Feminism

[Quackers]

Firstly, in terms of domsetic violence it pretty much is men and women trading blows in equal numbers.

Secondly, even if you were right, so what? Men can't be considered victims of other men, because they're all men so all equally to blame?! If I get mugged and stabbed and left for dead with my face beaten in, it's only an atrocity if a woman did it to me?

Male disposability is frighteningly not uncommon in feminist circles.

 

[Traitorfish]

At this point, I'm just waiting for Quackers to start a thread about the Elders of Zion. It's pretty clear, by now, that's the direction we're going in.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm also curious TF what it matters at all that males are typically victims of serious violence by male actors. If anything, if you take that into account with incarceration rates being wildly different, it bespeaks a massive failure of society in relation to men. One that quite reasonably leads Quackers to be concerned about "male disposability."

That isn't to say that we need to rank these issues at all, feminism is a necessary component of society regardless of how men are doing. It's just a stupid function of the caterwalling(just and not) about relative pay, meaning zero sum, that frames this discussion in the slightly mentally defective tenor of "butwhatabout!?!"

 

[JollyRoger]

Male disposability is frighteningly not uncommon in feminist circles.

I didn't know you travelled in such circles.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

This thread, and the sheer amount of clueless male chauvinism in it, is all the evidence I could ever need we still need feminism.

I think it's sad and telling that a reasonable discussion like the one in this thread can be dismissed out of hand as "male chauvinism" like that. Even if you disagree with a lot of it, even if you think some people contributing have their heads buried in the sand, are quoting unreliable statistics, or are just deluding themselves, not one comment in this thread has said anything to suggest that anyone here believes that women SHOULD get the short end of the stick, that they deserve less pay, that they are less capable, or that they belong only in the kitchen or bedroom. If the discussion descends to that level then your criticism of chauvinism might have some legs to stand on, but not before then.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

You're completely wrong on the gender pay gap. I could also summon a link in my favour. I could also link you reports where in many cities in the USA, women under 30 are paid more than men! Once you account for a whole range of variables it shrinks to 0.

The other linked reports and studies in this thread that you ignored notwithstanding, perhaps those variables are also part of the inequality? For instance, why would women seek lesser paying jobs? Well, in any case, you don't seem to be interested in information that contradicts your worldview.

 

[caketastydelish]

I think I know what Quackers means by 'male disposability' but he should realize that technology is going to make that a thing of the past.

 

[Masada]

Quackers is much better if you just imagine everything he says in kermit the frog's voice.

 

[Tahuti]

On average.
Male Iq range is more diverse then female iq range though.
Saying, the most intelligent people tend to be male. The least intelligent people tend to be male.

That's true. Though I was talking about averages.

Well that is just wrong.
It is pretty well established by now that the male and female brain tend to have different weaknesses and strength. That of course gets heavily mudded by individual factors, but it is still there.

I have probably worded it poorly, as I meant intelligence and general reasoning capabilities. There are differences in fields of capabilities, though these are small compared to physiological factors.

Quackers is much better if you just imagine everything he says in kermit the frog's voice.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm also curious TF what it matters at all that males are typically victims of serious violence by male actors. If anything, if you take that into account with incarceration rates being wildly different, it bespeaks a massive failure of society in relation to men. One that quite reasonably leads Quackers to be concerned about "male disposability."

No, you're right, our society has absolutely failed in relation to men. The problem is, that failure is a failure of masculinity, of man-ness, that we've produced a masculinity which is toxic to both men and women. The proper response to that is, if not feminism, then very definitely feminist-informed. Reaffirming toxic masculinities, which is all I ever heard from right-wing advocates of "male equality", is not only useless, but actively harmful.

 

[Quackers]

The other linked reports and studies in this thread that you ignored notwithstanding, perhaps those variables are also part of the inequality? For instance, why would women seek lesser paying jobs? Well, in any case, you don't seem to be interested in information that contradicts your worldview.

Well, the onus is on you to prove why women seek lesser paying jobs.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

"feminists" [...] have with [...] "You are like a racist" the best argument(s) one could have.

At this point, I'm just waiting for Quackers to start a thread about the Elders of Zion. It's pretty clear, by now, that's the direction we're going in.

I think it's sad and telling that a reasonable discussion like the one in this thread can be dismissed out of hand as "male chauvinism" like that. Even if you disagree with a lot of it, even if you think some people contributing have their heads buried in the sand, are quoting unreliable statistics, or are just deluding themselves, not one comment in this thread has said anything to suggest that anyone here believes that women SHOULD get the short end of the stick, that they deserve less pay, that they are less capable, or that they belong only in the kitchen or bedroom. If the discussion descends to that level then your criticism of chauvinism might have some legs to stand on, but not before then.

Amen brother.

No, you're right, our society has absolutely failed in relation to men. The problem is, that failure is a failure of masculinity, of man-ness, that we've produced a masculinity which is toxic to both men and women. The proper response to that is, if not feminism, then very definitely feminist-informed. Reaffirming toxic masculinities, which is all I ever heard from right-wing advocates of "male equality", is not only useless, but actively harmful.

Could you expand on this idea of toxic masculinity? I never really thought about it, have only a vague idea in my mind and I am genuinely curious to learn.

 

[Farm Boy]

The proper response to that is, if not feminism, then very definitely feminist-informed.

That doesn't make sense to me. The answer to society harming women for being women is feminism. The answer to society harming men for being men would be a counterpoint to feminism, most of the terms for which are objects of scorn on this forum. And I'm concerned I might be starting to flirt with being "chauvinist" if I'm not very careful in advocating that we really need to be every bit as concerned about fashioning this world for our boys as we are our girls. The issues vary some, due to the past, the present, and the biology. But stating the fact that "college age women get sexually assaulted at massive unacceptable rates" is no answer to the fact that "far too many young men are perpetrators and victims of violence." That works in reverse too, and with more statements than just those two.

If we accept the premise(which we should) that we need feminism to drum and drum on women's rights in order to empower and advance the well-being of females while rejoicing in everything that makes them females we desperately need to develop an effective counterpoint for our males that is every bit as joyful. And no, merely stating that the powerful elite are overwhelmingly dudes does not undo the culture of violence, failed education, and incarceration anymore than do supermodels being actualized individuals undo the diminishing nature of the objectification of women.

Could you expand on this idea of toxic masculinity? I never really thought about it, have only a vague idea in my mind and I am genuinely curious to learn.

Not addressed to me I know, but Spike Lee has some interesting insights on how society "black males" young black men, which is a statement pretty directly on the topic of toxic notions of masculinity within the American black community.

 

[Narz]

I wonder if I'd been born a girl instead of a boy would my life now still be pretty much the same.

I suspect my mom would've been closer to me & my father would've been easier on me so I imagine my life would be slightly easier but it probably depends alot on the family.

 

[Masada]

I'm now going to watch the latest muppet's film half expecting kermit to start spouting off about those damn toads and uppity salamanders and how they're just ruining the place.

 

[Evie]

A reasonable discussion?

A reasonable discussion on whether we ned feminism by its very nature must include a reasonable number of women. Which you certainly don't have in this thread. Without that, it's just men imagining that they can understand issues facing women, and that therefore they can determine whether or not feminism is still needed - ie men imagining that they can determine what women need.

Quoting questionable studies and using approximations of logic does not a reasonable discussion make.

 

[JollyRoger]

The post gap is conclusive proof that we still need feminism.

 

[metatron]

Could you expand on this idea of toxic masculinity? I never really thought about it, have only a vague idea in my mind and I am genuinely curious to learn.

TF may do the theory since he brought it up, but let me make a suggestion on the practical side of things vis a vis the reaffirmation TF mentioned:

If an "MRA" uses the term "emasculation" (or derivatives thereof) you should do either one of two things:

a) run like hell
b) carpet bomb the place; then run​

Of course such an "MRA" is not an MRA, the same way a "feminist" is not a feminist.
Groups #2 and #4 are essentially the same thing, virtually by definition. Which of course is impossible to communicate to the other two groups.

 

[Farm Boy]

A reasonable discussion?

A reasonable discussion on whether we ned feminism by its very nature must include a reasonable number of women. Which you certainly don't have in this thread. Without that, it's just men imagining that they can understand issues facing women, and that therefore they can determine whether or not feminism is still needed - ie men imagining that they can determine what women need.

Quoting questionable studies and using approximations of logic does not a reasonable discussion make.

I'm more than happy to stipulate that women can comprehend men's issues. Am I in error there? Is medicine a similar field? Should I hold out for a dude when I need to turn my head and cough?

 

[Evie]

There are a lot of issues which can be understood regardless of gender or whatnot. Health issues and the like fall easily in that category.

But when it comes to social issues, especially social issues related to long-standing discriminatory practice (hereafter "minority", even though in the case of women they're not a minority in sheer numbers, just in term of their historical place in society), it's extremely difficult to learn to put yourself in someone's shoes. The assumption that you can have a serious reasonable discussion of the right and needs of a minority without members of that minority present to share and explain the difficulties they face is ludicrous, and smack of arrogance.

If you're not part of a minority, you don't know discrimination. Even if you're part of *a* minority, if it's another minority you don't know what discrimination *they* face.