I think the issues are important, but I don't think that the Men's Rights Movement actually raises them as anything more than a cudgel to attack feminism.
Well, by the same logic you can say that feminism raises issues that are important as well, but I don't think it actually raises them as anything more than a cudgel to attack white men.
When somebody say that though, people always say: "Feminism is not a monolith!", which I totally agree with. So why is that thought thrown out of the window when it comes to Men's Rights Activists? There are tons of people who are making genuine efforts to raise men's issues within the movement. It's baffling to see you argue against generalizations of the feminist movement and then use crass generalizations about the MRM, which also has its good and its bad sides.
Stop judging it by its worse members as much as you want people to stop judging the feminist movement by its worst members.
We elect representatives, the theory goes, so that the government doesn't have to hold a referendum on every policy decision. There are certainly criticisms to be made of that theory, it'll come as no surprise that I'm pretty sceptical myself, but that goes some way outside the terms of this thread.
It all looks logical.
The part I wonder is how this war stuff suddendly becomes a men-only responsibility (in this thread at least).
I'm not blind enough to not recognize that men are much more aggressive than women, but in a world where women have the exact same electoral weight as men, where do comes the double standard ?
Well, by the same logic you can say that feminism raises issues that are important as well, but I don't think it actually raises them as anything more than a cudgel to attack white men.
When somebody say that though, people always say: "Feminism is not a monolith!", which I totally agree with. So why is that thought thrown out of the window when it comes to Men's Rights Activists? There are tons of people who are making genuine efforts to raise men's issues within the movement. It's baffling to see you argue against generalizations of the feminist movement and then use crass generalizations about the MRM, which also has its good and its bad sides.
Stop judging it by its worse members as much as you want people to stop judging the feminist movement by its worst members.
That's a silly question, the validity of a movement does not hinge on the things it has achieved. The MRM is in its infancy, and given that it is being portrayed very negatively by the mainstream, it is hardly surprising that is has not achieved many greater goals yet. There was a time when feminism was in that state, too.
Are you talking about "leaders", or are you just asking about people who identify as MRAs?
Because if you're talking about "leaders", then I don't know, couldn't care less about them.
If you're talking about people who identify as MRAs, go to /r/FeMRADebates/ and see moderate feminists and moderate MRAs discuss issues in a usually rather calm and rational tone.
I think the issues are important, but I don't think that the Men's Rights Movement actually raises them as anything more than a cudgel to attack feminism. I do not believe that these people are sincere advocates for men, let alone effective ones, rather, they're anti-feminists with enough of an attachment to liberal values to feel they need to make their case in the terms of a reverse-feminist egalitarianism, rather than in more traditional terms of religious or pseudo-historical fantastical frameworks of gender relations. (That is, respectively, God gave Eve to Adam and Nature gave Raquel Welch to Ug the Hunter.) There are serious advocates for these issues, but they do not as a rule feel the need to position their rhetoric in terms of how men have been hard done by women, or even simply in comparison to women.
Well just as (some) MRAs are anti-feminist, (some) feminists are anti-MRA, often to a troubling degree. This anti-MRAism often extends to an outright shutting down of their events, and they've been heavily slandered by the media. The documentary I listed, The Red Pill, has been heavily protested by feminist groups, with several screenings being shutdown. I watched the documentary, there is nothing remotely hateful or misogynistic in it. So there's a bit of a double standard, no?
Is it not possible to sincerely care about men's issues and also be critical of (certain aspects of) feminism? Why is feminism so special that mere criticism of it will get you labeled as a hateful misogynist? I can't think of any other "isms" that are held to that standard. In many ways I see MRA as a mirror image of feminism. Feminism examines the ways society is stacked against women and girls, just like MRA does for men and boys. Yet MRA is treated with so much more hostility. Any anger they express is labeled as "hate". Any grievances they bring up are labeled as "whining" or "self-pity". To me this is a clear expression of the gynocentrism of our society. The problems and feelings of men and boys are just not as serious and are secondary to the problems of women and girls.
1. Feminism is anti-male
For example -- Feminism teaches that a "patriarchy" runs the world. It teaches that men benefit from this, and women are disadvantaged by this. This creates an atmosphere of disdain towards males. Males are taught that they need to correct themselves and their sons ("teach boys not to rape"), that they have a "toxic masculinity", and that even appreciating the beauty of a woman is akin to abuse.
If we look at the world through a more objective lens, we see that there is no "patriarchy", or at least that it does not benefit men at the expense of women. Gender roles have pros and cons for both genders, and while I support moving beyond these roles, claiming that men had it "easier" is just dishonest.
For example -- If women are portrayed in a way that is sexually appealing to men, that is the "male gaze" and it harms women, according to feminism. I think this is totally perverted, one of the greatest aspects of women is their beauty. Men are designed to appreciate this, and in fact it gives women a certain power over men who find them attractive. That's part of the biological force that keeps our species going.
Our species should be going more slowly. For ecological reasons, given how despicable we are as a species at the moment, a matriarchy may very well save humanity from collective accidental suicide.
For example -- Despite having laws in place since the 1960's which ban pay discrimination based on gender, feminists still like to complain about the "gender pay gap". On International Women's Day, women skipped work and protested in the street, to show people a "day without women". This is just childish, and certainly not a good way to advance in your career. What exactly are they trying to accomplish anyways? Do they want a law that mandates all employees receive the same pay? Nothing comes out of protests like that besides the feminist victim complex becoming more solidified.
We need a better gender movement, one that recognizes the sacrifices and merits of both genders. One that does not shame one gender, and makes the other a victim. One that recognizes that men and women are merely two parts of the whole, and stresses unity rather than division.
So, my beliefs have shifted a bit from when I wrote the OP. I wouldn't say that being anti-male is inherent to feminism, but many feminists are indeed anti-male. A lot of feminist ideas have a kind of implicit male-shaming to them as well. Even the idea that men are privileged is actually hurtful towards men because it has the effect of diminishing their problems, not to mention it just isn't true.
Insofar as feminism is actually about self-determination for women, I think it's great. If it helps someone who has dealt with sexism in their life feel empowered then good for them.
Even the idea that men are privileged is actually hurtful towards men because it has the effect of diminishing their problems, not to mention it just isn't true.
If he doesn't he wouldn't be the first to contend that "the responsibility of voting was a burden that men used to have to bear alone." The "logic" that converts wives as chattel into the 'burden of being the breadwinner' has no limits in its application.
I thought they recently changed it to where women aren't exempt anymore. Anyway, there hasn't been an actual draft in a LONG time. What you mean to say is 'why don't women have to sign up for in case of a hypothetical draft'.
Is it not possible to sincerely care about men's issues and also be critical of (certain aspects of) feminism? Why is feminism so special that mere criticism of it will get you labeled as a hateful misogynist?
Of course it's possible to sincerely care about men's issues and be critical of certain aspects of feminism. I take issue with the original title of this thread and your attitude throughout the thread. I've tried to be understanding of your personal situation, but when I get this thrown back in my face either because of things you've addressed to me specifically or things you've posted that are a blanket condemnation of feminism or dismissal of what I've had to say, of course any sympathy I felt toward your situation evaporated.
In short: It's not only what you say, but how you say it.
In the context of this thread, no. You decided to get into a mansplaining session with Lemon Merchant, who has counseled rape victims, some of whom expressed the feeling that they would rather have been killed than have to live with the aftermath of what happened to them.
I don't intend to revive that argument, but if you want to debate the circumstances in which death is worse than (fill in the blank), a new thread might prove more useful since there are other things that some people consider worse than death.
What a disingenuous video. She completely omits the facts that certain religious and ethnic groups, including aboriginals, were not allowed to vote until much, much later. For example, aboriginals in Canada were not allowed to vote in federal elections until 1960. And even now, they still face difficulties along with other demoraphics. In the election of 2015, there were five minority groups who were at particular risk of not getting to vote, due to access to polling stations and the ID rules. There's a sixth group if you count the ex-pats who still follow Canadian politics, have families here, and pay taxes in this country.
In Canada today, voting in federal elections is a right enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms for citizens 18 years and older. But it wasn’t always like that.
In Canada’s early years, only men who were property owners and more than 21 years of age could vote. Women, Asians and aboriginal people were among those who fought for the right to vote in Canadian elections for decades. Some have only had the right to vote for less than 50 years ago. Here’s a look back at voting in history.
1900 Under the Dominion Elections Act, the only people who can vote in a federal election are ones who have the legal right to vote in a provincial election. Minorities who are excluded from voting in provincial elections, such as immigrants from Japan, China and India, are therefore automatically excluded from voting in federal elections.
1902 A lawsuit unsuccessfully challenges the lack of suffrage for Chinese, Japanese and Indian people in B.C.
1907 The right to vote in provincial elections is denied to Hindus in B.C.
1908 No Chinese, Japanese, other “Asiatic” or Indian person is entitled to vote in any municipal election in B.C.
1909 Saskatchewan denies the right to vote in provincial elections to Chinese people.
1916 Women win the right to vote in provincial elections in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
1917 Women win the right to vote in provincial elections in B.C. and Ontario.
1917 The right to vote is extended to all British subjects, male or female, who were active or retired members of the Canadian Forces.
1917 The Elections Act is amended but keeps the clause that denies people the right to vote in a federal election if they are not allowed to vote in their own provincial elections. Minorities, such as Chinese, Japanese and aboriginals, who are excluded provincially are therefore automatically excluded.
1917 The Wartime Elections Act excludes all “enemy aliens” from voting, including Canadians of Ukrainian and German origin.
1918 Women who are more than 21 years of age win the right to vote in federal elections, provided they meet racial and property ownership requirements.
1920 The federal government makes the right to vote universal, except for some minorities and aboriginal persons.
1936 A delegation of Japanese Canadians asks the House of Commons to extend voting rights, but is rejected.
1938 The Dominion Elections Act retains race as a grounds for exclusion from the federal vote.
1939 Chinese, Japanese, Hindu and Indian persons are denied the right to vote in provincial elections in B.C.
1947 B.C. gives the right to vote to all persons except Japanese and Indian persons. It also takes it away from Doukhobors, Hutterites and Mennonites unless they have served in the armed forces.
1948 The Dominion Elections Act, which made race a ground for exclusion from the federal vote, is repealed. The right to vote was extended to Canadians of Asian origin.
1949 Japanese persons win the right to vote in provincial elections in B.C.
1953 Inuit and Doukhobours are given the right to vote in federal elections and B.C. elections, respectively.
1955 Doukhobours are given the right to vote in federal elections.
1960 Aboriginal persons are granted the right to vote in federal elections.
1970 A revised Canada Elections Act lowers the voting age to 18.
1982 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms embeds into the Constitution the right of all citizens to vote.
There are still some Canadian citizens who can't vote. Ex-pats can't vote if they've been out of the country for over 5 years, although they are allowed to run for political office here. There's an ex-pat who now lives in Washington state who decided to illustrate this absurdity by running as an Independent candidate in the 2015 federal election... in Stephen Harper's riding (he did make it clear to the voters that he actually didn't want anyone to vote for him since he had no intention of moving back to Canada if he should happen to win).
It's only since 2002 that all prisoners have been allowed to vote. The Chief Electoral Officer and the Assistant Chief Electoral Officer can't vote in federal elections, as they are required to be absolutely, scrupulously neutral.
There's a movement going on to lower the voting age to 16. I support that, since encouraging younger people to vote - particularly on issues related to education and employment for youth and young adults - is a good thing and it makes it likelier that such young voters would become lifelong voters and possibly want to run for office themselves some day.
Of course it's possible to sincerely care about men's issues and be critical of certain aspects of feminism. I take issue with the original title of this thread and your attitude throughout the thread. I've tried to be understanding of your personal situation, but when I get this thrown back in my face either because of things you've addressed to me specifically or things you've posted that are a blanket condemnation of feminism or dismissal of what I've had to say, of course any sympathy I felt toward your situation evaporated.
In short: It's not only what you say, but how you say it.
In the context of this thread, no. You decided to get into a mansplaining session with Lemon Merchant, who has counseled rape victims, some of whom expressed the feeling that they would rather have been killed than have to live with the aftermath of what happened to them.
I don't intend to revive that argument, but if you want to debate the circumstances in which death is worse than (fill in the blank), a new thread might prove more useful since there are other things that some people consider worse than death.
In that case, try following your own advice. Also, you should really stop using 'mansplain' every time someone who just happens to be male holds a different opinion than you. Do you realize how pretentious I'd sound if I said 'femsplain' every type a female said something I didn't like?
Me and you are just two individuals. I don't care about your gender, orientation, social class, age, religion, etc. I don't even want to know. And I would hope you feel the same way of me.
We're just two people who happen to disagree. And that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion just as much as I'm entitled to mine. The United States and Canada are both free countries, anyway.
But when you say 'mansplain' the implication is I'm only wrong because I'm a man. I'm even willing to admit I could be wrong (though I don't see evidence), but telling me I'm wrong versus telling me I'm wrong just because I'm a man are two different things.
In University terms, this is a 'soft science' or humanities, rather than hard science or STEM. Let me explain the difference. In STEM you have concrete things that can be proven or disproven. It is absolute. In humanities or 'soft' subjects, it is not like that.
The morality of whether rape or death is worse is not something that can be proven or disproven. It's a soft subject, not a hard subject. So then, 'you're only wrong because you're a man' is just plain pathetic. If I said 2+2=12 and then you told me I'm wrong, and then I said I have to be right just because I'm a man, that would undoubtedly be 'mansplaining'. But you don't get to say that just because I hold a different opinion than you. Deal with it.
Plotinus, IIRC has a PhD from Oxford University in Philosophy. I'd like his opinion on whether rape or death should be considered worse. Not because he's a man, but because he has a PhD in Philosophy from what is arguably the most respected institution in the world.
I'll also add this: Lemon's Merchant's job only makes her MORE biased, not less biased. She only sees female rape victims and no one else. And only the ones who are devastated enough that they have to see her, at that.
If the only people she saw to counsel was the families of murder victims, she would probably be just as biased the other way.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
