Another Feminist bites the dust. Same old Same old.

[Kate]

Hi to everyone here.
Right. I have now had time to have a brief survey of this forum, and it seems so far that a lot of the posters here have a very different definition of feminism than myself...even more so than I had previously thought! There are a few issues that arise from this, not least ones regarding who gets to decide premises/epistemological definitions, but here is my no.1 concern:

Some, if not all, of the people here plainly feel that feminism has hurt them. Directly. As a human being, I am concerned about that, since I personally think that political ideology should NEVER trump compassion. Whether I agree or disagree with your take on feminism is not really the issue here. (Well, it kind of is, but bear with me.) I am having some difficulty in deciding how to proceed, and here's why:

I don't want to be the cause of pain and suffering for anyone if I can help it.
Some people have directly stated that feminism hurts them/is still hurting them. For some, this may mean not engaging with feminism or feminists more than they actually *have to* (and I can see why, if you regard feminism as a hate movement).
I identify as a feminist. Not by any definitons I've seen here so far, no, but still: I am a feminist, and for some people that means the enemy. If you want to get into why I am a feminist, definitions etc we can do that,  but as far as this thread goes, my main priority is going to be listening and asking questions.

However, I can see why even that approach is going to be offensive to some. A KKK member on an anti-racist forum is probably going to be offensive even just asking questions. So here's my problem: even given that I am going to try and consider it from YOUR point of view, I will need to ask questions and clarify as to what that POV is and why. I have a lot of questions and a lot of points of disagreement with what's been said. IF, as some of you might well think, it is not worth your time, or worse, it is going to cause you pain to even talk to me because I am a feminist, then I would be grateful if you could indicate that.* Otherwise, I don't think it's fair on my side to start critiquing anything anyone has said on this forum.

*Just to be clear, I am not implying and do not intend to imply that doing so indicates anything in the way of admission of defeat or whatever as regards your arguments.

[CaptDMO]

Nice disclaimer.
Here's a thought-
All sorts of folk assume the penumbra of feminist, when in fact they are nothing of the sort .
The web is simply chocked FULL of all sorts of re-defined and co-opted assumptions as to
seperate branches of feminism Feel free to identify with one or two, perhaps even
identify with a philosophy that has nothing to do with gender at all!
Just a simple phrase or two that best brackets your position. No need to go into
entire histories or philosophies yet, and I believe most will agree that no one "label"
perfectly defines an individuals position.

This would be helpful in framing answers to potential queries.

I can only write for my own position on a few points right off the bat.

I personally think that political ideology should NEVER trump compassion.

I consider this misguided and nieve.

I have a lot of questions and a lot of points of disagreement with what's been said.

Perhaps you'd consider just presenting your questions, citing what you disagree with and defending it, and NOT chipping away from the shadows whenever the
opportunity suits you.
It is certainly your choice.

However, I can see why even that approach is going to be offensive to some.

So what? Get on with it!
No one can please everybody. Just as the term Politicly Correct has proven to be an ironic oxymoron, I have found that fear of offending, for a multitude of potential concequences, has done nothing but discourage exchange of ideas, divide common goals, and empower  parasites that thrive exclusively on continued conflict between folks that otherwise have no objections to each others life choices.
Again, your choice.

My OWN disclaimer.
I hold precious little respect for the defense of any grand theory feminism, presented as assumed universal truth. I usually have an ear for annecdotal phenomina.
Acadamia has had little of value to offer to me on the subject-FAR to easy to shred!
Maya Angelou (for one) however, can be annoyingly poignant.   

There are many other stances here.
This one is mine.

Hope that helps.

[Sociopathic Revelation]

Hi to everyone here.
Right. I have now had time to have a brief survey of this forum, and it seems so far that a lot of the posters here have a very different definition of feminism than myself...even more so than I had previously thought! There are a few issues that arise from this, not least ones regarding who gets to decide premises/epistemological definitions, but here is my no.1 concern:

Some, if not all, of the people here plainly feel that feminism has hurt them. Directly. As a human being, I am concerned about that, since I personally think that political ideology should NEVER trump compassion. Whether I agree or disagree with your take on feminism is not really the issue here. (Well, it kind of is, but bear with me.) I am having some difficulty in deciding how to proceed, and here's why:

I don't want to be the cause of pain and suffering for anyone if I can help it.
Some people have directly stated that feminism hurts them/is still hurting them. For some, this may mean not engaging with feminism or feminists more than they actually *have to* (and I can see why, if you regard feminism as a hate movement).
I identify as a feminist. Not by any definitons I've seen here so far, no, but still: I am a feminist, and for some people that means the enemy. If you want to get into why I am a feminist, definitions etc we can do that,  but as far as this thread goes, my main priority is going to be listening and asking questions.

However, I can see why even that approach is going to be offensive to some. A KKK member on an anti-racist forum is probably going to be offensive even just asking questions. So here's my problem: even given that I am going to try and consider it from YOUR point of view, I will need to ask questions and clarify as to what that POV is and why. I have a lot of questions and a lot of points of disagreement with what's been said. IF, as some of you might well think, it is not worth your time, or worse, it is going to cause you pain to even talk to me because I am a feminist, then I would be grateful if you could indicate that.* Otherwise, I don't think it's fair on my side to start critiquing anything anyone has said on this forum.

*Just to be clear, I am not implying and do not intend to imply that doing so indicates anything in the way of admission of defeat or whatever as regards your arguments.

Kate, one of the biggest reasons that I have been wary of feminism and anyone who has exposed feminism is that not only is it female centric (I appreciate your honestly here---by way of its ideology it is based on this premise; you are completely correct), but that it defines and regulates masculinity by its own parameters, and not always on the basis of true equality or for considering men's best interests.  Chances are many people accepted certain feminist memes simply because they not only believed they were doing good, but that in turn it would also liberate men from the confines of roles they didn't want to accept or felt burdened by. 

Unfortunately, this hasn't completely demonstrated this notion (there are many variables I am glossing over here, such as advances in birth control that freed up women to some extent, socioeconomic factors, and other things I'm not going to go in depth here) but what we have seen is continued cultural assault on men.  I've asked questions about certain topics ranging from hypergamy (and why lower class men struggle to find suitable long term mates), why women are protected in the legal arena often at the expense of men, absurd charges of sexual harassment on elementary school boys, and even the never ending parade of articles condemning men for choosing their own individual path ("toxic bachelors"), and while it DOES seem that men's issues are gradually being pushed upwards from merely being an underground phenom and limited other circles, the problems are occurring.  Just look at the harsh attempts to discredit fathers seeking justice as manipulative and abusive towards women, especially in the feminist online communities.

It's been suggested that feminism failed men.  The truth is that feminism really wasn't meant for men in the first place, in my not so humble opinion.  What the Hugos and his ilk often claim is that men have misplaced misogyny because they are losing ground with special treatment "patriarchy" gave them by the default.  Nothing of the sort really happened, and that most men have struggled with various issues since we became aware of injustice and social malaise that is often inherently anti-male.  Instead of men's rights being axiomatic in our culture (namely America for me here) it is an uphill battle for most men.  VERY few men have enormous power despite what many feminist attest to, and even now wealthy celebs are getting taken for a ride in divorce court by vindictive exs.

One thing, to me, is clear.  The Pandora's box has been opened and the lid cannot be closed.  There is no going back to "traditional" modes completely, unless men and women, in every major aspect, decided on this as a social compact worth keeping.  Aside from that, I find it puzzling you believe that the MRM is going to be harmful towards women.  I haven't read one public MRA assert that it's a positive thing, although I have read gender feminists openly (in print) describe violent actions toward men with quite the zeal . .

[neonsamurai]

Hi Kate,

Welcome to SYG. Believe it or not we like it when feminists turn up here and debate with us, which is really what this place is for. Having said that we do get more than a few 'drive bys' whereby someone turns up, calls us 'woman haters' and then leaves without backing up their arguments.

I'm I guess most of us here would classify themselves as some form of MRA or another. Some of us are armchair activists, some of us are a lot more involved, but we exist because feminism isn't doing it's job. It's touted as a movement based around 'equality', but similar to 'Animal Farm' it seems that some of us are more equal than others.

Fawcett Society is the mouthpiece for the UK feminist movement.

National Organisation of Women is the main US feminist body.

Check out those two links and see were they talk about issues where men miss out. Apparently there aren't any. I'd have a lot more respect for those organisations if they started calling themselves 'women's rights advocates' and stopped pedalling their 'equality' BS. I'm here because the organisations that speak for feminists clearly don't care about the rights of men, only what they can make us responsible for and I can't see them every being satisfied.

For example, the Fawcett Society is currently campaigning for equal pensions for women. "For every pound of income received by men in a pensioner couple, women receive less than 32 pence." They claim that this is unfair and are campaigning to prevent female OAP's living in poverty.

What they forget to mention is that most pensions in the UK are based on how much you contribute to them and also the fact that the retirement age for men is 65 and for women 60. Men in the UK work an average of 14 years more in their (shorter) life times than the average woman and contribute far more to the countries GDP. That's bearing in mind that the average Britan works around 39 years of their life.

So what the Fawcett Society want is an 'equal' outcome for less work. They're not pushing for women to work longer and contribute more, they're just picking bits of 'equality' and demanding they have it.

You either have equality or special treatment. You can't have one and claim it's the other.

That's my beef with feminism.

[zarby]

Men have traditionally at least since the industrial age worked for money and contributed their monetary earnings largely to their wives and families.

Their wives contributed other things without monetary value but arguably as or even more valuable.

Now, women don't want to contribute these other things. Yet, they still want the money.

The extreme here is where the wife divorces the man yet retains a significant portion of his income while doing nothing for him other than tormenting him.

So, women want equal retirement benefits even thought they contribute less?

This is just another way of women getting the money without giving anything in return.

Money is largely what men have to bargain with. When the money is taken forcibly by law and given to women, the man is left largely without anything to contribute or bargain with. Why should a woman give him the time of day? She can get his money whether she does or not.

The men become slaves to women who will not give them the time of day? This is a pretty bleak world that is developing.

[bluedye]

When you have people (feminists) trying to demonize masculinity with a multi-faceted approach (false dv/rape stats, "sensitivity" training,  wage gap patriarchal paranoia, VAWA & the societal indoctrination that a VAWA is "necessary", constant references to the violent nature of males in books/interviews/blogs, women's studies curriculums where men are targeted repeatedly, etc.) ...men and boys will suffer.

When I'm watching TV with my family & I see a commercial about a family where the dad is bumbling around like an idiot while his family mocks him, I can't help wonder what my kids are thinking.

It makes you ponder why this type of commercial is so prevalent & why it's totally acceptable by our society.

The feminist assault on men as a group/class for 40 years has led to the notion that men DESERVE to be shit upon.   Yup, we asked for it.  We're oppressive & violent & that's why we need to be "fixed."

As insane as that notion sounds, it is translated into laws and societal attitude about men.

Feminists don't see men as equals, they see men as competition.  ...So they've engaged themselves in a "dirty-pool" game to discredit & monkey-wrench the competition.

Our society is a very different place because of their efforts & it's not all happy little stories about "breaking the glass ceilings" & about the glory of the female vote.  That's what the feminists list on their resume, but neglect to mention the malicious assault on the male gender.

The stats that BQ outlined paint a picture of how the efforts of feminists contribute to the state of men & masculinity in 2007.

[The Biscuit Queen]

Welcome Kate. I realize you will be swamped with replies here, so I will make this brief.

What the above posts boil down to is feminism's main body stands for issues which are not about equality, but about protecting and advancing the interests of only women, many times at the expense of men.

While you can put any definition you want on feminism, NOW sets the standard here in the US. If you disagree with NOW you are disagreeing with modern, mainstream feminism.

I will add two more ways that modern, mainstream feminism hurts men. One, reproductive rights. Men have none. Zero. Zip. They cannot even keep it in their pants, because men and boys who have been raped, and men who are not the father ( and have been proven medically not to be the father) have by court, order under threat of jail, been made to pay child support and thus become parents against their will.

Women are given every choice available, in some cases including killing their infants and walking away.

There has to be a middle ground here.

The other is VAWA. The Violence Against Women Act. I just did a speech in a college class (I am a returning college student as an adult) about violence against men. Men are 3 times more likely to be murdered. They are twice as likely to be assaulted. They are 30% of reported domestic violence cases according to the CDC. If one takes into account prison rape, it is possible men are raped more than women-we do not know.  They are 93% of all workplace fatalities, and 98% of military fatalities.

So by the most trusted sources, it is MEN who are more victims of violence than women.

Yet feminists fought for, and fight to maintain, Violence against women   Act. Not only that, but they actively fight to keep out language to make it inclusive to men as well. Also, when ever services for men are spoken of, NOW/feminists go on the warpath claiming you cannot take thier money, go start your own shelters. Who do you think mainly pays for VAWA and women's shelters!? Taxpayers, most of whom are men! 10 Billion dollars in the last 10 years to VAWA, paid for by the publics taxes, and 1/2 that public is denied those services. That is NOT equality.

So, as I step off my soap box, smooth down my skirts and take a deep breath, I will just say that feminism does not in practice equal equality. I wil tell you what I told myself years ago-feminism does not stand for equality, and since I do, feminism does not stand for me. I proudly stand beside these men knowing that they truly want equality, not special perks.

[bachelor tom]

My two cents as an ordinary guy (not an MRA yet):

On the personal level I'm sick of male-bashing in the media and everyday conversation, I'm sick of seeing incompetent females promoted and supported around me, I'm sick of promiscuity, ignorance and self-absorption promoted as healthy and desirable lifestyles

On the macro level I worry that western women will stop breeding, thus paving the way for the loss of everything good in the western cultural tradition, including objective scientific inquiry and a level of security and comfort only dreamed of by our ancestors

In a more abstract way I'm sick of the way radical feminists twist language and data in an unethical and dishonest fashion to achieve narrow in-group goals at the expense of the rest of society

[dr e]

Kate - The purpose of this forum is to discuss these issues.  All points of view are welcome.  It would be helpful to hear where you stand and your own definition of feminism.  Tell us what you think.  Please do tell us how you think we are wrong.  Otherwise it becomes a one-way converstation.  Maybe like a hunter in a duck blind. 

E

Hi to everyone here.
Right. I have now had time to have a brief survey of this forum, and it seems so far that a lot of the posters here have a very different definition of feminism than myself...even more so than I had previously thought! There are a few issues that arise from this, not least ones regarding who gets to decide premises/epistemological definitions, but here is my no.1 concern:

Some, if not all, of the people here plainly feel that feminism has hurt them. Directly. As a human being, I am concerned about that, since I personally think that political ideology should NEVER trump compassion. Whether I agree or disagree with your take on feminism is not really the issue here. (Well, it kind of is, but bear with me.) I am having some difficulty in deciding how to proceed, and here's why:

I don't want to be the cause of pain and suffering for anyone if I can help it.
Some people have directly stated that feminism hurts them/is still hurting them. For some, this may mean not engaging with feminism or feminists more than they actually *have to* (and I can see why, if you regard feminism as a hate movement).
I identify as a feminist. Not by any definitons I've seen here so far, no, but still: I am a feminist, and for some people that means the enemy. If you want to get into why I am a feminist, definitions etc we can do that,  but as far as this thread goes, my main priority is going to be listening and asking questions.

However, I can see why even that approach is going to be offensive to some. A KKK member on an anti-racist forum is probably going to be offensive even just asking questions. So here's my problem: even given that I am going to try and consider it from YOUR point of view, I will need to ask questions and clarify as to what that POV is and why. I have a lot of questions and a lot of points of disagreement with what's been said. IF, as some of you might well think, it is not worth your time, or worse, it is going to cause you pain to even talk to me because I am a feminist, then I would be grateful if you could indicate that.* Otherwise, I don't think it's fair on my side to start critiquing anything anyone has said on this forum.

*Just to be clear, I am not implying and do not intend to imply that doing so indicates anything in the way of admission of defeat or whatever as regards your arguments.

[gwallan]

Maybe like a hunter in a duck blind. 

Jeez E! Isn't one duck thread enough.

[Kate]

Thanks to everyone for your thoughtful replies. I'm a bit busy tomorrow but I will read over them again and post a reply asap when I've had a ponder.

[dr e]

My apologies Gwallan.  How could I have been so blind?  It's time for me duck out for fear that the good folks here may think this doc a quack!

Maybe like a hunter in a duck blind. 

Jeez E! Isn't one duck thread enough.

[dr e]

We will look forward to hearing from you Kate.  I do hope you are willing to discuss this.  Most of those who have come before you have said something similar and then we don't hear from them again.  Maybe you will be different. 

Thanks to everyone for your thoughtful replies. I'm a bit busy tomorrow but I will read over them again and post a reply asap when I've had a ponder.

[The Gonzman]

Hi to everyone here.
Right. I have now had time to have a brief survey of this forum, and it seems so far that a lot of the posters here have a very different definition of feminism than myself...even more so than I had previously thought! There are a few issues that arise from this, not least ones regarding who gets to decide premises/epistemological definitions, but here is my no.1 concern:

Here's my concern: What is feminism?

In the other thread on "Introductions" I linked to a piece by myself which defined what the M/FRM means to me.  It includes also statements of what it is not.

As far as getting that from a feminist - my impression is that you might as well call yourselves "JSUNWTCHDUTISTS."  It means nothing.  According to just about every feminist in recent memory that has come around here, you can believe whatever you want, and as long as you call yourself a feminist, then, by Gum, you're a feminist.

That's weaselly to me.  It's slick, and intellectually dishonest.  It avoids having to defend - or even think - about unpalatable positions by saying "Well not all feminists think the same on everything..."  While technically true, I can say the same thing about, for instance, Atheists.  While all of them don't think alike, if you get one who burns incense and offers up chants to Loki, well, they're not a very good atheist.

So - what is you commonality?  Anything?  What beliefs must a feminist hold?  What can they not hold?  Is it possible to be a pro-life feminist?  A conservative one?  Are Wendy MacElroy and Christina Hoff Summers "Feminists in Good Standing?"  Or no?

Does one support "Affirmative Action" for women?  If the answer is yes, then it will follow that this will lead to quotas and tokenism.  How do you reconcile that?  How do you answer the very legitimate question of "So you're saying it's okay to hire someone based on their sex if that sex is female?"

Take a stand.  Take a position.  Have the courage of your convictions.

And ask yourself why feminism has developed such a bunker mentality; also, why does it seem there is so much effort to hide what it means?  Is it a thing which cannot withstand scrutiny?  Is it something to be ashamed of?

Some, if not all, of the people here plainly feel that feminism has hurt them. Directly. As a human being, I am concerned about that, since I personally think that political ideology should NEVER trump compassion.

Political ideology?  Riddle me this:

Mary and John get married, have a child, and get divorced.  As a matter of rote, Mary winds up with custody, is the recipient of child support, gets the house, etc. etc.

All on the sheer basis of her sex.  This hurts John, primarily because he goes from "Father who has a daily presence in his child's life" to "Visitor in his Child's Life."

The law gets changed; this prompts a revisiting of the case, which then changes to give John custody, et al.  This is on the basis of the facts - but when all is said and done, this hurts Mary, who now becomes the visitor in her child's life.

Someone will wind up hurt no matter what.

Whether I agree or disagree with your take on feminism is not really the issue here. (Well, it kind of is, but bear with me.) I am having some difficulty in deciding how to proceed, and here's why:

I don't want to be the cause of pain and suffering for anyone if I can help it.
Some people have directly stated that feminism hurts them/is still hurting them. For some, this may mean not engaging with feminism or feminists more than they actually *have to* (and I can see why, if you regard feminism as a hate movement).

Depends - you going to cling stubbornly to it?

I could give you a very long litany of the sins that feminists and feminism have committed against me.  I was an abused husband - not because I couldn't have snapped the little bitch in two with one hand, but because I got taught never - EVER - to hit a woman.  Not even in self-defense.  I endured broken fingers, burns, scaldings, ambushes while I slept - all manner of abuse.  And the reaction I have gotten from 90% or better of feminists have ranged from "Well, you eventually slammed her against a wall and told her no more, so since you have the greater *potential* to cause harm, this makes you the abusive one" to "What did you do to her to provoke her?" or the classic "Well, that's too bad, and nobody should go through that - but there's not enough of you to be worth helping."

Oh.  Also "Build your own shelters."  Yep.  Tried it.  The leader of the local N.O.W. at the time torpedoed me, and campaigned actively against it.

I identify as a feminist. Not by any definitons I've seen here so far, no, but still: I am a feminist, and for some people that means the enemy. If you want to get into why I am a feminist, definitions etc we can do that,  but as far as this thread goes, my main priority is going to be listening and asking questions.

What you are getting is people's definitions based not on what feminists SAY, but what they have seen them DO.

However, I can see why even that approach is going to be offensive to some. A KKK member on an anti-racist forum is probably going to be offensive even just asking questions. So here's my problem: even given that I am going to try and consider it from YOUR point of view, I will need to ask questions and clarify as to what that POV is and why. I have a lot of questions and a lot of points of disagreement with what's been said. IF, as some of you might well think, it is not worth your time, or worse, it is going to cause you pain to even talk to me because I am a feminist, then I would be grateful if you could indicate that.* Otherwise, I don't think it's fair on my side to start critiquing anything anyone has said on this forum.

Just remember that taking potshots at someone's POV, while keeping your own hidden will be called out.

[bluedye]

As far as getting that from a feminist - my impression is that you might as well call yourselves "JSUNWTCHDUTISTS."  It means nothing.  According to just about every feminist in recent memory that has come around here, you can believe whatever you want, and as long as you call yourself a feminist, then, by Gum, you're a feminist.

That's weaselly to me.  It's slick, and intellectually dishonest.  It avoids having to defend - or even think - about unpalatable positions by saying "Well not all feminists think the same on everything..."

Right on.