Ladies on the forum, do you consider yourself to be a feminist?

[Me Myself]

I don't understand this sentence. What are you trying to say?



Let me put it this way:

- what is the magnitude of the problems of inequality for women and male privilege? How many people are harmed by this, and to what degree?

- what is the magnitude of the problems of inequality for men and female privilege? How many people are harmed by this, and to what degree?

Unless you think these problems are equal in magnitude (and if you do, I'd ask you why you think this), treating them equally is illogical and inappropriate. When you keep insisting that they should be treated equally, I begin to suspect that there's some other agenda going on here.

yes.... The agenda of equality o.o...of cutting a problem before it gets big o.o.... I dont even get the usage of the word agenda as if it was pejorative, but then again that is for another discussion.

I meant if you have problems with the name "masculism" It could be called differently, although it seemed a reasonable fit.

The problems dont need to be both "equal" in magnitude so that both have appointed solutions to them via some social movement. The privileges of women over men are reasonably frecuent as to them having to be foug by their own movement.

Why wuld you want the problem to spread further when it can be cut from the root? Why wait till the problem gets bigger? Why willfully postpone action to take care of it? Because taking care of it would be discriminative? I eont get that line of thougth.

About how much female privilege exista, I think its a wonderful question. How many studies have been done on the subject? In opposition to studies done the other way around?

 

[Me Myself]

I think that's where you and I part ways. I don't see misandry associated with penis envy (so to speak). I see it as a perspective of men as an entire class associated with something inherently ugly, violent, unevolved, etc., and expresses it personally and politically.

Where we agree is that feminism is a movement, but I fail to see how misandry can fuel the movement outside of seeking equality, but to diminish or defeat males in some way. Dunno.

The real aim of feminism is to combat male privilege (which in itself is a geat aim). Now I dont see how you cannot envision a misandrist takingpart of the movement and using her interpretatin of where the privilege is.

 

[dust1n]

Te jokke was the specific post you replied to when saying "neither"

Oh. I thought you were referring to what I was responding to in the post where I've yet to get a reply. But I was wrong. Still though, I've yet to get a reply to that one post.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I remeber I had a teacher that talked about this a long while ago. She said we often blame the males for discrimination against women, but we dont see that "we" (women) play a very good part too. She gave examles from her life of her mother or friends promoting stereotyped roles as DA roles for said gender. I thought she was quite inspirational AND that her speech was empowering towards women. She was a very passionate happy and ascertive woman (the kind I tend to love ).

Precisely. Men and women together can perpetuate stereotypes, and women can be just as complicit. This is why I fight against the gender wars - and which is why the vast majority of feminist writers fight against the gender wars too. Part of Third Wave Feminism expresses stark disagreement with ****-shaming, which is the example you put forth below.

I also often complain to my female friends when they usw thhe term "puta" (spanish equivalent of "sl ut" ) to talk about other women enjoying their sexualities. The way I see it, the source of e issue is we as humans that dont speak up and/or perpetuate this things. Both male and female on both female and male privilege.

What is the jump to female privilege after bringing up the very relevant example of ****-shaming?

Technically, the causes will be many not just one, but I am reading you, by all means enlighten me

If I were to boil it down, it's the privilege of the European-Protestant-Christian-Imperialist-White-Male. It's the spread of culture through agricultural practices, industrial development, evolving immune systems in human groups after generations of disease spread over continents, and yet people believing that it isn't the science behind the cultural spread throughout the globe but that they as a people are somehow special compared to others.

People of European descent often rarely understand their privilege without the perspective of those of African, Asian, or Middle Eastern descent, for example.

In this thread, I perceive feminism as the progenitor of challenging the example of male privilege. I also acknowledge it's necessity and it's relevance in this day and age.

 

[Me Myself]

Has anyone read this article yet?

More than 40% of domestic violence victims are male, report reveals | Society | The Observer

Nw, no doubt we caan all see that the (REPORTED) case of domestic violence is still bigger on the female being the victim... But given how close it is to 50 50... Dont you think the support for each side is.... Absolutely bananas bazingas WHATHEHECK BRING THE MOTHA IN LAW! Disproportionate?

I am just saying thatBECAUSE of the culture that feminist theory does say exist male cases are way more prone to be overlooked and THAT in itself is a really good reason to have a movement actually ryng to find out.

Whats the difference between support to breast cancer and testicle cancer? Is it a difference proportionate to the differences in e threats? Or is it proportionate to how much we tend to give more attention to female problems in such areas?

Again, remember I am not playing the "overal" game. i am not saying "overal, women have it worst or men have it worst" I am simly turning the question back, is the care proportional? Not even overall, but to the specific cases? Because if there is a good amount of specific cases that have it e oer way around, why is it important if it is not the rule?

Why wait the worst case scenario to react?

 

[dawny0826]

I think that's where you and I part ways. I don't see misandry associated with penis envy (so to speak). I see it as a perspective of men as an entire class associated with something inherently ugly, violent, unevolved, etc., and expresses it personally and politically.

Where we agree is that feminism is a movement, but I fail to see how misandry can fuel the movement outside of seeking equality, but to diminish or defeat males in some way. Dunno.

We have different understandings of misandry, which is fine.

It seems quite reasonable to me that a woman fed up with men and inequality would channel those feelings to better the world for woman. Feminist movements are the more positive outlet for such feelings.

To each their own.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

yes.... The agenda of equality o.o...of cutting a problem before it gets big o.o.... I dont even get the usage of the word agenda as if it was penorative, but then again that is for another discussion.

I've said many times that equality is a good goal. The agenda I'm talking about is an attempt to portray feminism as something sinister.

I meant if you have problems with the name "masculism" It could be called differently, although it seemed a reasonable fit.

The problems dont need to be both "equal" in magnitude so that both have appointed solutions to them via some social movement. The privileges of women over men are reasonably frecuent as to them having to be foug by their own movement.

Analogy time:

A lot of my professional work is about preventing motor vehicle collisions. I like to think that I've made injury prevention a priority for me. Now... if someone came up to me and told me that if I don't take part in his campaign against being crushed by furniture (26 deaths per year in the US) along with my work about motor vehicle collisions (32,000 deaths per year in the US), then I haven't really made injury prevention a priority, I'd look at him like he had two heads.

I feel similarly about your "masculism" thing. I agree that men can be disadvantaged in certain situations (just as I agree that falling furniture can kill sometimes), but I don't think the issues are on par at all.

Why wuld you want the problem to spread further when it can be cut from the root? Why wait till the problem gets bigger? Why willfully postpone action to take care of it? Because taking care of it would be discriminative? I eont get that line of thougth.

There are countless hypothetical problems in the world that might happen. Why did you pick this particular one?

And why do you see it as something that deserves your attention more than actual problems?

About how much female privilege exista, I think its a wonderful question. How many studies have been done on the subject? I oppositn to studies done the other way around?

If you don't have reliable information on the issue, I wonder why you've gotten yourself so apoplectic about the "problem".

 

[Me Myself]

Oh. I thought you were referring to what I was responding to in the post where I've yet to get a reply. But I was wrong. Still though, I've yet to get a reply to that one post.

I ll repeat it to you: I remember somewhere you put some picture saying something about straws. If there was some fundamental meaningfulness in such post of yours that escaped me I apologize and you are welcome to put it up again so I can adress it, if you so wish

Precisely. Men and women together can perpetuate stereotypes, and women can be just as complicit. This is why I fight against the gender wars - and which is why the vast majority of feminist writers fight against the gender wars too. Part of Third Wave Feminism expresses stark disagreement with ****-shaming, which is the example you put forth below.

I think we agree that both genders are at fault here then? Likewise we also agreed both suffer the problems of it?

What is the jump to female privilege after bringing up the very relevant example of ****-shaming?

Te **** shaming was an example of male privilage to put in context that both genders perpetuate this, even the one who is the victim. About female privilege I am stating my point that it also exist, but for examples you can check out posts above, although I ink you saw them aleeady so thats why I didnt repeat the examples of female privilege.

Aainy this point I assume we both agree that both sides hae privileges and injustices done unto them because of the current cultural bagage given different situations and contexts. Yes ?

If I were to boil it down, it's the privilege of the European-Protestant-Christian-Imperialist-White-Male. It's the spread of culture through agricultural practices, industrial development, evolving immune systems in human groups after generations of disease spread over continents, and yet people believing that it isn't the science behind the cultural spread throughout the globe but that they as a people are somehow special compared to others.

People of European descent often rarely understand their privilege without the perspective of those of African, Asian, or Middle Eastern descent, for example.

In this thread, I perceive feminism as the progenitor of challenging the example of male privilege. I also acknowledge it's necessity and it's relevance in this day and age.

Feminism brought great and positive changes for women, and given that, for men too (after all, injustice to everyones mommas is not cool D: )

But when I hear that someone says s/he is a feminist simply because of believing in equality, then I do worry, because feminism main view of equality is fight male privilege (again, this in itself is good) but the person rarely has an active self identification of the opposing necessary fight, which is fighting the female privleges. Is, taken in the individual level I see as a problem.

Soceities change, they fluctuate. If we have a good model for them in mind we must try to make the necessary regulatory factos, in some cases ideas. There exist serious issues where men are at defaborable position aainst female privilege, and it is worrying that given his reality peoople try to discourage movements that want to fight against this.

Do you understand my point? Its not that I think feminism is bad in itself, I just worry aot it given the ideological context. One action toe done to preserve eqality is to fig male privilege, agree. So, another action is to fight female privilege.

If we act like it is not there when are we going to start? And honestly WHY WAIT?!

Edit: corrected a stupid confusion in tying above in the part about the **** shaming, I put female privilege where
I meant male privilege and it is already corrected.

 

[Me Myself]

I've said many times that equality is a good goal. The agenda I'm talking about is an attempt to portray feminism as something sinister.



Analogy time:

A lot of my professional work is about preventing motor vehicle collisions. I like to think that I've made injury prevention a priority for me. Now... if someone came up to me and told me that if I don't take part in his campaign against being crushed by furniture (26 deaths per year in the US) along with my work about motor vehicle collisions (32,000 deaths per year in the US), then I haven't really made injury prevention a priority, I'd look at him like he had two heads.

I feel similarly about your "masculism" thing. I agree that men can be disadvantaged in certain situations (just as I agree that falling furniture can kill sometimes), but I don't think the issues are on par at all.


There are countless hypothetical problems in the world that might happen. Why did you pick this particular one?

And why do you see it as something that deserves your attention more than actual problems?


If you don't have reliable information on the issue, I wonder why you've gotten yourself so apoplectic about the "problem".

Because not looking for information on the issue is a big problem in itself.

No one has yet answered my post about the link on domestic abuse on the UK.

 

[dust1n]

I ll repeat it to you: I remember somewhere you put some picture saying something about straws. If there was some fundamental meaningfulness in such post of yours that escaped me I apologize and you are welcome to put it up again so I can adress it, if you so wish

I'll repeat it to you:

You said: "Then those women did a great job getting their rights (which is awesome ) and a terrible job grounding their movement to stay egualitarian by their concepts's names

Its normal that they didnt do it on purpose, they grew wi the same cultural bagage that they were trying to fight."

I said that that was a big claim to make from someone who has never read any feminist texts. How can you such claims about feminism having never actually read any feminist authors?

 

[dust1n]

No one has yet answered my post about the link on domestic abuse on the UK.

1.) No one disputes the claim. 2.) Feminism is against domestic violence against men. 3.)These numbers are only from the UK and definitely don't compare to the norm in the world.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Has anyone read this article yet?

More than 40% of domestic violence victims are male, report reveals | Society | The Observer

Nw, no doubt we caan all see that the (REPORTED) case of domestic violence is still bigger on the female being the victim... But given how close it is to 50 50... Dont you think the support for each side is.... Absolutely bananas bazingas WHATHEHECK BRING THE MOTHA IN LAW! Disproportionate?

I am just saying thatBECAUSE of the culture that feminist theory does say exist male cases are way more prone to be overlooked and THAT in itself is a really good reason to have a movement actually ryng to find out.

Whats the difference between support to breast cancer and testicle cancer? Is it a difference proportionate to the differences in e threats? Or is it proportionate to how much we tend to give more attention to female problems in such areas?

Again, remember I am not playing the "overal" game. i am not saying "overal, women have it worst or men have it worst" I am simly turning the question back, is the care proportional? Not even overall, but to the specific cases? Because if there is a good amount of specific cases that have it e oer way around, why is it important if it is not the rule?

Why wait the worst case scenario to react?

I've addressed this before. Your response to my thoughts were dismissive at best. But because it's President's Day (just being funny here):

One of the assumptions of patriarchy is that women are by nature helpless and weak, and that men are brute and strong. The assumptions consider that any abuse will overwhelmingly be disproportionate toward men abusing women, where statistics through the years say otherwise. Women are capable of abusing men (I've argued repeatedly here at RF that women can hurt men just as easily, and have been met with some resistance on that argument). At least I'm consistent.

We need more battered men shelters in society, and with more shelters available, the more abused men will feel they have a safe place to go where they won't be terrorized.

But again, this is not the result of too much feminism. It is a by-product of a patriarchal paradigm that assumes men can't be physically hurt, or abused, or raped, by women. Get rid of that assumption about a male nature and a female nature - which feminism addresses squarely with opposition to prescribed gender roles - and we have a more egalitarian approach.

 

[Willamena]

We need more battered men shelters in society, and with more shelters available, the more abused men will feel they have a safe place to go where they won't be terrorized.

Would they take advantage of that?

At all?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Would they take advantage of that?

At all?

I would hope so. How else could we know unless they were readily available?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because not looking for information on the issue is a big problem in itself.

No one has yet answered my post about the link on domestic abuse on the UK.

- Even that source, which cites a study by a men's rights organization, says that nearly twice as many women are victims of domestic abuse as men.

- The statistic doesn't say anything about the severity of abuse.

- There are problems in getting reliable data about unreported crimes, though I agree that crimes reported to police might not be completely representative of the crimes that are committed. If we want to compare domestic abuse rates between men and women, I can think of one measure that doesn't have the reliability problems of surveys/self-reporting/etc., and isn't affected by any potential reluctance on the part of men to report abuse to the police: corpses. I don't have info for the UK right at hand, but here's the stats for here in Canada:

Women continue to be more likely than men to be victims of spousal homicide. In 2009, the rate of spousal homicide against women was about three times higher than that for men.

Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile: Highlights: Family violence in Canada – A statistical profile

Edit: if you look through the information on that link, you can see that people are looking at the issue. They're just not coming to the conclusion you want.

 

[Penumbra]

I find it worrying that if a woman says she's a feminist, she also has to make sure everyone knows she's not "crazy" at the same time

Stuff like that just makes me more "crazy"

Aye, it's a sad state of affairs when the first image that comes to mind of someone who stands for gender equality in politics, the market, and in the family is more likely to be considered a man-hater, ball-crusher, *****-y woman than someone who simply fights against inequality and injustice.

Ya'll should have seen some of the self-described radical feminists I met in college.

Some of the most bitter, hateful, fanatical group of people. It was essentially like extremist religion for them.

People like that mess the word up for everyone else, and people that would like to find a reason to be against feminism, or people that just aren't very knowledgeable on this whole thing and just see the most vocal people, seem to naturally latch onto those feminists to form their view of what feminism is.

So yeah, when I'm asked if I'm a feminist I have to qualify what that means for me because inevitably someone won't get it.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Ya'll should have seen some of the self-described radical feminists I met in college.

Some of the most bitter, hateful, fanatical group of people. It was essentially like extremist religion for them.

People like that mess the word up for everyone else, and people that would like to find a reason to be against feminism, or people that just aren't very knowledgeable on this whole thing and just see the most vocal people, seem to naturally latch onto those feminists to form their view of what feminism is.

So yeah, when I'm asked if I'm a feminist I have to qualify what that means for me because inevitably someone won't get it.

I must be old.

The vast majority of feminists I've known, discussed with, debated with, and read don't come close to the stereotype. It's strange to me, personally, to associate the whole of feminism with whatever fringe group exists.

 

[Penumbra]

I must be old.

The vast majority of feminists I've known, discussed with, debated with, and read don't come close to the stereotype. It's strange to me, personally, to associate the whole of feminism with whatever fringe group exists.

Pretty much everybody I know in person has a view that feminism = man haters.

My parents, my friends, my co-workers, etc.

They'll say, "I'm all for equality but feminism goes a bit far..."

 

[Alceste]

We have different understandings of misandry, which is fine.

It seems quite reasonable to me that a woman fed up with men and inequality would channel those feelings to better the world for woman. Feminist movements are the more positive outlet for such feelings.

To each their own.

Being fed up with men =/= being dissatisfied with patriarchy. The aim of feminism is not to get even, but to get equal. It's not about knocking men down a peg, but deconstructing gender stereotypes that are oppressive to both women and men (although women get the worst of it).

This perception of feminism being some kind of adversarial movement pitting women against men is really bizarre to me. The enemy of feminism is patriarchy, not men. Patriarchy sucks for everybody, not just women. By challenging patriarchal attitudes, we hope we are also helping the men we know and love. My husband loves cooking but hates mowing the lawn. I hate cooking but love working outdoors. Because we are both feminists, we're both happier than we would otherwise be, doing what comes most naturally to us as individuals, rather than trying to follow our prescribed gender roles.

I expect those who think feminist philosophy promotes any animosity to men in general don't know much about it.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

We have different understandings of misandry, which is fine.

It seems quite reasonable to me that a woman fed up with men and inequality would channel those feelings to better the world for woman. Feminist movements are the more positive outlet for such feelings.

To each their own.

I kind of get what you're saying , is it ever ok to hate the people who oppress you? I think hate is consuming but anger...anger can be directed in a good way.