is part of the reason why male advocacy is needed.

That and the lack of reproductive rights, the assumed guilt in cases of rape and child sexual abuse, and all the suicides.


Female advocacy is also needed. It is not inherently contradictory to be an advocate for men's rights and for women's rights, as it's almost always the case that one has rights recognised that the other does not, and advocacy is merely to bring the underrepresented group up to parity. One does not have to hate men/women or seek to reduce men's/women's rights in order to advocate for female/male rights.

 

[Tornado]

So can we safely conclude that following the AUP is something that is optional for Interludes once again, so this discussion was also a waste of everyone's time?

 

[Snorevette]

Correct. Feminism came about as a movement to address the vastly different treatment of the sexes. The most powerful women in the world were in some ways afforded less rights than the least powerful men, which is pretty odd. It's implicit in the idea that women should be treated equally to men that the reverse is also true, but at the time it was a reasonable term to describe a movement that was going to spend the vast majority of it's resources on rights for women.

Move on to present day, and while there are still a number of issues that need to be addressed for women, the gap is not even close to what it was when feminism started. As such, there are disparities between men and women that go both ways that are large enough to no longer be able to be waved away with "but look at all your other privilege!"

Unfortunately, there's a fairly strong movement within parts of feminism that are pretty anti-male. These are the ones ranting about the patriarchy keeping people down. SJWs often belong to this group. It's a shame that what I'm going to call extremist feminists have adopted the same name as traditional feminists, of which there are still a lot and who still believe in equality for all. Many people now shy away from calling themselves feminists because of the potential association with extremist feminists instead of traditional feminism, and I think it unfortunately undermines the cause a bit.

Ultimately the name isn't super important, but since feminism appears to also be used by a radical splinter group with some pretty different views there's potentially reason for a more accurate term to be used instead. Extremist feminists do not believe in equality, and would not call themselves egalitarians.

A different term is used though - the pro-women, anti-men group to the point where they won't associate with anything 'male' at all are specifically called radical feminists (radfems) in a lot of circles, and tend to be looked down upon by just about everyone, feminist or not.

In regards to feminists ranting about the patriarchy, I hate to tell you this, but the patriarchy IS harmful - the reason why men get far less custody than women isn't some secret feminist agenda laid in place years ago, but because many laws and systems still operate under the idea that men are meant to work and women are meant to raise children (or at least have not been rewritten to accomodate modern ideals). I'm not saying the idea behind the patriarchy isn't often misunderstood by the aforementioned radfems; I think it's unfortunate that terms such as 'patriarchy' have been misused to the point where it's almost impossible to actually bring them up in an argument without being labeled as a rabid feminist monster, but it's a perfectly legitimate point and I wish there were more people that were actually willing to analyze it in depth.

 

[Imari]

A different term is used though - the pro-women, anti-men group to the point where they won't associate with anything 'male' at all are specifically called radical feminists (radfems) in a lot of circles, and tend to be looked down upon by just about everyone, feminist or not.

Well that's good to know. I learned something today.

In regards to feminists ranting about the patriarchy, I hate to tell you this, but the patriarchy IS harmful - the reason why men get far less custody than women isn't some secret feminist agenda laid in place years ago, but because many laws and systems still operate under the idea that men are meant to work and women are meant to raise children (or at least have not been rewritten to accomodate modern ideals). I'm not saying the idea behind the patriarchy isn't often misunderstood by the aforementioned radfems; I think it's unfortunate that terms such as 'patriarchy' have been misused to the point where it's almost impossible to actually bring them up in an argument without being labeled as a rabid feminist monster, but it's a perfectly legitimate point and I wish there were more people that were actually willing to analyze it in depth.

It depends what you mean by the patriarchy, because often it seems to mean the secret cabal of men who hold the reins of the world and are plotting to keep women oppressed. Which is right up there with the Deep State.

If you simply mean the group of people who tend to stay in power because of heredity and family wealth or power, then sure. Traditionally, these people were male and we're really only one generation out of that at best so there hasn't been much time for it to change. However, it's also true that it's damaging to pretty much everyone who isn't part of that group, regardless of sex. And it will continue to be when half or more of those people are female.

Stuff like men getting less custody is a product of the same outdated thinking as that which says that women should be homemakers, as you point out. They're both wrong, and for the same reasons. But that's mostly just the fact that people tend not to change their opinions about how things should be and so we actually have to wait for a generation or two to die off before we see real institutional change.

 

[ryzno]

Probably another stupid post from yours truly...
Some women think what they have to offer is worth them not having to work and they are content with staying home and doing the house work.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Some women think what they have to offer is worth them not having to work and they are content with staying home and doing the house work.

Cool, if that's their choice - where's the issue? Some men do that too of course.

 

[ryzno]

Cool, if that's their choice - where's the issue? Some men do that too of course.

No issue. I probably read something into a post above that wasn't there.
Hence the sentence you didn't quote.

 

[huskeR32]

His answer made sense to me, perhaps you are just stretching things because you want to take issue with it?

You're doing a little projecting there.

My musings were coming from essentially the same place as this:

And why would men's rights issues be fought for? To achieve.......?

It seemed to me that trying to differentiate MRA from feminism was just a bit shortsighted; that fighting to correct injustice is ultimately fighting for equality.

Your later post gave me food for second thought on that front; I hadn't really considered the angle that equality is impossible, as you put it.

I don't think that I agree with it - it seems to me that argument would quickly get lost in pedantry - but I at least now understand why a few of you were trying to make the distinction between the two groups. Thanks.

 

[Northstar]

I don't think that I agree with it - it seems to me that argument would quickly get lost in pedantry - but I at least now understand why a few of you were trying to make the distinction between the two groups. Thanks.

It is though because genes/pure dumb luck will always give someone the upper hand regardless of what the laws say. The only way to achieve true equality is to micromanage every second of everyone's life from the moment they are born.

Edit: After thinking about it more I'm fairly certain you would have to remove everyone's personality in order to achieve full equality.

 

[Imari]

It is though because genes/pure dumb luck will always give someone the upper hand regardless of what the laws say. The only way to achieve true equality is to micromanage every second of everyone's life from the moment they are born.

The point is not to achieve equality. The point is to not artificially swing the game in one team's favour. That means starting from a position where we assume equality before other things are taken into account.

It's fine for a man to be paid more than a woman if his work is inherently worth more to the company, if he is much better at his job than her for example. It's not fine for the man to be paid more for doing the exact same, or less.

 

[Com Fox]

The point is not to achieve equality. The point is to not artificially swing the game in one team's favour. That means starting from a position where we assume equality before other things are taken into account.

It's fine for a man to be paid more than a woman if his work is inherently worth more to the company, if he is much better at his job than her for example. It's not fine for the man to be paid more for doing the exact same, or less.

While it is truly not fine, I've hardly seen any credible examples of men getting paid more than women just for being a man. While a lot of people even non-feminists agree there is an earning gap, I have yet to see anything to prove that, that earnings come from wages being favour of the males just because they're males.

Besides, if you could get away with paying women less just because she's a women, why would ever hire a man over a woman ever? (I'm pretty sure their might be other contributions that ruin this often used logic though like not enough women wanting to employ perhaps)

 

[PeterJB]

How the wage gap myth is still pushed boggles the mind. It's quite simple: work more hours, get paid more. On no job application have I ever seen "The hourly rate for men is £10.00 per hour, for women it's £7.30 per hour, and for black women it's £6.70 per hour" (which in this example would be below minimum wage but you get the idea). Want to get paid more? Do more work, or do better work.

 

[Com Fox]

How the wage gap myth is still pushed boggles the mind. It's quite simple: work more hours, get paid more. On no job application have I ever seen "The hourly rate for men is £10.00 per hour, for women it's £7.30 per hour, and for black women it's £6.70 per hour" (which in this example would be below minimum wage but you get the idea). Want to get paid more? Do more work, or do better work.

There's more factors to this though that still causes the belief of the wage gap. Not as simple as men work more hours especially since while true, its actually not as large as we think.

This includes different job positions and asking for a pay rise.

 

[Northstar]

It's not fine for the man to be paid more for doing the exact same, or less.

That depends. If it's a job with pre-set wages (work "x" amount of hours in a position, get this much money), than yes it's a problem. However if it's a job where you negotiate your own wage, than it's your own damned fault if you make less than someone with the same skills and experience. That goes for both sexes as well.