Feminism

[Trifoilum]

Feminists usually aren't very interested in discussing any of the problems that mostly affect men. In OECD countries, three out of four suicides are committed by men, for example. I see that as a far more serious social issue than whether or not the latest Hollywood blockbuster passes the Bechdel test, but when I searched for articles addressing this problem on Ms. Magazine's homepage, all I found was an article describing the ripple effect of male suicide - when an Indian farmer kills himself in despair over agricultural reforms, his wife may end up in financial trouble.

What I'm opposed to is pretending to be something you aren't, and your average feminist writer is no more interested in righting the wrongs for men than the men in the so-called men's rights movement are in ending discrimination against women.

I would argue for several things;

1) suicide in general is at its most peripheral, a mental health and social issue. The most immediate way to lower suicide rates is to fix the social problems and the mental healthcare system and those are something that's transcending feminism and/or gender. How often do we see publication talking seriously about mental health, again?

However, gender does play a lot of factor in influencing culture and values-- the long game. And in this case, A lot of feminists have argued that the current patriarchal values are damaging men in the cultural/emotional aspect; as much as it's pushing men to violence as a solution...and ultimately suicide. And a lot of feminists are fighting against those values in culture-- the values that prevents men from amongst many things, seeking help socially and psychologically.

2) Again, privilege works here. It's another form of discrimination; the problem regarding suicides are being covered much more by mainstream media (which may be more capable of discussing it due to its wide influence and background). And with the idea that 3 out of 4 suicides are male... well, that makes it 'all about teh menz'. Or in another way, derailing. (STOP TALKING ABOUT YOUR ISSUES WOMEN MEN HAVE MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES!!!!)

 

[Trifoilum]

I do not doubt that on average, the racial majority in any society is usually far better off than racial minorities, but on an individual level that might not be the case. Even in a predominantly white society, there will be plenty of white people who are worse off than the average black person.

And again-- privilege does not eliminate personal hardships.

What do you think I'll find if I compare a white heroin addicts to black heroin addicts? Granted, we live in different places and there might be regional differences, but I used to be an addict myself and I don't think I was any better off because of my skin colour.

First of all, I'm sorry to hear that *hugs*
I have no idea myself; that is out of my range unfortunately. My point is just, comparing heroin users to 'general population' is in itself unfair.
But it would be a subtle thing; perception, acceptance. Not to mention social prejudice / stigma.
The experience one had, as ugly or good as it is, may be better or worse if they are of a different sex, or gender, or sexuality, or class.
a sample case would be things like, a white heroin addict may be easier to find a new job compared to a black one.

Again, this may or may not fit with your case; the playing field =/= destiny of every members of a particular group.

At any rate, I'm not denying that privilege does exist; I'm simply saying that not everyone benefits from it. Of all the different types of privilege you listed, sex is the only one I doubt the existence of - at least if you're talking about a onesided privilege where men win and women lose.

And I agreed that not everyone benefits from it-- but again, the most important point in which privilege plays a part in social lives and discussion is inconsideration--

when people assume a particular group of people is 'asking for it', or 'just don't work hard enough', etc, etc, with an underlying assumption of "WELL I CERTAINLY DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM SO NEITHER SHOULD THEY".

Certainly it sounds nice the way you explain it. However RE: bolded, when I read about feminism they don't make it clear who they are talking about besides generalities like men, or some derogatory man-meaning word. I just take what they say at face value because it is not like they are talking in person, they have as much time as they want to be clear through their writing.

It........ would be very much prudent to see the original statements and to make judgment based on that, rather than from the (unhelpful) responses. Because sometimes people are simply angered / pissed off and as much as it's unhelpful to the discussion, everyone has the rights to feel and express that.

I don't know though; so far a lot of things I read offered some perspective regarding these issues. So.. Where are you seeing this, if I may ask?

 

[Cornerstone]

Gender equality will be the result of feminism running its course and patriarchal-minded people stepping down a bit.

Well, how likely is that? Not very as far as I can see. Feminism should be women being women and that's it.

Don't worry about men and what we're doing. Show the world what women are capable of besides being like men.
We don't need women to be like men, that's what men are for. But we don't know what Woman's true value is anymore.
She has been sidelined and belittled too much over a LONG period of time and working a job isn't enough.
Woman's true value is not going to be found by managing to 'pull your weight' in the very society that has kept Her down.
She has to show society what it has been MISSING by treating Her badly and not recognising Her INNATE value.

You are made differently for a reason. We ARE definitely missing out. But I have no real idea how. On the bigger national/global scale.
I know what individual women bring to me personally but these same women then have to adapt to society and so fuel the patriarchy further.

 

[Gktr]

[MENTION=702742]Trifolium[/MENTION]

It seems like we largely agree on at least one issue: the reason men are overrepresented in suicide statistics is that there is a cultural norm which dictates that men should be strong and independent, wheras women are allowed to seek help without being stigmatized for it. I know that in trying to break down traditional gender roles, the feminist movement is actually trying to influence our culture for the better, but I stand by what I said about it not being as high on their priority list as it perhaps should be if they were truly interested in solving the difficulties men face in their daily life.

As for your second point, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Why would the mainsteam media be a better platform to use when discussing something seemingly related to sex and gender than a magazine published by and for a movement which is supposed to be fighting against injustices affecting both men and women?

I'm not sure if you're being serious or not with your link to the article on derailment, but if you are then that's a good illustration of another problem with modern feminism (and the men's rights movement to boot): instead of accepting the fact that both sexes face some unique difficulties, they turn it into a contest of who is the most oppressed, as if it's an either-or scenario where you can only possibly try to help one sex. If you ever want to ruin a good day, try finding an article on gender equality and read the comments - it will destroy any faith you have left in humanity.

I realize I might come across as someone who is very resentful towards feminists in general, but that's not the case. I largely agree with most feminist writers I've come across, but I do find that it's very difficult to bring up what I would call "men's issues" without being labelled as someone trying to trivialize discrimination against women.

Regarding your second post on privilege, I understand what you mean now, and I sort of agree.

 

[Jack]

One thing that bothers me lately is this idea of privilege. White privilege, male privilege, all things attributed to me that make me unable to understand let alone comment on the hardships others face. What really bugs me the most is the implication that I do not want women to feel like they can walk down the street without getting raped, that I do not want minorities to be able to get paid fairly, etc - all because I am privileged. Like I am hoarding all the privileges for myself.

Anyways, this article lays it all out better than I could: http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2013/08/22/the-privilege-paradigm/

I could use some privilege right now. Magical privilege powers... gooooo!

Man I wish that would work.

 

[Trifoilum]

Gender equality will be the result of feminism running its course and patriarchal-minded people stepping down a bit.

Well, how likely is that? Not very as far as I can see. Feminism should be women being women and that's it.

...wut.
First of all, what is 'being women'?
I have to argue that this notion is completely bovine dungish because-- the notion of being a women is as complex and occasionally contradictive as much as it is for men.
Sociohistorically what is considered a good woman and man evolves, changes, and shifts depending on the time, circumstances, situation, and geographical locations. From this angle, your statement does not make sense, I'm afraid.

And even if we're approaching it from a spiritual, universal perspective, the old patriarchal values are completely imbalanced. Feminism aimed for equality-- and in some ways, a balanced state. Where both women and men can possess ANY traits; any strength and interest and goodness they have, desire, and aimed.

Don't worry about men and what we're doing. Show the world what women are capable of besides being like men.
We don't need women to be like men, that's what men are for. But we don't know what Woman's true value is anymore.

See above re: Patriarchy. A lot of the values and understanding made and embedded within a lot of philosophy are the result of a patriarchal culture, trying to 'separate', 'subjugate', and 'prevent'.
In the spiritual sense, it's imbalanced and imperfect. Ultimately the expectation is 'one shall complete the other', but that notion has proven itself again and again to be ineffective and abusive.
And I don't think feminist (at least the current wave) desires anything like 'women becoming men'; Again, what do you think is a woman's true value?
if anything, it is trying its best to be inclusive. Women can be feminine or masculine; the same as men. Feminism works for me in that it helps each and everyone to be their best selves-- instead of what 'society' wants them to be

She has been sidelined and belittled too much over a LONG period of time and working a job isn't enough.
Woman's true value is not going to be found by managing to 'pull your weight' in the very society that has kept Her down.
She has to show society what it has been MISSING by treating Her badly and not recognising Her INNATE value.

I agree with your two statements but ultimately not with the conclusion-- trying to 'separate' won't do women, or men, or mankind as a whole, or society, or feminism, any good.
It's not as much as it's a matter of womankind in spiritual terms but in its ideal form, men is also supported.

You are made differently for a reason. We ARE definitely missing out. But I have no real idea how. On the bigger national/global scale.
I know what individual women bring to me personally but these same women then have to adapt to society and so fuel the patriarchy further.

I DON'T EVEN ABOUT THIS ONE.

Man, can you explain your views more?

@Trifolium

It seems like we largely agree on at least one issue: the reason men are overrepresented in suicide statistics is that there is a cultural norm which dictates that men should be strong and independent, wheras women are allowed to seek help without being stigmatized for it. I know that in trying to break down traditional gender roles, the feminist movement is actually trying to influence our culture for the better, but I stand by what I said about it not being as high on their priority list as it perhaps should be if they were truly interested in solving the difficulties men face in their daily life.

Two layers of notions, I think.
One is the fact that women are still facing a lot of prejudice, discrimination, and injustice. Perhaps not ALL problems can fall into this point, but compared to men's one FATAL issue affecting their lives, women had-- how many more?
Two is more reactionary, sort of like "OH, so now you also want feminists to solve YOUR cultural problems?" which as much as it is brash, works. Again, the notion is a bit 'WHAT ABOUT TEH MENNZZZZ'; which is like white people claiming 'but white people are oppressed too! WHY ARE YOU NOT SOLVING OUR PROBLEM'; which is a form of privilege in itself, when minorities and other marginalized group have dealt with MUCH WORSE.

As for your second point, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Why would the mainsteam media be a better platform to use when discussing something seemingly related to sex and gender than a magazine published by and for a movement which is supposed to be fighting against injustices affecting both men and women?

Because suicide is not just affected by sex and gender and the things that affect them?
It's also related to the economy, to psychology and neuroscience, to other social issues.
This is part of the privilege; masculinity is considered to be 'the default template'.
Suicides that are more closely related to sex and gender issues often happened to...people who aren't men. Women, GLBTQ crowds; you get the drift. How many men died by suicide because of their masculinity in particular?

I'm not sure if you're being serious or not with your link to the article on derailment, but if you are then that's a good illustration of another problem with modern feminism (and the men's rights movement to boot): instead of accepting the fact that both sexes face some unique difficulties, they turn it into a contest of who is the most oppressed, as if it's an either-or scenario where you can only possibly try to help one sex. If you ever want to ruin a good day, try finding an article on gender equality and read the comments - it will destroy any faith you have left in humanity.

I agreed with your point; trying to make gender problems a Misery Olympics won't do any good.
And this is not an either-or scenario; we can focus on multiple topics at the same time and help everyone.
But at the same time, I hope you can see how derailing won't solve the particular issue? "Oh so hey what do you think about Bradley Manning's transgender?" "BUT WHAT ABOUT MALE DIVORCE THAT IS (more) IMPORTANT!!?!?!?!!?"

I realize I might come across as someone who is very resentful towards feminists in general, but that's not the case. I largely agree with most feminist writers I've come across, but I do find that it's very difficult to bring up what I would call "men's issues" without being labelled as someone trying to trivialize discrimination against women.

Regarding your second post on privilege, I understand what you mean now, and I sort of agree.

TPO, I think. Again, talking about men's issue in a non-specific feminist platforms is just as on-topic as me suddenly going in a tirade about how Johnny Depp always plays the same character and DEAR GOD TAKE A SHOWER here. (credit to @Jack)

The thing about that and social activists crowd's impatience with derailing is that it is often used as a bad argument strategy.

I could use some privilege right now. Magical privilege powers... gooooo!

Man I wish that would work.

Oh god I wish it work that way.

 

[Gktr]

Two layers of notions, I think.
One is the fact that women are still facing a lot of prejudice, discrimination, and injustice. Perhaps not ALL problems can fall into this point, but compared to men's one FATAL issue affecting their lives, women had-- how many more?
Two is more reactionary, sort of like "OH, so now you also want feminists to solve YOUR cultural problems?" which as much as it is brash, works. Again, the notion is a bit 'WHAT ABOUT TEH MENNZZZZ'; which is like white people claiming 'but white people are oppressed too! WHY ARE YOU NOT SOLVING OUR PROBLEM'; which is a form of privilege in itself, when minorities and other marginalized group have dealt with MUCH WORSE.

Women face prejudice, discrimination, and injustice. Men face prejudice, discrimination, and injustice. I don't think it's fair to say that women faced more difficulties in their daily lives than men - women had to stay home and mind the children; men had to go to war and die. Yesterday, I stumbled upon this article describing a study on the length of prison sentences in the US. While minority convicts are, on average, given longer sentences than white ones for the same crime, men receive sentences that are 63 percent longer than those of female convicts convicted of the same crime. Why do you think that is? I know that the feminist movement usually blames the patriarchy - women are fragile and innocent little flowers in need of protection and so on - but why isn't there a cry of outrage from the feminist's side when figures like these are published?

Asking "what about the men?" isn't the same as someone claiming that white people are as oppressed as minorities. Women simply aren't oppressed. Women face many problems that are unique to their sex, and the same is true for men. Perhaps women face more problems, but that doesn't make any of the problems men face less real.
Besides, I never said I expected the feminist movement to concern themselves with men's issues - only to be more sympathetic and not label anyone who wishes to discuss male suicide, homelessness, alcoholism, drug abuse etc. as a misogynist.

Because suicide is not just affected by sex and gender and the things that affect them?
It's also related to the economy, to psychology and neuroscience, to other social issues.
This is part of the privilege; masculinity is considered to be 'the default template'.
Suicides that are more closely related to sex and gender issues often happened to...people who aren't men. Women, GLBTQ crowds; you get the drift. How many men died by suicide because of their masculinity in particular?

Suicide is indeed often related to economy. The traditional idea of a male provider causes a lot of men to kill themselves when they lose their source of income because they're stigmatized and considered failures. Social issues also affect men to a greater degree than women, and more men are marginalized. Suicide is very much a gender issue. I agree that GLBTQs have even more pressing problems than men, which is also reflected in the suicide statistics, but that women commit suicide because of their femininity more often than men commit suicide because of their masculinity is simply not true.

TPO, I think. Again, talking about men's issue in a non-specific feminist platforms is just as on-topic as me suddenly going in a tirade about how Johnny Depp always plays the same character and DEAR GOD TAKE A SHOWER here. (credit to @Jack)

But derailing goes both ways. Trying to change the topic to rape or domestic violence won't solve the problem of male suicide. It's not about what is more important - it's all important and should be dealt with.

 

[Trifoilum]

But derailing goes both ways. Trying to change the topic to rape or domestic violence won't solve the problem of male suicide. It's not about what is more important - it's all important and should be dealt with.

Wait, do you get the nature of out-of-topicness? Are we talking about the same thing?

I'm not in a best mindset to speak lucidly atm, so I'll just respond with the last; again, TPO.

If we're talking about forums where you can make multiple threads like this, fine; I think making another thread about it would be good and beneficial
If we're talking about the merits of feminism / social issues IN GENERAL, fine; we probably cannot talk in depth but one can skirt around and acknowledge that it is a facet of feminism.
but different circumstances like a comment section in an article, for instance, would be VERY different because they generally have a particular topic to discuss (i.e: whatever the article is talking) or at least something a bit related.
and the issue regarding derailing gets very high and sensitive. Despite the issues in question.


For example, Snowden and Manning are important news for the Americans at the moment but that doesn't mean every discussions are ought to be made about them. Neither does it mean that every discussion should be turned to them (Do you heard about the sexual assault in Egypt? DOESN'T IMPORTANT DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO MANNING???). Nor will it mean that attempts to do so is met positively.

That is my point.

 

[Cornerstone]

...wut.
First of all, what is 'being women'?
I have to argue that this notion is completely bovine dungish because-- the notion of being a women is as complex and occasionally contradictive as much as it is for men.
Sociohistorically what is considered a good woman and man evolves, changes, and shifts depending on the time, circumstances, situation, and geographical locations. From this angle, your statement does not make sense, I'm afraid.

Hmm...yeah, perhaps that wasn't clear.

And even if we're approaching it from a spiritual, universal perspective, the old patriarchal values are completely imbalanced. Feminism aimed for equality-- and in some ways, a balanced state. Where both women and men can possess ANY traits; any strength and interest and goodness they have, desire, and aimed.

See above re: Patriarchy. A lot of the values and understanding made and embedded within a lot of philosophy are the result of a patriarchal culture, trying to 'separate', 'subjugate', and 'prevent'.
In the spiritual sense, it's imbalanced and imperfect. Ultimately the expectation is 'one shall complete the other', but that notion has proven itself again and again to be ineffective and abusive.
And I don't think feminist (at least the current wave) desires anything like 'women becoming men'; Again, what do you think is a woman's true value?
if anything, it is trying its best to be inclusive. Women can be feminine or masculine; the same as men. Feminism works for me in that it helps each and everyone to be their best selves-- instead of what 'society' wants them to be

I agree with your two statements but ultimately not with the conclusion-- trying to 'separate' won't do women, or men, or mankind as a whole, or society, or feminism, any good.
It's not as much as it's a matter of womankind in spiritual terms but in its ideal form, men is also supported.

I DON'T EVEN ABOUT THIS ONE.

Man, can you explain your views more?

It is not women that have been oppressed, it is the feminine aspect of human nature that has been.

That side is more emotional, because emotions are signposts to right action, but they can become distorted by being repressed.
So when you utterly sideline that aspect, it leads to chronic repression, and then it is seen as worthless or crazy...because it has become that.
So the judgement leads to the reaction which proves the judgement to be correct. Repressed emotions guiding life are as dangerous as brute force guiding life.

That is why FEMININE PEOPLE OF WHOM WOMEN MAKE UP THE VAST MAJORITY (what I referred to as Woman (archetype), not Women (plural vagina-havers) need to understand their emotions and learn to express them clearly because that is their talent in the same way that the masculine element of humanity is logical, boundary-setting and able to utilise brute-force and physical strength. When the masculine goes too far, violence is always the answer...sound familiar? When the feminine goes to far, emotions are manipulated and you get what many young women experience in High School...mean girls, bitchiness etc. Put that on a national and universal scale and you can see that we need a balance and currently don't have it. What I am arguing is that the feminine is so repressed that even if the dominating masculine influence stepped down, the feminine has been out of practice (except in caring professions) for so long that even with a hypothetical opening they would fuck it up. But the current society has little to no places where a feminine-dominant person can slot into because most, if not all, major institutions have been constructed by and are institutionally dedicated to upholding the patriarchy which is NOT about which genitals you have.

This is why men are encouraged not to show emotion, it's why 'boys don't cry'.

It HAS gone too far in that the patriarchy damaged men because the physical gender difference is one aspect and people are a more subtle blend of both elements.

It wasn't ever meant to be a see-saw, it IS like a yin-yang, there does need to be balance to be effective.

But when one half doesn't know what they are, they will only be able to contribute a warped version of what they have to offer when they are 'healthy' i.e. balanced.
And yes, warped emotions are more subtle and so we should try to get it right. Clearly there is a change going on, not many openly talk about the 'glory of war' because many more people openly abhor violence than they have done throughout documented history.

This is not a dig at anyone and there are men who are more feminine and so, based on what I have said, would do well to be 'feminists'.
Likewise, there are women who are more masculine and so, if this is in personality more than just appearance, think about what it is they're fighting for.

But everyone needs to see masculine/feminine as two sides of the same coin that is present in every single being in different ratios and stop just looking at which genitals they have.

My post on the first page should have been enough. I'm not even sure why I posted but if you don't get it still...PM me or carry on with what you see the issue as being.

 

[the]

It........ would be very much prudent to see the original statements and to make judgment based on that, rather than from the (unhelpful) responses. Because sometimes people are simply angered / pissed off and as much as it's unhelpful to the discussion, everyone has the rights to feel and express that.

I don't know though; so far a lot of things I read offered some perspective regarding these issues. So.. Where are you seeing this, if I may ask?

Well you are asking me to go through my last two years browsing history (which is impossible because its not tracked) and find every time I've read something about feminism - which I am not going to do. You will just have to take my word on it that I have seemingly been bombarded by what you would say is the worst of the worst of feminist writers and my perspective is that it is all just typical feminism.

 

[Gktr]

Wait, do you get the nature of out-of-topicness? Are we talking about the same thing?

I'm not in a best mindset to speak lucidly atm, so I'll just respond with the last; again, TPO.

If we're talking about forums where you can make multiple threads like this, fine; I think making another thread about it would be good and beneficial
If we're talking about the merits of feminism / social issues IN GENERAL, fine; we probably cannot talk in depth but one can skirt around and acknowledge that it is a facet of feminism.
but different circumstances like a comment section in an article, for instance, would be VERY different because they generally have a particular topic to discuss (i.e: whatever the article is talking) or at least something a bit related.
and the issue regarding derailing gets very high and sensitive. Despite the issues in question.


For example, Snowden and Manning are important news for the Americans at the moment but that doesn't mean every discussions are ought to be made about them. Neither does it mean that every discussion should be turned to them (Do you heard about the sexual assault in Egypt? DOESN'T IMPORTANT DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO MANNING???). Nor will it mean that attempts to do so is met positively.

That is my point.

Now I think you're being a bit unfair, to be honest. I wasn't suggesting that joining a discussion on sexual assault in Egypt and attempting to steer it onto Chelsea Manning's person is proper behaviour. I'm simply raising some concerns I have about the way the modern feminist movement conducts itself, and I don't think that can be considered derailment in a thread full of people debating the validity of feminist ideology. Feminism is not and has never been an inclusive ideology focusing on gender equality - it's a sociopolitical movement fighting for women's rights, and I find that perfectly acceptable. What I have an issue with is hypocrisy - you can't simultaneously argue that feminism is actively trying to solve the problems unique to men and at the same time call it "derailment" when someone calls attention to them. Every time an article is trying to raise awareness on, say, domestic violence against men, the typical response from feminists is not exactly sympathetic. Instead of attempting to come up with ideas on how the problem of domestic abuse against men can be tackled, they try to silence the discussion by arguing that because women are victims more often than men, male victims are not important.

 

[Amalthea]

Ah. A 21rst century feminist accomplishment. Fueling patriarchy in the mental health system.

:clap2:

 

[Trifoilum]

Well you are asking me to go through my last two years browsing history (which is impossible because its not tracked) and find every time I've read something about feminism - which I am not going to do. You will just have to take my word on it that I have seemingly been bombarded by what you would say is the worst of the worst of feminist writers and my perspective is that it is all just typical feminism.

Fair enough
For what it's worth, my experience is..a lot better, but I do occasionally see a lot of-- mm, anger, snark at certain point and as far as I see, it's usually the REALLY. ANGRY. ONES.
Which I guess is another matter entirely
@Cornerstone
aaah, thank you for explaining! *bows*
From what I can read and perceive at the very moment you are indeed seeing it from-- hmm, a more spiritual perspective. Which is fine; I think I was engaging with you from a different perspective.

ETA : These are all just my view and feel free to disagree.

For a LOT of people engaging in feminism, I think a lot are doing in the realm of social constructs and policies and culture-- and all that implies. It would be very much a rare occasion (AFAIK) that someone weaves feminism and/or gender construct to spiritual views of human nature-- because for a lot of cases, what feminists usually understand at first is that gender is a social construct; something ephemeral that will fade like a spring rain.

Let's try this again..

It is not women that have been oppressed, it is the feminine aspect of human nature that has been.

That side is more emotional, because emotions are signposts to right action, but they can become distorted by being repressed.
So when you utterly sideline that aspect, it leads to chronic repression, and then it is seen as worthless or crazy...because it has become that.

I don't disagree with you here, especially.
And I genuinely think feminism (or at least, the form of feminism I ascribe to) aim for this as well. Of course, I don't know your experience and/or perspective.. >_<
IN a less spiritual way, it's trying to free the pathway for both emotional expression and rational, logical way of thinking to flow without-- social stigma and judgment. (men crying? WIMP. Women being rational? COLD BITCH)
In a more spiritual way, I see it as trying to let the water flow, somewhat. for each person and soul to be balanced -- or at least, to create equally safe and free paths without sidelining anything they don't want to sideline.

That is why FEMININE PEOPLE OF WHOM WOMEN MAKE UP THE VAST MAJORITY (what I referred to as Woman (archetype), not Women (plural vagina-havers) need to understand their emotions and learn to express them clearly because that is their talent in the same way that the masculine element of humanity is logical, boundary-setting and able to utilise brute-force and physical strength. When the masculine goes too far, violence is always the answer...sound familiar? When the feminine goes to far, emotions are manipulated and you get what many young women experience in High School...mean girls, bitchiness etc.

In psychological terms, maturity seems to be what you're referring here-- And I do agree.
One aspect of it, however, is-- mm, the shape of the road. Things like social policy, discrimination, to subtle things like representation and our values of what is right and wrong-- again, human construct, all of them-- they influence the way we see things and ultimately, the path we're taking.
I agree with you that any form of imbalance doesn't work and ultimately wouldn't do any good.

Which, a lot of modern feminism doesn't really want to 'replace men', so to speak.

Put that on a national and universal scale and you can see that we need a balance and currently don't have it. What I am arguing is that the feminine is so repressed that even if the dominating masculine influence stepped down, the feminine has been out of practice (except in caring professions) for so long that even with a hypothetical opening they would fuck it up. But the current society has little to no places where a feminine-dominant person can slot into because most, if not all, major institutions have been constructed by and are institutionally dedicated to upholding the patriarchy which is NOT about which genitals you have.

This is why men are encouraged not to show emotion, it's why 'boys don't cry'.

It HAS gone too far in that the patriarchy damaged men because the physical gender difference is one aspect and people are a more subtle blend of both elements.

It wasn't ever meant to be a see-saw, it IS like a yin-yang, there does need to be balance to be effective.

Also agreed, personally. I don't know what to say-- because the areas related to what you were saying does and is related to gender and the way society is shaped, currently. And again, that's what feminism is fighting. I don't personally KNOW the goal of each and every feminists (because they are varied) but personally I don't disagree much with what you said here.

But everyone needs to see masculine/feminine as two sides of the same coin that is present in every single being in different ratios and stop just looking at which genitals they have.

...I take this as a truly feminist idea of humanity. /confused

My post on the first page should have been enough. I'm not even sure why I posted but if you don't get it still...PM me or carry on with what you see the issue as being.

I think I misread your latest reply. The way you phrased your sentence, I mistook it as evolutionary psychology-ish sentiments of "but men and women are created differently (and therefore the way the world is now is good and well and STOP RUINING MY RULE YOU FEMINAZI)" that completely disregard a lot of-- cultural influences.

My apologies.

(Now if we can talk personally, I see a lot of your beliefs as feminist in nature. ; not patriarchal nor matriarchal; focusing more on social equality rather than dominance. I am curious with what you see as feminism, personally)

 

[Trifoilum]

Ah. A 21rst century feminist accomplishment. Fueling patriarchy in the mental health system.

:clap2:

eh? mind explaining more?

 

[Trifoilum]

Now I think you're being a bit unfair, to be honest. I wasn't suggesting that joining a discussion on sexual assault in Egypt and attempting to steer it onto Chelsea Manning's person is proper behaviour. I'm simply raising some concerns I have about the way the modern feminist movement conducts itself, and I don't think that can be considered derailment in a thread full of people debating the validity of feminist ideology.

I think I might have said some things wrongly here, and I do apologize. >_<

What I mean is NOT that you are derailing things HERE. I never thought so, and I do personally appreciate your criticism.
Criticizing the lack of coverage is important and necessary (god knows feminism has a lot to improve). Given the TPO in this particular case, I do think you're not off topic nor derailing.

Just that. I have nothing to feel regarding your statement and I apologize for saying it so wrongly as to become aggressive.

Feminism is not and has never been an inclusive ideology focusing on gender equality - it's a sociopolitical movement fighting for women's rights, and I find that perfectly acceptable. What I have an issue with is hypocrisy - you can't simultaneously argue that feminism is actively trying to solve the problems unique to men and at the same time call it "derailment" when someone calls attention to them.

Derailing is basically, "stop what you're talking, we have more important things to talk here".
It can be anything really, even between feminist issues ('how dare you talk about Orange is the New Black WHEN WOMEN IN EGYPT ARE ASSAULTED!?!?!?!?!)

It would be very different if 1) there is an article talking about issues related to men compared to 2) people butting into a previously established discussion. Which is why I said TPO.
But as far as men's issues; derailment can and has happened throughout feminist discussions, usually *again* 'what about teh menz you always talk about wimminz MISANDRYYYY'. And IINM it's a very common MRA technique because what they mean is "stop talking about you and what you find important and start talking about me and what I find important".

Therein lies my bias; my experience with 'men calling attention to some of their issues' is always the second.

Every time an article is trying to raise awareness on, say, domestic violence against men, the typical response from feminists is not exactly sympathetic. Instead of attempting to come up with ideas on how the problem of domestic abuse against men can be tackled, they try to silence the discussion by arguing that because women are victims more often than men, male victims are not important.

That's...whoa, unfortunate. I'm sorry. That's not my experience at all, I think. There are people who made those claims, but they are usually drowned by the more sympathetic ones.

Again, what you said is -also- important but it really depends on where you're saying it-- for example, trying to butt in a discussion / article about female domestic violence to talk about male domestic violence is unfair and rude, because as much as they are important; the circumstances are often very different-- in effect, eliminating the discussion of the former for the sake of the latter.

Asking "what about the men?" isn't the same as someone claiming that white people are as oppressed as minorities.

it is the same. See above re: derailment; the usage in Internet discussion is to distract and divert the attention from the minority to the majority.
and besides, men have a lot of privilege that women don't have, just as how white people have a lot of privilege that non-white people doesn't.

 

[somethingpancake]

Men and Women are equal.

 

[Trifoilum]

@Gktr

ETA : (preface) feel free to disagree with this; and my points certainly don't represent the entire feminism.

Women face prejudice, discrimination, and injustice. Men face prejudice, discrimination, and injustice. I don't think it's fair to say that women faced more difficulties in their daily lives than men - women had to stay home and mind the children; men had to go to war and die.

I think that statement creates a false dichotomy; you talked specifically about stereotypically gendered professions; stay at home mothers and male soldiers.
What about stay at home fathers? female soldiers? male and female office workers, actors and actresses, writers, artists, lawyers?

At the very least I'm saying, they would be very different.

Yesterday, I stumbled upon this article describing a study on the length of prison sentences in the US. While minority convicts are, on average, given longer sentences than white ones for the same crime, men receive sentences that are 63 percent longer than those of female convicts convicted of the same crime. Why do you think that is?

For what it's worth, that in itself is a sexist attitude-- putting women in pedestal. It's discrimination of another kind. And the other side of the coin is-- men are seen as more violent. That idea is not a feminist idea or perspective at all.

I think it's well known that women can be violent, criminals and such. Even fellow feminists that I'd seen admits it as well. That said, I admit freely that I don't see a lot of discussion regarding this in the feminist media that I frequent on, and it's a fair criticism, again.

I know that the feminist movement usually blames the patriarchy - women are fragile and innocent little flowers in need of protection and so on - but why isn't there a cry of outrage from the feminist's side when figures like these are published?

Whoa. That's.....a strawman perspective, sir.

Women simply aren't oppressed. Women face many problems that are unique to their sex, and the same is true for men. Perhaps women face more problems, but that doesn't make any of the problems men face less real.

Mind giving an example?
I don't argue for the last sentence; men's problems are also real but to say women aren't oppressed is....a very ignorant view.

Suicide is indeed often related to economy. The traditional idea of a male provider causes a lot of men to kill themselves when they lose their source of income because they're stigmatized and considered failures.
Social issues also affect men to a greater degree than women, and more men are marginalized. Suicide is very much a gender issue. I agree that GLBTQs have even more pressing problems than men, which is also reflected in the suicide statistics, but that women commit suicide because of their femininity more often than men commit suicide because of their masculinity is simply not true.

On that one particular angle, I agreed completely (and I personally don't see a lot of feminist publicity regarding non-GLBTQ suicide)

but I personally find it funny because at the same time women workers are receiving less salary and often received harassment / aren't taken seriously. Essentially the current status quo is still pushing the same old model, resisting change that ultimately can help men as a whole as well.
I would say one of the most effective solution is to indeed, challenge both stigmas. Men can stay at home and women can be the breadwinner.
But my original point is; suicide is a complex, underexposed matter that isn't only related to gender. If you expand the search issue beyond non-feminist medias, I'm quite sure there are a lot of discussion regarding this topic.

Anyway, that's...it. Sorry for the late reply and I apologize for saying it badly.

 

[slant]

Not necessarily. I don't know about Ancient Egypt, but Roman culture was incredibly phallocentric and patriarchal.

JUST for your information, because everyone is so brainwashed with false European history, Kemet (which is the TRUE, african word for Ancient Egypt) was a matriarchal society, at least up until the point that Europeans invaded and introduced their sexist European beliefs. The bloodline was always past down from mother to mother because who knows who their child was better than a mother? Unlike the European fashion of naming a child with the father's surname, the Kemetic naming system ALWAYS followed the mother, it was maternal and very intuitive in that sense. Inheritances and property were passed through female lines only, meaning that yes, women owned property. Kemet had several female rulers during it's day and age prior to European invasion. Women could live alone, work jobs, own property as I already mentioned and actually participate in legal affairs with the same standing that men had. So yeah Ancient Egypt AKA Kemet, it's proper name, was a great place for women and a great example of a society that embraces some of the policies feminism stands for way before it's time. Additionally, there is speculation that a story of two protagonists, Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum, is a depiction of a male homosexual relationship that was practiced and accepted during that time. Additionally, Egypt did not have a binary system of gender. There was "male", "female" and "sekhet" which is interpreted as a third sex of sort, an alternative to the traditional sexes, a person who was neither male or female in the terms that they defined them. I am just giving this information so we can all be aware of how culturally complex and progressive Egypt was during it's day and age.

 

[slant]

Rape is really common. The statistics on this situation are usually along the lines of: 1 out of every either 5 or 6 women have been raped. That means if you took a room full of six women, statistically, at least one of them have been raped or sexually assaulted at one point in their life. That SHOULD be a stunning statistic. That SHOULD be something that upsets and angers women nationwide. Even though we live in a society where there is no obvious signs of oppression, that is because the oppression is being put "under the rug". In the cases where a football team thinks they have the right to rape a girl who got drunk and actually ridicule her and make fun of her as they are raping her, as well as brag to their friends about how she was 'like a corpse' as they were fucking her. That's the society we live in and if that is not sexism, if that's just a freak accident that happened once and you should never expect it to happen again, if you live in that world---boy! You live in a crazy fantasy world! Of my immediant family female relatives, I think that only 2 out of 5 can attest they have not been raped or sexually assaulted. The other 3 were raped or sexually assaulted, all of them before the age of 15. There is serious violence against women going on in this country. That football team that raped that girl...the whole town backed them up and acted like they hadn't known any better. There is a strong attitude that women who drink alcohol deserve to get raped. Or that if women wear a certain type of clothes, they deserve to be raped. Or if women lead a guy on or flirt with him, they deserve to be raped. Or if a woman is a lesbian and doesn't know how good a cock feels between her legs, she deserves to be raped. There are a whole lot of opinions out there that are actually more common than you think, and to live under this delusion that women are equal and we are getting raped and assaulted and paid lesser wages and being told how we can dress and express our sexuality, to think that it's not because we are women, but because, well, some other reason than we are female...you seriously have to be crazy. I mean you just have to be. It really disappointing me to see another woman who actively supports rape culture and delegitimizes issues that are actually really fucking important.



===============

This is a separate narrative, I did not want to post 3 posts in a row, I'm not good at multiquoting okay, deal with that shit.

I could not get past page 2---on my browser because of my post settings, this thread only has 3 pages. So I was stuck halfway down page 2. So here is my insight. I am not going to apologize for my beliefs or try to present them in a way that makes everyone go, "ooohhh I get it, equal rights, sounds groovy man!". The reality is that the reason some people interpret feminism as anti-male is that some feminism, I say "some" so I don't generalize the feminists that are still so busy and concerned patting everyone's back and giving them bibs to try to swallow down TRUE FACTS THAT ARE LITERALLY JUST FACTS to make them accept it. The reason there are "some" feminists that appear anti-male, is, WE'RE FUCKING ANGRY!

We are sick of living in a culture that marginalizes us and treats us as lesser human beings. For a long time blacks were equated to being worth the same as livestock...guess what? When blacks were freed, the BLACK MALE got the vote before the BLACK FEMALE and even WHITE WOMEN did---white women, who were considered culturally (And unfairly I might add) to be better than blacks, they were not given the right to vote until 51 years later. Gee. I wonder how that felt for black women especially, knowing that they were technically "free" but because they did not have a black penis, they were not allowed to vote. So fast forward to women having the right to vote and that doesn't just eliminate all of our problems. Women are held to different standards than men are- they are sexualized more often than men are and their worth in culture is put on their sexual health. Like marraige. Marriage is the act of selling a woman. Seriously, that's how marriage was invented- in cultures the father would pass down the woman to a groom, usually for money or land or some form of financial security. Even if it was not an arranged marriage some form of payment was expected to be paid because that was a woman's worth. Women weren't really working in the United States until the WW2, so you really get to understand that for decades and decades women were imprinted with this idea that they were worth money because of their value of sex appeal and ability to keep a home maintained and pop out babies. You think that women are going to after several decades of not having certain oppressive things over their heads, you think they are going to just forget about it to move on? Slavery had a huge impact on blacks...even to this day I can promise you a large portion of the poverty that African American families live in is the direct result of: a) When slaves were set free, they were just told to go get a fucking job and figure out how to pay for a place to live. They had no education, most couldn't read, most weren't allowed into colleges, most places wouldn't even hire blacks except for the most menial job. You think that blacks are going to somehow establish the same wealth as a modern white family, when for the 19th, 20th, and 21st century there were all of these discriminations on them? Imagine the condition of the black woman then! She's probably the most oppressed category of people in the country. No---the black gay woman, I would say, is probably the most oppressed.

Religion fucks up women's lives more than anything, telling us we gotta get married and having kids, telling us we have to wear dresses and be sexy and give men blowjobs and sex even when we don't want to because they're our husbands and god will only accept us in the kingdom of heaven if we let our husbands fuck us when we aren't in the mood for it. NOT TO MENTION that if we like women "hahaha it's a phase" or "oh my god you must be a man hating feminist, you really wanna suck cocks, you're just a stupid feminist that won't admit it!" OR WORSE what if we don't want sex from men or women?! "GOD SAYS YOU'RE A PRUDE! YOU NEEEED TO HAVE SEX! YOUR VALUE IN THIS SOCIETY IS HOW BIG YOUR TITTIES ARE, HOW THIN YOU ARE, AND HOW MUCH YOU WANNA SUCK THE COCK OF ONE MAN YOU WANT TO BE DEDICATED TO FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, BECAUSE GOD FORBID IF YOU EVER HAD MULTIPLE SEX PARTNERS OR WERE INVOLVED IN SOME POLYAMOROUS OPEN RELATIONSHIP, THAT WOULD MEAN YOU ARE A LITTLE SLUT THAT DESERVES TO BE RAPED AND LOOKED DOWN UPON IN SOCIETY SINCE YOUR BODY IS A TEMPLE AND YOU CLEARLY DONT VALUE THAT, HAHA."

Like, it's just so upsetting when some dude with a huge clitoris (which, by the way, that's what a penis is. a penis is an enlarged clitoris. all babies develop in the fetus as female and eventually progress into being male if they are gonna be male. the clit turns into a penis. this is why trans-women can often have small but fully functional penises, because they just enlarge the clit. so don't think you are some big man that has something we will never have. all women have our own little penis, we have no fuckin' envy over your shit at all.) comes up to me and is like, "Hey so I have decided that you shouldn't be able to use a condom to protect yourself from pregnancy or disease. You're right, it's just my own personal belief, but I'm going to go to the court systems where people like me are overly represented and there are not enough female senate or congress members to stop me. I'm gonna go there and also tell them you don't have a right to have birth control, or abortion, even if you are raped! 'Cause if there is anything I know, being a man who will never have a baby growing inside of him, is that life is precious and I should be able to dictate what you do because hey---I am a man! I have a penis! And people who have penises know that they are talking about when it comes to stuff like this. I mean, we have created the baby, even though, heh, we could have done it against your will or even just walk away after it and never have to see the baby again- an option you do not have! But that just means you shouldn't have sex unless you are in a committed relationship. And if you had sex by rape....don't you know it wasn't legitimate rape? Everybody knows when a woman is legitimately raped she is unable to get pregnant- just like a duck! Women are ducks! And like ducks, and can just do whatever I want them with no consequence!!!"

....I am not speaking on behalf of all men. Some men are cool, some men are feminists, some men have mothers and sisters and daughters and wives and girlfriends and female friends that they actually care about their opinion and realize that because they are not female, and unless they are transgender, NEVER WILL be female, then they can just butt the fuck out and stop trying to control our bodies and our behavior and how we represent ourselves.

INCLUDING if a woman wants to be fat, or have short hair, or wear boys clothes, or be fat, have short hair AND wear boys clothes. Dude...not all women are trying to get dick, and if you have a problem with the way a woman is presenting yourself, that's probably because they wouldn't want your dick anyway because you're a fucking asshole.

 

[Gktr]

I think that statement creates a false dichotomy; you talked specifically about stereotypically gendered professions; stay at home mothers and male soldiers.
What about stay at home fathers? female soldiers? male and female office workers, actors and actresses, writers, artists, lawyers?

At the very least I'm saying, they would be very different.

I'm talking about historical gender roles though (I reacted to the fact that you wrote "women had" instead of "have" in the paragraph I quoted). Men and women had different expectations placed upon them, but I think it's more accurate to say that average people were being oppressed by feudal lords and religious institutions than to say women were being oppressed by men.

For what it's worth, that in itself is a sexist attitude-- putting women in pedestal. It's discrimination of another kind. And the other side of the coin is-- men are seen as more violent. That idea is not a feminist idea or perspective at all.

I think it's well known that women can be violent, criminals and such. Even fellow feminists that I'd seen admits it as well. That said, I admit freely that I don't see a lot of discussion regarding this in the feminist media that I frequent on, and it's a fair criticism, again.

No matter how you choose to look at it, it's discrimination against men - just like the fact that black people receive longer sentences than white people is discrimination against the former.

Whoa. That's.....a strawman perspective, sir.

Perhaps I wasn't being entirely clear. "Women are fragile and innocent little flowers in need of protection" was meant as a description of how women are seen by the "patriarchy" - not of how they're seen by feminists.

Mind giving an example?
I don't argue for the last sentence; men's problems are also real but to say women aren't oppressed is....a very ignorant view.

When someone is truly oppressed, it's always possible to come up with clear and undeniable evidence that they are. Instead of simply telling me that my views are ignorant you ought to explain to me why it is you think women are being oppressed, and depending on what you come up with, I'll either counter your arguments or admit defeat and accept that you were right.

On that one particular angle, I agreed completely (and I personally don't see a lot of feminist publicity regarding non-GLBTQ suicide)

but I personally find it funny because at the same time women workers are receiving less salary and often received harassment / aren't taken seriously. Essentially the current status quo is still pushing the same old model, resisting change that ultimately can help men as a whole as well.
I would say one of the most effective solution is to indeed, challenge both stigmas. Men can stay at home and women can be the breadwinner.
But my original point is; suicide is a complex, underexposed matter that isn't only related to gender. If you expand the search issue beyond non-feminist medias, I'm quite sure there are a lot of discussion regarding this topic.

Where I live, wages are determined by negotiations between unions representing employers and employees of specific industries, and there is full transparency. There simply is no pay gap. Sexual harrassment exists (towards both men and women, I should add), but it's a problem that's being dealt with. Filing a complaint is easy and straightforward, and if you do, it'll always be taken seriously.

I know that feminism as an ideology is actively opposing the cultural norms that prevent men from seeking help when they need it, but what's needed is not a lecture on patriarchy - it's helplines, shelters, and crisis centers. Unfortunately, the attempts to establish those have not exactly received a warm welcome by any feminist media outlets I know of.Many non-feminist publications have indeed touched upon the subject of male suicide, but any serious attempt at tackling the problem has been thwarted by the feminist movement.

Anyway, that's...it. Sorry for the late reply and I apologize for saying it badly.

Don't worry about that ^^