Started by dr e, May 02, 2007, 05:49 AM
Why the heck are you guys doing this? Are you all saps! This is yet another woman coming her to stir up the roosters so she can get attention. Now you devoted a whole thread to her. Its the same as someone who blurts out "no it isn't" like a parrot so they can suck up the attention from people trying to prove to them they are wrong. Don't give her attention. Wow she gets 4 pages of guys all jockying for her attention and all she has to do is post one or two feeder posts egging you all on? And on top of it she makes you all wait a few days for her grand and glorious reply? Wow, could you guys be anymore at this person's feet begging for scraps?Make her prove herself to you. You're the ones with the facts. If feminism is right MAKE HER PROVE IT. But you doing the work for her with her blurting out a prerecorded statement and you all rushing up to prove her wrong is just catering to attention grabbing. If she wants to make a point then she should activily post and prove her point.Good going guys. Are you also going to wash her car, mow her lawn and paint her house in hopes she gives you another tiny scrap of prerecorded brain farts?
Even if Kate never responds that is also a good thing. It shows both us and the lurkers that feminism can't take a punch. Any ideology worth its salt would have lots of proof that what has been written on this thread is incorrect. I doubt we will be seeing that anytime soon. Today's radical feminism is not about the truth, it is about propaganda. It is not seeking to explain or bring understanding, it is corrupt. Buy not responding Kate gives everyone an important message.
Mr X I can understand your frustration but would encourage you to expand your scope just a bit. This thread has been helpful in a number of ways. First it has helped us to practice in articulating our views. Read through this thread and you will find some beautifully written and very convincing evidence that feminism has been hurtful to boys and men. The more we practice the better we get.Look at the views for this thread. We are coming up on a thousand. Remember that most who come here don't post. Most just read. Many of those folks are trying to get an understanding of issues. They may have heard some arguments against feminism in the past but are convinced that feminism is about equality. A thread like this is wonderfully instructive for folks who are just learning about these issues. I know about this because I hear from lurkers who talk about their experience. Even if Kate never responds that is also a good thing. It shows both us and the lurkers that feminism can't take a punch. Any ideology worth its salt would have lots of proof that what has been written on this thread is incorrect. I doubt we will be seeing that anytime soon. Today's radical feminism is not about the truth, it is about propaganda. It is not seeking to explain or bring understanding, it is corrupt. Buy not responding Kate gives everyone an important message.If she responds all the better.
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.
Brian, as we discussed briefly, I am interested to know how you connect feminism to the poor image of men and boys presented in the media. I understand what you are saying about not feeling needed, but really, why would the views of some women, lesbians, that they don't need men, affect you so negatively? They were talking about their own preferences. Why is that so threatening to some men? Furthermore, I would be interested to know why you think (if you think) women aren't presented in negative ways in the media. I think they are.
"They are branded as troublemakers in schools - and they often have no role models in the home because of the high rate of single-parent households - and then in the media the role models they see are overwhelmingly negative." And the trend towards "demonising, marginalising and trivialising of men and male identity" could turn into a tug-of-war with serious mental health consequences for a generation of young boys. "We are probably having a negative impact on young men's esteem and we are definitely having an impact on young boy's self esteem," he says. "Ultimately such portrayals could lead to negative social and even financial costs for society in areas such as male health, rising suicide rates and family disintegration."
Overall note to everyone: from what I can see, the main problem with your arguments is that on the one hand, you argue from biological differences to promote policy changes in schools etc. Yet you will not acknowledge the part biological differences may play in issues of violence, including rape and domestic violence. If ANYONE here can refute this apparent contradiction in a logical way, I would like to hear it....also, if anyone actually wants to answer any of the questions I have asked about the MRM that would be nice, too.
August 2, 1999--Women are just as violent to their spouses as men, and they are almost three times more likely to initiate violence in a relationship, according to a new Canadian study, as reported in the National Post. Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the study, however, is the source of the data -- a 1987 survey of 705 Alberta men and women that reported how often males hit their spouses. Although women were asked the same questions as men in 1987, their answers were never published until now. When the original study was published in the Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science in 1989, it was taken up by feminist groups as evidence of the epidemic of violence against women.
Gonzokid - your questions re: what is feminism are valid ones, and I have posted a part of my own motivations on the intro thread. It's a bit off topic here so I will try to answer your questions another time on that thread, regarding definitions and so on. I do note that you have indeed posted your own manifesto, yet nobody else here has answered my question as to whether other MRAs must agree with that manifesto or indeed any manifesto to subscribe to being an MRA.
Intellectually dishonest? Or able to appreciate that there are shades of grey in the world of human understanding?
Your arguments here tend towards a kind of fundamentalism.
I'm not sure on affirmative action, actually - I need to check my understanding of that term and find out how it was implemented in the US as opposed to the UK (not even sure if it ever was, I certainly never benefited knowingly that I remember). So I'll answer that another time. Meanwhile, I think it's only fair that you answer my questions about science in the Healthy Masculinity thread.
Not sure what your point is with the divorce story. Are you saying that someone always winds up hurt so...what does this mean for equality?
Re: your personal history with DV. As you know that is a huge topic, too much for me to go into detail with here. I will say that I don't necessarily follow what I imagine YOU think is the 'feminist' line of thinking on the subject, however, I have yet to see a convincing argument on the MRM side either. Please see the end of this post as regards my main worry with the MRA ideological position on DV.
Overall note to everyone: from what I can see, the main problem with your arguments is that on the one hand, you argue from biological differences to promote policy changes in schools etc.
Yet you will not acknowledge the part biological differences may play in issues of violence, including rape and domestic violence. If ANYONE here can refute this apparent contradiction in a logical way, I would like to hear it...
Apologies for the lengthy post(s). I have tried to reply to as many as I could.
Dr E: the system you describe sounds like it would indeed, hurt men and boys. If you TRULY believe that is the current system, then I can see why you think it is unfair.However, as I am sure you can see by now, I don't agree that the current system is quite how you have described it: I also don't agree that where boys and men are disadvantaged, feminism is necessarily the cause.
Neonsamurai - your beef, as you put it, with feminism is related to the fact that it is woman-centric. As I've already argued, I don't see this as a problem per se. It's not a secret, i.e. NOW is explicitly titled 'for women.' The reason is that feminism, specifically feminist activism and organisations, identify the inequality already existent within society as far as it relates to WOMEN. So they are reacting to already existent inequalities etc. This does not necessarily mean that feminists don't care about men, or that men cannot be pro-feminist, but you're correct in asserting that issues primarily associated with men are not such organisations' priorities. I ask you, why should they be? This isn't a heartless question! I don't think these organisations are stopping men from gaining rights that they don't have, and I don't think feminism is about hating men. Your argument rests on the assumption that equality for women already exists in every area. Maybe you think it does. But that is a different discussion.
Dr X - not only is your post about my honest attempts at dialogue an ad hom attack, but you manage to shame anyone here who actually wants to reply or read posts written by the so-called enemy. Nice one. "Make her prove herself to you." - If this is the attitude, then why should I even bother? If you would care to read my very first couple of posts, you can find out for yourself how I got here and why. I also stated that in this thread, anyone who does not wish to respond to me does. Not. Have. To. "You're the ones with the facts." Well, really, if that were true, then why has nobody actually answered my questions with serious substantiated facts, links to studies they endorse, text sources they can actually produce as evidence of their claims etc? OK: maybe this will actually happen. As I've said, I will wait and see.