The flaw in the argument that feminism is bad because it ignores men's issues

[Me Myself]

No it didn't. I'm not going through it all again though. If it didn't go in the first time it's probably not going in the second. You can do your own research of you like and share the results. I'll take a look if it's a study, but not if it's a blog or opinion article.

I just re-checked it, I know it did ignore it.

I also know I havent yet seen a study of wage gap that incorporates all the factors saying there is a difference beyond 10%

Of course 10% should be reduced if this comes from sexism and I assume a part does, but it is important to know the true gap, not a sensationalisation of it.

If you dont want to provide a study that contemplates all the known relevant factors, sure, by all means leave the subject

 

[Sea Monkey]

To me, that argument is essentially akin to saying that groups donating to starving children in Africa are bad because they aren't focusing on donating to starving Russian children.

Different movements focus on different issues, and aren't necessarily bad for not focusing on other issues.

Feminists focus on furthering equality between genders, which still doesn't exist on a social level (even so-called "masculinists" admit that.) Therefore, there shouldn't be animosity between those who focus on women's issues and those who focus on men's issues, and in terms of name, the lines are so blurry and the core philosophy is identical, so call it whatever you want, and don't get too hung up on what others call it. That's my job.

I agree it's not a issue for me. I support it and I believe people will be lead to whatever cause they feel stronghearted the most about. We need a variety of people working on Women's right's, Men's right's, Gay right's, African American right's etc. It's all a good thing and work's and it matters. I do not get hung up on what others call it at all.

 

[Volodya]

Feminists focus on furthering equality between genders, which still doesn't exist on a social level (even so-called "masculinists" admit that.) Therefore, there shouldn't be animosity between those who focus on women's issues and those who focus on men's issues, and in terms of name, the lines are so blurry and the core philosophy is identical, so call it whatever you want, and don't get too hung up on what others call it. That's my job.

IOW - feminism = self interest serving, and hypocrisy.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Female interests rather than self interests; and the attribution of hypocrisy only applies to a subset of the movement.

 

[Sunstone]

IOW - feminism = self interest serving...

Let's hope so. If feminism didn't serve the interests of women, it wouldn't be worth much, would it?

 

[Volodya]

If it serves itself at the expense of men, that it's not really achieved much.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Now there is some hypocritical self-serving sentiment for you.

 

[Volodya]

Not really, because if one group has to lose out, then it's hardly equality - more like lowest common denominator stuff instead.

 

[Alceste]

If it serves itself at the expense of men, that it's not really achieved much.

What has feminism cost men?

 

[Volodya]

An unequal, and arbritary playing field.

For example, things such as 'it's only sexist if he's un-dateable' etc...that kind of self serving ideology is rife today, especially in the office.

 

[Alceste]

An unequal, and arbitary playing field.

For example, things such as 'it's only sexist if he's un-dateable' etc...that kind of self serving ideology is rife today, especially in the office.

What do you mean? Which feminist school of thought are you paraphrasing? What's sexist? What office? What does dating have to do with anything? I asked you what feminism has cost men. That's a really straightforward question, but I can't see any rational connection between the question and your answer.

 

[Volodya]

It has cost mens' position in society to be warped to serve an unrealistic agenda.

 

[Alceste]

It has cost mens' position in society to be warped to serve an unrealistic agenda.

Which position? Is there something men of the past could do that you yourself can no longer do because of feminism?

 

[ignition]

Which position? Is there something men of the past could do that you yourself can no longer do because of feminism?

Buy and sell women? Oh wait scratch that, we still can.

 

[Volodya]

Which position? Is there something men of the past could do that you yourself can no longer do because of feminism?

How about my question that has not yet been answered.

Surely it is discrimination if women are paid MORE for doing the same job as a man, for example, the attractive waitress.

How do you feel about that?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

In terms of increased awareness and expectations (and enforcement) of certain standards in language and behaviour - men have borne a 'cost' of feminism in that they are expected to not be *ss*s.

That said, there are some parts of the feminism movement that espouse additional costs that they believe men should bear that they do not believe women should, affirmative action initiatives, double standards in terms of tolerance (and even embracing) sexist remarks and behaviour - there are portions of those who at least publicly identify as feminist who espouse positions and policy that would seek to undermine the position of men rather than simply to enhance the position of women.

It can be expected in a demographic group that there may be such individuals who hold more radical viewpoints than the mainstream moderate position embraced by the entire demographic group (religious groups for example are an example that might easily be recognised as having such elements). The wider society would expect that moderate elements of the demographic group might seek to moderate the espousal of such rhetoric or to mitigate the execution of such behavior, when the moderates of the group are not seen to do so adequately then there is often a perception that the language and actions of the mode radical elements are accepted by that demographic group as a whole.

 

[apophenia]

What has feminism cost men?

I have given clear and easily understood examples of that.

Do you remember them ?

If so, please indicate that you do.

 

[Revoltingest]

A tangent to this thread:

The thread's title states " The flaw in the argument that feminism is bad because it ignores men's issues". This is akin to a loaded question, in that it gives discussion an undercurrent of condemning feminism if one gives even constructive criticism. I believe this contributes to the extreme over-sensitivity to many feminists here. No matter that I find feminism a positive influence upon society, that I share values with 3rd wave types, & that I go even farther than they in upholding body sovereignty, my position often gets lost in fervent responses of self defense. There is too much pointless fighting over club membership & the naming convention among those of us who favor equality. Inflammatory titles work for some partisan camps, but not for feminism. Let's ditch thread titles which suggest that feminism is bad, that it's being smeared, etc.

Caution: Remember that feminists are diverse in belief & personality. The generalities I observe do not apply to all feminists & non-feminists. Mystic, you've done a fine job with productive titles & threads....for an over-emotional girlie, anyway.

Ouch! You really threw a cat toy at me?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

A tangent to this thread:

The thread's title states " The flaw in the argument that feminism is bad because it ignores men's issues". This is akin to a loaded question, in that it gives discussion an undercurrent of condemning feminism if one gives even constructive criticism. I believe this contributes to the extreme over-sensitivity to many feminists here. No matter that I find feminism a positive influence upon society, that I share values with 3rd wave types, & that I go even farther than they in upholding body sovereignty, my position often gets lost in fervent responses of self defense. There is too much pointless fighting over club membership & the naming convention among those of us who favor equality. Inflammatory titles work for some partisan camps, but not for feminism. Let's ditch thread titles which suggest that feminism is bad, that it's being smeared, etc.

I can vouch for the loaded questions in debate forums, however I offer that it's a meeting point for feminists and anti-feminists to meet and discuss. There have been other threads that have been opened for debate with innocuous titles and subjects concerning feminism that don't bring in the activity. They're dead after 3 or 4 responses.

I don't think it's exclusive to simple feminist issues, though. Typically at RF and elsewhere, since the forum doesn't cater exclusively to scholars (I'm not even considered a scholar, dang it), provocative thread titles tend to get the most activity. But since we're talking about feminist titles specifically, I think it would be great to see more discussion/debate surrounding the topics listening and learning to critiques from all sides.

Caution: Remember that feminists are diverse in belief & personality. The generalities I observe do not apply to all feminists & non-feminists. Mystic, you've done a fine job with productive titles & threads....for an over-emotional girlie, anyway.

Thanks, dear. I try. But I really fight better in the sandbox. I think so, at least.

Ouch! You really threw a cat toy at me?

No. That was a feminine hygiene product. I don't throw used ones, so you're good.

 

[Revoltingest]

I can vouch for the loaded questions in debate forums, however I offer that it's a meeting point for feminists and anti-feminists to meet and discuss. There have been other threads that have been opened for debate with innocuous titles and subjects concerning feminism that don't bring in the activity. They're dead after 3 or 4 responses.

I don't think it's exclusive to simple feminist issues, though. Typically at RF and elsewhere, since the forum doesn't cater exclusively to scholars (I'm not even considered a scholar, dang it), provocative thread titles tend to get the most activity. But since we're talking about feminist titles specifically, I think it would be great to see more discussion/debate surrounding the topics listening and learning to critiques from all sides.

I underlined the symptom of the problem caused by ramping up controversy. It should read "feminists & non-feminists". But feminists are prone to seeing enemies among friends. Perhaps it serves the useful purpose of motivating one's fellows by identifying a threat from enemies, but it sure makes it hard to discuss things.