Men's Issues/Masculism DIR

[Kilgore Trout]

It's like being married!

But with more sex.

 

[Draka]

Just out of curiosity, do you intend to contribute to the feminist DIR?

I ask because the staff are still hammering out their strategy for moderation and enforcement, so it would probably be helpful if anybody who is making recommendations on that subject clarifies whether or not they intend to participate.

Me, obviously I am participating. I'm OK with a policy of not bashing masculinism in the Feminist DIR, but I would probably draw the line somewhere between "bashing" and "mentioning" or "discussing".

Depends on if there's a thread there that really drives me to want to comment upon it. As I said though, I don't label myself. I shouldn't have to explain that I believe in gender equality and such. I should think you know enough about me. If I have to define myself as a feminist to post there, if that is some requirement though, then perhaps I am not welcome there.

 

[Alceste]

No, I said that the feminist area is for women's issues. Is it not essentially what it is for? I didn't say it was only for women to post in. If it was meant for true gender equality then that should be the name of the forum, not just feminism.

Truth of the matter is simply that feminism does have camps within it, connotations to it, that are very wide spread across the movement. This is why some people are uncomfortable with the term or may wonder if they really qualify to use the term. This makes it quite valid for some to wonder or feel hesitant as to using the forum to address certain issues involving men.

Also, the thread says "men's issues/masculism" not masculinism. They are actually different things.

Myself, as I said before, I hesitate to use labels at all because of the confusion in definitions/camps/connotations. To me it is enough to know where I stand on an issue as it comes. I don't need to label myself to put myself in one camp or another, to fly a flag only to have it mean one thing to one group or person and another thing to someone else. I'm quite fine being myself.

The feminist area is for discussing feminist issues. As you say, it's a diverse movement with many facets. The idea that it focuses exclusively on the issues of women is pretty first wave. I'm more third wave.

Third-wave theory usually incorporates elements of queer theory; anti-racism and women-of-color consciousness; womanism; girl power; post-colonial theory; postmodernism; transnationalism; cyberfeminism; ecofeminism; individualist feminism; new feminist theory, transgender politics, and a rejection of the gender binary. Also considered part of the third wave is sex-positivity, a celebration of sexuality as a positive aspect of life, with broader definitions of what sex means and what oppression and empowerment may imply in the context of sex. For example, many third-wave feminists have reconsidered the opposition to pornography and sex work of the second wave, and challenge existing beliefs that participants in pornography and sex work are always being exploited.[3]

Third-wave feminism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since I reject a gender binary, I also reject that notion that men can't be feminists, or that feminist discussions can only deal with issues directly affecting women.

 

[Revoltingest]

Didn't feel like reading the thread, but I don't see any reason why DIRs need to be symetric. Is there enough interest and disussion topics for a "man issue" DIR? Who would be allowed to post in there? If no one is going to post in there then it's kinda pointless to make a new DIR just to make things "fair".

I'm struck by how alike we are on the real issues, but how different we read each other.
The fighting is never so vicious as when we believe the same thing.

 

[Alceste]

My favorite thing about feminism and masculism is how they bring everyone together and promote harmony.

Feminism has always been controversial, and always will be - at least until we achieve an egalitarian social paradigm. Nobody ever cedes privilege without putting up a fight.

 

[Alceste]

How did you interpret Draka's post suggesting that she can't help but wonder if this is about hushing men?



One person said the issues surrounding Masculism are already covered in Feminism. I saw no more than one. Care to show me more?

That was me. Since I believe in dismantling gender stereotypes, the stereotype that men never get raped, bumble around the house, are inferior parents, etc. is included in the category of retarded gender stereotypes the radical feminist in me wants to smash.

 

[Me Myself]

How did you interpret Draka's post suggesting that she can't help but wonder if this is about hushing men?/QUOTE]

We are both aware of that. For some reason though you made it into an issue with feminism but she didnt say it was femism or feminists hushing men, so that becomes an interpretation of what she says.

One person said the issues surrounding Masculism are already covered in Feminism. I saw no more than one. Care to show me more?

No need to, you can read how the replies to that person started a discussion which included no bashing towards feminism but as being talking about masculism being an interesting DIR and how people do feel that te feminism DI R doesnt cover what it would cover, some people started pretending or percieving this as bashing.

Dont know why.

 

[Draka]

Actually, if you all will recall, I also mentioned the "hushing" in question came from men as well for some odd reason. For some reason there is this thought out there that men don't need to talk about certain things either at all or only under certain guidelines. Or at least, so it appears. I'm just saying...so it appears.

 

[Tarheeler]

Actually, if you all will recall, I also mentioned the "hushing" in question came from men as well for some odd reason. For some reason there is this thought out there that men don't need to talk about certain things either at all or only under certain guidelines. Or at least, so it appears. I'm just saying...so it appears.

I'm one of the men who oppose a "men's issues" forum. And it isn't to "hush" anyone. There are very real and serious issues that men face that are unique to being male. I don't deny that, and I fully encourage honest and frank discussion of them.

But I don't see the need for a separate forum for it. They can be introduced into the political, social, or other relevant sections of the forum and be discussed there.

The idea that we need one because "the women got one" is idiotic and completely ignores the nature of feminism and the way it has been habitually received here. If men start threads dealing with our issues and see the same kind of trolling and debating springing up, then maybe it will called for.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

That was me. Since I believe in dismantling gender stereotypes, the stereotype that men never get raped, bumble around the house, are inferior parents, etc. is included in the category of retarded gender stereotypes the radical feminist in me wants to smash.

Gotcha.

Yeah, that's a gender stereotype that I aim as a feminist to smash, too.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Boo Friggin Hoo

Hahaha!! You are getting as bad as me

 

[Alceste]

Gotcha.

Yeah, that's a gender stereotype that I aim as a feminist to smash, too.

Group hug!

 

[Kerr]

She is absolutely not a feminist any more than an atheist can accurately claim to be a Christian.

The reason is this: feminism seeks gender equality. Anything that would create inequality between genders (i.e., a "male tax"), is anti-feminist. Therefore, anyone who would propose such a thing cannot accurately be called a feminist.

Fortunately, she has a wikipedia article and you can judge for yourself what you think she is . Personally I regard has as a little on the extreme side, but she has good ideas as well.
Gudrun Schyman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EDIT:

If what I read in the wikipedia article is correct I may have missunderstood the whole "man tax" thing, lol. From what I read in the article, apparently she wanted to make a cost assessment of mens violence against women and wanted to state to fund shelters for woman. The media called that "man tax" (since it would be taxes that financed it I guess). If that is correct then she may not have explicitally asked for a special tax for men. Will have to check up on it tomorrow to see how it was. A bit tired now, lol.

 

[Flankerl]

Feminism has always been controversial, and always will be - at least until we achieve an egalitarian social paradigm.

Question: Do you think women should be expected to do the same in times of war like men have done for 10 thousand years?

How about that men actually receive the same rights when its about their kids?


Its somehow accepted that women are more qualified to raise kids which is insane if you believe in equality.

 

[Revoltingest]

Gudrun Schyman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

She's a tax cheat, eh?
She's not all bad!

 

[Alceste]

Fortunately, she has a wikipedia article and you can judge for yourself what you think she is . Personally I regard has as a little on the extreme side, but she has good ideas as well.
Gudrun Schyman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting! Her initiatives would be fairly representative with my general criticism of governments and NGOs disproportionately funding rape and domestic violence initiatives specifically for women, regardless of demand. But I think that's a subject for the Feminism DIR.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

How did you interpret Draka's post suggesting that she can't help but wonder if this is about hushing men?

We are both aware of that. For some reason though you made it into an issue with feminism but she didnt say it was femism or feminists hushing men, so that becomes an interpretation of what she says.

It was, from my reading, an attempt to defend Masculist Only against what she perceives as Feminism - which I read as something she doesn't identify with and does not feel comfortable posting in.

The tie-in throughout this thread has been from my understanding:

- Why not have a Masculist Only forum since Feminists have their own forum? It's only fair.
- Because I don't identify with Feminism, I want to post somewhere that I feel welcome. And I think I'll identify better with Feminism because they're just too exclusivist and only care about women. They're not equal enough, so I want a Masculist Only forum to feel more equal.
- Can't we complain about Feminism if we see it's matriarchal and anti-male in this Masculist Only forum?

All of these points for a Masculist Only forum so far....and they never were brought up by me at first....are points I've seen as simply reactionary to feminism. Plus, I think there continues to be misrepresentation of what feminism actually is in this very thread.

No need to, you can read how the replies to that person started a discussion which included no bashing towards feminism but as being talking about masculism being an interesting DIR and how people do feel that te feminism DI R doesnt cover what it would cover, some people started pretending or percieving this as bashing.

Dont know why.

I have my theories as to why.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I don't really care if there is a masculinist forum or not.

I have a question though, to those masculinists out there, do you guys believe the majority of the world is a matriarchy?

 

[Breathe]

Makes sense to me. It seems we're awash in complicated color coding, undefined categories, & too many of them.
If a posters without a DIR still desire a thread limited to their own ilk, then this could be specified in the OP.

Exactly.

To be honest, I don't like the term DIR either. Some things aren't religions which have DIRs

Like an Angelology DIR.

And why can't people just put the focus in there, and have a system for whether it's debate, question-only, discussion, what? For example:

Konkokyo Discussion: Was Konjin always seen as an evil spirit?
Konkokyo Debate: Do we need an intermediary between us and Lord Kami?

I'd prefer something like "Special Interest Area", "Specific Interest Thread", "Focused Discussion Group" or something else. I dunno. You think of something better.

And yeah, I'd prefer different colours. Red, orange, green.

Hell, or even Red (Only), Orange (Only similar faiths can ask questions), Yellow (Questions only), Blue (Answers from similar faiths/ex-adherents, or questions only), then Green (Everyone).

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Question: Do you think women should be expected to do the same in times of war like men have done for 10 thousand years?

Yes. I do. I advocate for gender equality in the front lines, special forces, and SERE training. I think having women register for selective service just like men are required to, as well as opening up training and positioning females AND males (as well as GLBTQs) in the front lines and special forces of the infantry will ensure not only better opportunity for women to find advancement and representation in higher offices in the military, but that the idea that women are not capable soldiers will be confronted and demolished.

I think it will make a great impact on troop morale. In the long run, that is, when the rare misogynist retires and younger generations won't look at women as weak and fragile.

How about that men actually receive the same rights when its about their kids?

I advocate for more shared and joint custody, and less sole custody of the kids. But I also advocate for fathers to continue being as involved in diaper changing, feeding, playing, cleaning up after, cuddling, and guiding their babies. I think fathers have come a long way, but statistics show that mothers still pick up a bulk of the housework and childcare (especially when it comes to who will take off work when you have a sick child).

Its somehow accepted that women are more qualified to raise kids which is insane if you believe in equality.

Criminy, that is insane. I don't know any feminist who thinks such. In my mothers generation during/after Second Wave American feminism, all I heard was the push for fathers to be more involved because they ARE just as qualified to raise kids, and that they are not "babysitters" while mom is doing her thing. They are fathers, and they need to take time off work and sacrifice time with their buddies just as much as mothers do.

Courts often times will award custody to the parent who has spent the most time with the child(ren) at his/her/their age. When I went for full custody of my kids, it wasn't because I'm a woman and felt that my ex-husband was inadequate just because he's a man (I don't feel that way at all). It was because for 4 years I spent 24 hours a day taking care of the babies, taking them to work with me, and caring for their health while he was either deployed, in jail, or passed out drunk on the couch. His gender had nothing to do with my desire to attain sole custody of the kids. And for my case, the court agreed with me and felt it was in the kids' best interest to remain with me after our divorce.