Support NeoGAF

[SmokyDave]

I don't think that they are as mirrored as your construction implies.

In the former case, it is because there are posters who refuse to allow any discussion about women's issues and try to turn any topic about it into a discussion about men instead. In the latter case, it is because the men's rights framing of issues tends to be anti-feminist and misogynistic, so feminists are posting in response to implicit or explicit claims that feminism is to blame for whatever the men's rights advocates are suggesting, and arguing against explicit misogynistic claims. I don't think that the latter case can be much categorized as a devolution of the discussion when MRA is little more than a critique of feminism. So I think any discussion about the issues that men's rights advocates bring up - right or wrong - are going to have feminists replying because MRAs seem to start from a premise that feminism is hostile to men and all of men's issues and feminists disagree with this.

Eh, I dunno, I just think there's an awful lot of '6 of one, half a dozen of the other'.

I bet when feminism first appeared tons of people refused to recognise the movement as 'legitimate' and considered everyone taking part as nothing more than 'man-haters'. Then you had the vocal minority of radical feminists that cemented that perception. I see the same thing happening with this mens rights stuff. In time, the notion that men have rights that need protecting and face discrimination that needs resolving will seem perfectly natural and normal and most of the proponents of that viewpoint will be moderate and sensible chaps. Even further down the line we might see a movement that understands the need for feminism, understands the need for 'male feminism' but transcends both and truly seeks absolute equality for all.

I know that feminism is supposed to be that movement but, frankly, I don't see it.

 

[Vermillion]

I don't think that they are as mirrored as your construction implies.

In the former case, it is because there are posters who refuse to allow any discussion about women's issues and try to turn any topic about it into a discussion about men instead. In the latter case, it is because the men's rights framing of issues tends to be anti-feminist and misogynistic, so feminists are posting in response to implicit or explicit claims that feminism is to blame for whatever the men's rights advocates are suggesting, and arguing against explicit misogynistic claims. I don't think that the latter case can be much categorized as a devolution of the discussion when MRA is little more than a critique of feminism. So I think any discussion about the issues that men's rights advocates bring up - right or wrong - are going to have feminists replying because MRAs seem to start from a premise that feminism is hostile to men and all of men's issues and feminists disagree with this.

Basically, he's saying that they're equal. Not the movements themselves (MRM is pretty misogynistic), rather the ideals people argue about in each thread.

To illustrate:
Feminism -> What about men's rights?
MRM -> Feminism covers men's rights.

 

[BocoDragon]

Because most of the time that the toilet is being used, somebody is sitting on it. Consider that men have to sit on the toilet when they shit, too.

These are the lies that the matriarchy has instilled in you.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

A few years ago a gender violence law was enacted by our parliament.

Great.

Nowadays half the divorces on this country go through that law, even if there was no domestic violence just because that law grants the wife so much processal advantages.

Bullshit.

Once that law is invoked the husband is treated as a violent aggressor until the process is resolved.

 

[lopaz]

Meh, so we're supposed to just ignore the harm feminism's done and join them in their quest for equal rights? Nah, I don't trust their intentions enough for that

 

[Gaborn]

Meh, so we're supposed to just ignore the harm feminism's done and join them in their quest for equal rights? Nah, I don't trust their intentions enough for that

Exactly what harms have they done? I mean, identify the problems you feel feminism has caused.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Exactly what harms have they done? I mean, identify the problems you feel feminism has caused.

This.

 

[Mumei]

Eh, I dunno, I just think there's an awful lot of '6 of one, half a dozen of the other'.

I bet when feminism first appeared tons of people refused to recognise the movement as 'legitimate' and considered everyone taking part as nothing more than 'man-haters'. Then you had the vocal minority of radical feminists that cemented that perception. I see the same thing happening with this mens rights stuff.

I think the difference here is that with men's rights, when feminists ask over and over and over for an example of someone in men's rights advocacy doing serious work that is not simply academically dishonest or a thin veneer for an anti-feminist diatribe, we get silence. When I do see someone concerned about these issues and addressing them in a thoughtful and well-informed way, that person is almost always a male feminist.

Again, I feel you're setting up a false equivalency here.

In time, the notion that men have rights that need protecting and face discrimination that needs resolving will seem perfectly natural and normal and most of the proponents of that viewpoint will be moderate and sensible chaps. Even further down the line we might see a movement that understands the need for feminism, understands the need for 'male feminism' but transcends both and truly seeks absolute equality for all.

I know that feminism is supposed to be that movement but, frankly, I don't see it.

I think those issues already are most of the way there. The point of disagreement seems to come from the positions that MRAs take with respect to those issues, and not a presumption on the part of feminists that they are ipso facto illegitimate. You can see this over and over in this topic, where while there are some topics we - that is, feminist posters - do think are inane (e.g., false rape epidemic) on their face, there are plenty of topics where we admit up front that there is an inequity.

 

[richiek]

You know, I find it baffling that some people are taking feminism to task for not fighting hard enough for men's rights. It's like criticizing the gay rights movement for not fighting for straight peoples rights or minority groups for not speaking out for white peoples injustices.

 

[tiff]

You know, I find it baffling that some people are taking feminism to task for not fighting hard enough for men's rights. It's like criticizing the gay rights movement for not fighting for straight peoples rights or minority groups for not speaking out for white peoples injustices.

Well what do you want them to do when feminism is supposed to encompass men's rights (as a movement based on equality) and any attempt to strike out on their own results in them being labeled misogynists?

If someone subscribes to a philosophy but rejects that philosophy's label, there is a motivation outside of that philosophy which is based in political rather than practical considerations.

Or disagreement over what that philosophy is about?

 

[lopaz]

This.

Specifically, producing hateful literature that's influenced generations of women in their relations with men. Poisonous really, like a cult

 

[freenudemacusers]

Specifically, producing hateful literature that's influenced generations of women in their relations with men. Poisonous really, like a cult

lol

 

[Wolves Evolve]

Specifically, producing hateful literature that's influenced generations of women in their relations with men. Poisonous really, like a cult

Which books or other literary works are hateful?

 

[Dirtyshubb]

Have we talked about the toilet seat issue yet?

Instead of us men being forced to put it down after use, why shouldn't women have to put it up???

I feel both stances are wrong, the toilet lid should be down at all times except for when in use, otherwise you just have an open hole when you go to the toilet exposed

 

[Reuenthal]

Have we talked about the toilet seat issue yet?

Instead of us men being forced to put it down after use, why shouldn't women have to put it up???

I have solved that issue. Neither a woman should be compelled/told forced to put it up nor men are forced to put it down, do what the fuck you want, and so the next user of it. And stop complaining or noticing about the fucking toilet seat. If you tell the user of the toilet seat to put it up or down only for your comfort to not have to put it up or down then you are already in the wrong although again it is not a big deal.

 

[Zilch]

I am a man and I refuse to shit sitting down!

Here here! lopaz i've seen the light!

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

I have solved that issue. Neither a woman should be compelled/told forced to put it up nor men are forced to put it down, do what the fuck you want, and so the next user of it. And stop complaining or noticing about the fucking toilet seat. If you tell the user of the toilet seat to put it up or down only for your comfort then you are already in the wrong.

It's not about comfort it's about women falling into the toilet. Of course they won't admit they're annoyed because they just took a dip in the shitter so a bit of reading between the lines is required.

 

[Zeppelin]

Which books or other literary works are hateful?

The SCUM Manifesto? I could probably give you a few more examples if works by Swedish feminists interest you.

 

[Dead Man]

You know, I find it baffling that some people are taking feminism to task for not fighting hard enough for men's rights. It's like criticizing the gay rights movement for not fighting for straight peoples rights or minority groups for not speaking out for white peoples injustices.

I don't think it is that, more that some (and only some) people are saying that feminism is about mens rights, and there is no need or justifible reason for any organisation to exist for mens rights. I think there are only about 3 areas of society where males have any valid concerns, and those are more cultural than societal, but that does not mean there are no valid concerns about mens role in society, or that feminism can claim a monopoly on gender rights.

 

[Carcetti]

Specifically, producing hateful literature that's influenced generations of women in their relations with men. Poisonous really, like a cult

How can I ever reread Handmaid's Tale again knowing that it's actually same as Mein Kampf?

The SCUM Manifesto?

I prefer the theory that the manifesto is actually some sort of a satire, like Swift's cannibalism. It's definitely as nutty on idea level.

Plus the Cyborg Manifesto is so much better.

 

[Zeppelin]

I prefer the theory that the manifesto is actually some sort of a satire, like Swift's cannibalism. It's definitely as nutty on idea level.

Sadly, some feminists (at least over here) doesn't seem to take the same point of view.

 

[Carcetti]

Sadly, some feminists (at least over here) doesn't seem to take the same point of view.

Every -ISM has its extremists. There's probably even crazier stuff on the low grassroots level.

 

[Gaborn]

Specifically, producing hateful literature that's influenced generations of women in their relations with men. Poisonous really, like a cult

Well that answers that. Now to get some elucidation of your point a person will have to read through all of feminist literature and find this rhetoric to see if it's what you're referring to. Seriously, I'm not sure you know what "specifically" means.

 

[Zilch]

Sadly, some feminists (at least over here) doesn't seem to take the same point of view.

Honestly though, how does that manifest itself? I really doubt anyone (in 1967 or 2012) is advocating the killing of men. What is happening in your country, or in America, or anywhere that you can blame on SCUM or similar literature?

 

[twobear]

I think time will sort that out. It's not unusual for a movement to be reactionary and 'radical' at it's inception and then to calm down and become more 'sensible' over time.

Except for feminists, which is obviously hijacked by the crazies!

 

[depths20XX]

It's not about comfort it's about women falling into the toilet. Of course they won't admit they're annoyed because they just took a dip in the shitter so a bit of reading between the lines is required.

I never get this either. They're so oblivious to the state of the toilet they just sit down when it's open?

It's like a dude just walking in and pissing all over the toilet lid.

 

[Mumei]

Specifically, producing hateful literature that's influenced generations of women in their relations with men. Poisonous really, like a cult

That is not very specific.

 

[John Dunbar]

I never get this either. They're so oblivious to the state of the toilet they just sit down when it's open?

It's like a dude just walking in and pissing all over the toilet lid.

wait, this is not normal?

 

[Zeppelin]

Honestly though, how does that manifest itself? I really doubt anyone (in 1967 or 2012) is advocating the killing of men. What is happening in your country, or in America, or anywhere that you can blame on SCUM or similar literature?

You'd be surprised. One case that comes to mind is Ireen von Wachenfeld, formerly the head of ROKS (national organisation for women's shelters):

This is revealed in Swedish Televisions documentary "The Sex War". The documentary which is being aired this Sunday shows a strong connection between the government's sex equality policies and the national feminist organisation, Roks. In Roks' magazine WomenPressure, the former equality minister Margareta Winberg writes in a coloumn: - Sometimes I am baffled that not more women really hate men. "What do you mean by that?" - When you look around the world to see how women are treated, you can start wondering why women still have patience with men, says Margareta Winberg. "How do you think such a statement will be received?" - Yes, it can be provoking, particularly for men. But, I do not belong to the groups who are manhaters. I just want to emphasize that.

- The fraction within Roks which is radical is not part of government policy, says Margareta Winberg. Roks last year received 11.7 million kroner in government support, and organizes two/thirds of the women's organizations in Sweden. In 2006 the women's organizations are going to share 100 million kroner according to an agreement between the Social Democratic government, the Green Party and the Left Party. In Roks magazine, the extreme feminist Valeria Solana is hailed in a recent review. She writes in her manifesto: "To call a man an animal is to flatter him: He is a machine, a walking dildo, a biological mishap." In the documentary, the chairwoman Irene von Wachenfelt is asked whether she agrees with Solana. - Yes, men are animals. Don't you agree? says Ireen von Wachenfeldt to the reporter.

Source: http://fjordman.blogspot.se/2005/05/government-sponsored-swedish-feminists.html

Note: The source above is not something I would consider otherwise 'legitimate' but it was the only write-up in English I could find. I could provide you with real sources if you really want to but those would be in Swedish.

 

[Locke_211]

What about the issue of the male contraceptive pill? I read on the BBC news site that it's getting closer! That will make it easier for men to avoid all unwanted children, right?

 

[SquiddyCracker]

What about the issue of the male contraceptive pill? I read on the BBC news site that it's getting closer! That will make it easier for men to avoid all unwanted children, right?

Yeah, that would solve one of the male issues. Even if MRAs aren't helping, society is still correcting some of the problems.

 

[jimi_dini]

Apparently GirlWritesWhat (some of her videos were posted earlier) is fucking crazy and is okay with domestic violence. That certainly confirms my suspicions about her.

Where did she say that's it's "okay with domestic violence"? That makes it sound like she said "beating your girlfriend/wife/boyfriend/husband is fine". She said that one slap is better than getting beaten into the ground in an abusive relationship. If you got only those 2 choices, then yes, a smaller slap is "better" in a sense of diabetes is better than cancer. It's like saying: you are getting mugged. What do you prefer - getting shot to death or getting punched? The question wasn't "Would you prefer getting mugged or not?". The best "choice" would be no abusive relationship at all - which includes physical and psychological/emotional violence.

If you really think that she's "totally fine with domestic violence", just ask her on youtube. If she responds with "yes", then I would call her crazy as well.

The article, that you linked to, even calls her "the blabby FeMRA video blogger". Sounds like pure hatred spilling out. Her videos are not "blabby", but well thought through - at least the ones I watched. The word is just there as a primitive insult.

 

[lopaz]

That is not very specific.

It's a specific issue of harm, that I was asked to address. I produced a long list of hateful feminist literature in the other thread, but someone didn't like the host site. Here it is again

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/06/27/misandry-a-reading-list/

What about the issue of the male contraceptive pill? I read on the BBC news site that it's getting closer! That will make it easier for men to avoid all unwanted children, right?

that will be a great day

How can I ever reread Handmaid's Tale again knowing that it's actually same as Mein Kampf?

ehm...

I prefer the theory that the manifesto is actually some sort of a satire, like Swift's cannibalism. It's definitely as nutty on idea level.

Plus the Cyborg Manifesto is so much better.

So it is satirising feminists? The author was not a feminist?

Here here! lopaz i've seen the light!

and about time too

 

[Ein Soph Aur]

It's a specific issue of harm, that I was asked to address. I produced a long list of hateful feminist literature in the other thread, but someone didn't like the host site. Here it is again

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/06/27/misandry-a-reading-list/

I'm surprised that those books are published.

 

[Simplet]

The fact is you guys are using really loaded vocabulary, and in a way that is really confusing too.

Either "Feminism" is the movement where women fight for their rights and interests, or it is the fight for equality between genders in general. It can't be both. Or rather it can be both, but you have to explicitely state which one you're refering to everytime, otherwise you're just blurring the discussion voluntarily or not. In any case asking men to rally under feminism to defend their rights is completely futile, even if you were to somehow make feminism solely about equality between genders the movement is historically completely owned by women.

Either "Patriarchy" is the system that promotes male superiority in society or it is the sum of all gender imbalances in society. These two things are not the same at all. Matriarchal societies exist, and they have different roles for each gender, simply women tend to dominate in them. Are you going to say that what is causing the difference between genders in a matriarchal society is the Patriarchy? That kind of makes no sense.

So when you guys are saying that the idea that all men are pedophiles for example comes from the "patriarchal society", you have to be more clear. Are you saying that classic patriarchy (like in a society were men are dominating) is producing this phenomenon? In this case you are wrong. Classic patriarchy promotes the idea that men are strong, this phenomenon comes from the idea that men are predators. If anything it has a lot more to do with feminist literature than classic patriarchy. Sexual violence, especially toward children, was way more prevalent in old patriarchal societies, but this pedophilia hysteria was nowhere near as strong as right now.

Finally the idea that either ideology, feminism or manism, is just a fight for equality is just naive. Take reproductive rights : women and men will never have equal rights in this field, simply because one gender carries the baby for nine months in their belly, and the other doesn't. What you are looking for here is a balance between the rights for each gender, which is not the same thing as each gender having the same rights. By definition every advance made by one gender in this field is made by taking away some of the rights (or privilege if you think these rights are not rights) of the other gender, so the healthy way of carrying this process is for each gender to push for their advantage, so that when the dust settles everyone hopefully meets somewhere in the middle.

 

[Mumei]

The fact is you guys are using really loaded vocabulary, and in a way that is really confusing too.

Either "Feminism" is the movement where women fight for their rights and interests, or it is the fight for equality between genders in general. It can't be both. Or rather it can be both, but you have to explicitely state which one you're refering to everytime, otherwise you're just blurring the discussion voluntarily or not. In any case asking men to rally under feminism to defend their rights is completely futile, even if you were to somehow make feminism solely about equality between genders the movement is historically completely owned by women.

It is both. I don't see a distinction between the two.

Either "Patriarchy" is the system that promotes male superiority in society or it is the sum of all gender imbalances in society. These two things are not the same at all. Matriarchal societies exist, and they have different roles for each gender, simply women tend to dominate in them. Are you going to say that what is causing the difference between genders in a matriarchal society is the Patriarchy? That kind of makes no sense.

Patriarchy is the system that promotes male superiority in society, but it also can be used to explain problems that face men as well. Not all men are winners under patriarchy; they are only winners relative to women. The argument feminists make is that while men might be better off than women in relative terms under patriarchy, it makes them worse off in absolute terms.

I'm sure a matriarchal system would present problems all its own, but we aren't advocating a move to a matriarchal system.

So when you guys are saying that the idea that all men are pedophiles for example comes from the "patriarchal society", you have to be more clear. Are you saying that classic patriarchy (like in a society were men are dominating) is producing this phenomenon? In this case you are wrong. Classic patriarchy promotes the idea that men are strong, this phenomenon comes from the idea that men are predators. If anything it has a lot more to do with feminist literature than classic patriarchy. Sexual violence, especially toward children, was way more prevalent in old patriarchal societies, but this pedophilia hysteria was nowhere near as strong as right now.

I honestly have no idea what the connection is between this stereotyping of men and feminism or patriarchy is, if anything. And I am at work so I can't really research it; I'll have to punt on this point.

Finally the idea that either ideology, feminism or manism, is just a fight for equality is just naive. Take reproductive rights : women and men will never have equal rights in this field, simply because one gender carries the baby for nine months in their belly, and the other doesn't. What you are looking for here is a balance between the rights for each gender, which is not the same thing as each gender having the same rights. By definition every advance made by one gender in this field is made by taking away some of the rights (or privilege if you think these rights are not rights) of the other gender, so the healthy way of carrying this process is for each gender to push for their advantage, so that when the dust settles everyone hopefully meets somewhere in the middle.

Masculinism is probably the term you are looking for

I don't quite agree with your construction of this. I would agree that in the case of reproductive rights, women will have "more" because they are more directly impacted by it (and it directly involves their decisions with their own bodies), but I disagree with your characterization of it overall. This is not a zero-sum situation where if women gain, men necessarily lose. As I said before, men might lose relative advantage, but in absolute terms both men and women should gain. For instance, if men and women were to share the load of household chores and raising children more easily, men might lose relative privilege (not having to do as many chores), but they receive absolute benefits (men in relationships with more egalitarian levels of work-sharing report higher levels of happiness).

In a certain sense, it is about creating balance, but I think that the way you construct it, it appears that men are losing something, rather than gaining something. You frame it as an inherently antagonistic process when it does not have to be.

(Sorry if this is slightly incoherent; I'm trying to write while talking to a customer)

 

[Simplet]

It is both. I don't see a distinction between the two.

Everything else aside, if there is one woman in the universe who is fighting for more than strict equality with men under the banner of feminism, then you can't equate feminism with simply the fight for equality in general. Or you have to create your own definition of feminism, and give your own term for what such a woman is doing, and remind everyone at every turn that you are using your own definitions of common words. It's just unnecessarily confusing.

All of this is complicated of course by the fact that in a lot of areas it's really hard to determine what "strict equality" is, since men and women are in different situations and you can't give them the exact same rights (like reproductive rights, laws regarding harassement and sexual assault and so forth.)

Patriarchy is the system that promotes male superiority in society, but it also can be used to explain problems that face men as well. Not all men are winners under patriarchy; they are only winners relative to women. The argument feminists make is that while men might be better off than women in relative terms under patriarchy, it makes them worse off in absolute terms.

I'm sure a matriarchal system would present problems all its own, but we aren't advocating a move to a matriarchal system.

I was just making the point that there are gender imbalances in society that are not directly caused by patriarchy, which I thought you were somehow contesting.

I honestly have no idea what the connection is between this stereotyping of men and feminism or patriarchy is, if anything. And I am at work so I can't really research it; I'll have to punt on this point.

Someone somewhere in this thread brought up this question of men being automatically suspicious, and someone else somewhere else responded that this was another case of patriarchy causing men troubles and that feminism would cure that as well. At least that's what I understood, I might have been wrong. So you admit that this trend of preventing men from approaching children and so forth is a problem for men, and that patriarchy has nothing to do with at least this one problem (and surely others?)

Masculinism is probably the term you are looking for

I don't quite agree with your construction of this. I would agree that in the case of reproductive rights, women will have "more" because they are more directly impacted by it (and it directly involves their decisions with their own bodies), but I disagree with your characterization of it overall. This is not a zero-sum situation where if women gain, men necessarily lose. As I said before, men might lose relative advantage, but in absolute terms both men and women should gain. For instance, if men and women were to share the load of household chores and raising children more easily, men might lose relative privilege (not having to do as many chores), but they receive absolute benefits (men in relationships with more egalitarian levels of work-sharing report higher levels of happiness).

In a certain sense, it is about creating balance, but I think that the way you construct it, it appears that men are losing something, rather than gaining something. You frame it as an inherently antagonistic process when it does not have to be.

(Sorry if this is slightly incoherent; I'm trying to write while talking to a customer)

Well all of this sounds like how you want things to be. If there is a law about child support, and what men can or can not decide to pay or not pay for example, that's just the right to decide something that is taken from them. You can say that everything is better for everyone that way and you may even be right, but the men in question have lost some of their rights, and they may not be happy about it.

 

[jimi_dini]

It is both. I don't see a distinction between the two.

You mean "It can be both"? Or you mean it's the same for you, because you see it as "fight" for equality?

I see some feminists to really go for equality as far as it can go (which should be the actual goal - but this also means that stuff, where women got it far better, should be changed as well).

Some other feminists (the more radical ones) go way further. Which means it would result in the opposite situation instead of actual equality (and of course they like to keep stuff, where women got it way better as well).


For example quotas. Where a woman gets a job just because of her gender, not because she is better or at least doing the job as good as the other (for example male) candidate. She may be worse, but it doesn't matter because of her gender. That's not equality. IF a candidate is way better than the other candidates, she or he should get the job. Noone should get a job because of their gender (or color, etc.).

 

[Deified Data]

Have we talked about the toilet seat issue yet?

Instead of us men being forced to put it down after use, why shouldn't women have to put it up???

IMO, whoever's using the toilet at the time should just deal with what they have to deal with without complaint, because it's trivial.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

For example quotas. Where a woman gets a job just because of her gender, not because she is better or at least doing the job as good as the other (for example male) candidate. She may be worse, but it doesn't matter because of her gender. That's not equality. IF a candidate is way better than the other candidates, she or he should get the job. Noone should get a job because of their gender (or color, etc.).

My gut feeling is that though it is theoretically possible that quotas can facilitate less qualified individuals getting jobs over more qualified candidates, this is more of a phantom threat than anything else. The fear is that employers will be forced to scrape the bottom of the barrel to meet quotas, whereas I'm sure in practice it's probably not that hard to find such a qualified candidate when encouraged to look for one.

 

[QuickSilverD]

So what is everyone's opinion on Title IX?

 

[The Adder]

Because most of the time that the toilet is being used, somebody is sitting on it. Consider that men have to sit on the toilet when they shit, too.

Yeah.

Lesser men...

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

It's a specific issue of harm, that I was asked to address. I produced a long list of hateful feminist literature in the other thread, but someone didn't like the host site. Here it is again

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/06/27/misandry-a-reading-list/

How many of these books are serious philosophical treatises, how many are meant to be humorous in some way, and how many are books about gender dynamics that have provocative, but not entirely accurate, titles in order to get attention?

Furthermore, even if each of these is 100% dead serious about advocating a man-hating philosophy, this is in no way damning of feminism as a whole. Just like the contemptible shit some men believe should not be held against all men.

 

[Raonak]

i still dont see the hostility towards mens rights movement. sure, it has its extremists, just like every group.
feminism already has too much on its plate, having a group focused on only mens issuses means thoes issues would likely be dealt with faster.
logically speaking it just makes more sense having focused groups alongside all encompasing groups.

 

[The Adder]

I think the difference here is that with men's rights, when feminists ask over and over and over for an example of someone in men's rights advocacy doing serious work that is not simply academically dishonest or a thin veneer for an anti-feminist diatribe, we get silence. When I do see someone concerned about these issues and addressing them in a thoughtful and well-informed way, that person is almost always a male feminist.

Again, I feel you're setting up a false equivalency here.

Inquiry: Does being a male and understanding the need for, and supporting, the feminist movement, but not identifying as a feminist, still qualify you as a "male feminist." At least in your mind? Because if so, I believe that's a bit of an inverse "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

 

[jimi_dini]

My gut feeling is that though it is theoretically possible that quotas can facilitate less qualified individuals getting jobs over more qualified candidates, this is more of a phantom threat than anything else.

But if the better candidate gets the job, why should there be quotas then?

Because without them even better women wouldn't get employed, because of their gender? Why should an employer do that? It wouldn't make sense. I mean you said that with quotas, there should be/is no harm. Which would mean the better applicant gets the job, right? So quotas wouldn't be needed.

And in my country for example, there are quotas. They were introduced around 20 years ago. And even in jobs, where many more women are employed (for example education or medical care), women are still preferred by that quota. Which doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Actually if there are quotas, those should be male quotas. And I won't even complain about children daycare, where 97% of the workers are female (horray for all males are pedophiles).

In public service all job descriptions contain the remark that females are preferred in case of same qualification. Which means males need to have better qualification (qualification == grades and paper work, doesn't say anything about competence), otherwise they have to be discriminated because of their gender.

Also since 2000 there are around 60% females in public service / administration - that's way over "equality". But the quotas are still in place since then. I just need to look at the HR department of my own workplace. Everyone is female. And HR is the largest department of the whole administration.

There are also hard quotas. Which mean exactly what I wrote. If you need to choose 4 people, 2 of them HAVE to be female. Which means if you get 4 shitty male applicants and 4 great female applicants, all is fine and dandy. If you get 4 shitty female applicants and 4 great male applicants, you got to stop the whole process or you have to discriminate 2 male applicants. It's laughable.

 

[mnemovore]

Or disagreement over what that philosophy is about?

That's defined by it's establishment. Permutations are not equal to their shared label.

All three of those are sort of interrelated and important in this instance. How our prison systems are run is what causes the sort of internalized rape culture to exist, by passively allowing it to take place, by using the threat of it as a tool, by placing prisoners with known rapists as punishment, by homophobic insinuations that rape victims are actually in relationships or in a lover's tiff (which also mirrors male-female rape apologetics), by failing to protect at-risk prisoners, and so forth. It isn't an accident or an inevitability that prison rape in American prisons is so enormously high; it is the result of actions and inaction taken or not taken that causes this environment. And how society perceives male criminals is obviously important, as we aren't going to have the political will to change this without changing that.

My point of bringing up those areas of focus is to illustrate how calling an effort to lower the incidence of prison rape a men's rights issue creates an arbitrary straight-jacket.

 

[The Adder]

But if the better candidate gets the job, why should there be quotas then?

Because without them even better women wouldn't get employed, because of their gender? Why should an employer do that? It wouldn't make sense. I mean you said that with quotas, there should be/is no harm. Which would mean the better applicant gets the job, right? So quotas wouldn't be needed.

In America, at least, white men are more likely to get a job all other things being equal. Hell, they're more likely to get a job when less qualified. It's not women, but here's a perfect example of employers doing exactly that.

http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/pager_ajs.pdf

A study on the number of call backs of equally qualified white males with or without a criminal record vs. black Males with or without a criminal record.

As you can see from the graph even with a criminal record, a white male is more likely to get a call back than a black male with equal qualifications and no criminal record.

I'm looking for a similar study with women, but even without it, the point remains. Yes employers do this.

 

[NovemberMike]

So it is satirising feminists? The author was not a feminist?

There may have been satirical elements to the SCUM Manifesto, but Solanas was an insane person that killed a man and tried to kill three others.

 

[way more]

Specifically, producing hateful literature that's influenced generations of women in their relations with men. Poisonous really, like a cult

The father of bigotry against men. Males are portrayed as troublemaking, violent, thieves. And the hijinks. I thought to be a boy you have do commit hijinks, damn you Feminazi Mark Twain!