IHaveCandy
Banned
A lot of that has to do with the stupid amount of pandering government officials do to the Christian majority.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The "Men's Rights Movement" is apparently having a resurgence. Awkward.
- Thread starter NotTheGuyYouKill
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Republicans are half of the US government. You're telling women that half of the US government can't be expected to understand them because they're sad and out of touch? I hope you understand that that's kind of crappy!
Not just women. But the poor, the non-white, the LGBT, the non-Christian etc etc also have to face this realisation too. Yes that's crappy. Yes, that's the US political landscape.
Voting for women won't change this by default. Only voting against the religious right will.
That would be a luxury. First we should be more concerned with getting a panel on male genital mutilation at all and then worry about it's member makeup.
Oh shoot, did I just bring up another Mens Rights Issue? My bad.
Yeah, I was pretty disappointed that the circumcision ban in Germany was overturned. I was hoping it would spark discussion in other countries. It will be a looong time before the issue comes up in the U.S., where circumcision is far more common than in Germany.
Anyways, I would be pretty appalled if such a panel was comprised entirely of women. It's not that women can't represent men, it just seems incredibly unfair given that it's a male issue and we can have men representing men.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
Yeah, I was pretty disappointed that the circumcision ban in Germany was overturned. I was hoping it would spark discussion in other countries. It will be a looong time before the issue comes up in the U.S., where circumcision is far more common than in Germany.
Anyways, I would be pretty appalled if such a panel was comprised entirely of women. It's not that women can't represent men, it just seems incredibly unfair given that it's a male issue and we can have men representing men.
I wouldn't be appalled. It isn't just a mans issue, keep in mind that many single mothers are making that decision for their newborn male babies. Women are most certainly involved.
IHaveCandy
Banned
I think they could get it passed in the US by trying not to tackle the issue directly. "Elective/Cosmetic surgery cannot given to a child just because the parent wants it." Done.
A lot of that has to do with the stupid amount of pandering government officials do to the Christian majority.
Well, yeah, except I'd substitute "religious right"; Christians are a majority, and social conservatives are overwhelmingly Christian, but social conservatives are not a majority. And it's not really "pandering" when elected officials do this; it's just representation. This is what people are voting for. They're voting for in part because they have some deeply sexist attitudes.
But supposing you're right, surely it's a huge problem that this sort of pandering is a successful electoral strategy. If there is a majority that responds well to all the shit Republicans do, doesn't that pretty definitively prove that we've got a pretty sexist (also racist) society, and wouldn't it be beyond belief that none of that has influenced policy?
Yeah, I was pretty disappointed that the circumcision ban in Germany was overturned. I was hoping it would spark discussion in other countries. It will be a looong time before the issue comes up in the U.S., where circumcision is far more common than in Germany.
Anyways, I would be pretty appalled if such a panel was comprised entirely of women. It's not that women can't represent men, it just seems incredibly unfair given that it's a male issue and we can have men representing men.
From what I understand about the whole case in Germany though was that it had underlying intolerant issues. Circumcision isn't common in Germany amongst the white population, however, if the few who still do, its predominantly the Jewish community. This would encroach on their religious freedoms, where it is seen as a critical part of thier doctrine. It had an underlying anti Semitic nature (whether purposeful or not) and it was, in my opinion, rightfully overturned until a better discussion could be had on the issue.
Devolution
Member
This isn't generally what happens, though. The underlying claim isn't that males are in principle unqualified to speak on abortion because they lack uteri. People often confuse slogans for arguments.
The concern is that there is at least some reason to think that various rules that impact women's sexuality are partly or wholly motivated by a desire to control women's sexuality, even when such rules are sometimes publicly justified on different grounds. Certainly this is obviously the case for many historical policies. Complementarian thinking about gender was clearly really about giving men effective ownership of their wives. This is not to say that complementarians or pro-lifers are liars; they may be deceived about their own motivations.
Abortion restrictions are suspect because it is often the case that the same people supporting them are in favor of a bunch of other things that are more clearly about controlling female sexuality. Look at the overlap between abortion opponents and those who want abstinence-only sex ed and those who oppose subsidies for birth control. Even the history of abortion as a political issue in the US is pretty damning. Nobody other than devout Catholics cared particularly much until the leadership of the religious right decided that they had to back away from blatant racism as their main selling point.
So the idea isn't that abortion restrictions would be just fine if panels of pro-life speakers had women on them. No one doubts that there are at least five women in the pro-life movement who could have been persuaded to testify in front of Congress. Rather, the lack of women on the panel is merely indicative of the opinion that the pro-life movement has of women. If the religious right were actually such that women held roughly half of the leadership positions in it, it would probably not be nearly as anti-abortion. Not because women necessarily have better positions on abortion but because probably a lot of anti-abortion sentiment is actually motivated by the same sexism that keeps women from achieving prominence of the sort where they'd be natural choices for things like this panel.
Also pretty telling that Nuns have an entirely different opinion and got accused by the Vatican of "promoting radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith."
I wouldn't be appalled. It isn't just a mans issue, keep in mind that many single mothers are making that decision for their newborn male babies. Women are most certainly involved.
I wouldn't be opposed if up to half of the panel were women. But all women? Yeah I'd call bullshit on that. Same with the birth control panel.
I think they could get it passed in the US by trying not to tackle the issue directly. "Elective/Cosmetic surgery cannot given to a child just because the parent wants it." Done.
No way, the religious right is too powerful in the U.S. Not even Germany could get it done.
IHaveCandy
Banned
Well, yeah, except I'd substitute "religious right"; Christians are a majority, and social conservatives are overwhelmingly Christian, but social conservatives are not a majority. And it's not really "pandering" when elected officials do this; it's just representation. This is what people are voting for. They're voting for in part because they have some deeply sexist attitudes.
But supposing you're right, surely it's a huge problem that this sort of pandering is a successful electoral strategy. If there is a majority that responds well to all the shit Republicans do, doesn't that pretty definitively prove that we've got a pretty sexist (also racist) society, and wouldn't it be beyond belief that none of that has influenced policy?
I don't think believing a fetus is equal to a human and deserves life is sexist. It certainly negatively impacts women, but the reasons aren't due to anything sexist if that is their line of logic. I believe most pro-lifers have that line of reasoning, not an anti-women motive.
Devolution
Member
I wouldn't be opposed if up to half of the panel were women. But all women? Yeah I'd call bullshit on that. Same with the birth control panel.
No way, the religious right is too powerful in the U.S. Not even Germany could get it done.
I'd say a better comparison would be an all female panel on whether or not men can be covered for vasectomies. And all of our answers consisted of "just wear a condom or don't have sex I don't see the issue here?"
I don't think believing a fetus is equal to a human and deserves life is sexist. It certainly negatively impacts women, but the reasons aren't due to anything sexist if that is their line of logic. I believe most pro-lifers have that line of reasoning, not an anti-women motive.
I agree, but when people can't renounce that stance once they realize the negative consequences it results in, then it turns into sexism. Actually they don't even have to renounce it, just don't let that personal opinion affect others.
IHaveCandy
Banned
I agree, but when people can't renounce that stance once they realize the negative consequences it results in, then it turns into sexism. Actually they don't even have to renounce it, just don't let that personal opinion affect others.
Really? I would think they would more often re-enforce that view by saying that life is more important than any other social problem created by that policy.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
Agreed, that would be fairest way to handle it if a panel ever came to be.I wouldn't be opposed if up to half of the panel were women. But all women? Yeah I'd call bullshit on that. Same with the birth control panel.
IHaveCandy
Banned
I feel like something like circumcision shouldn't even require a panel. One sane person of either sex should just walk into Congress and say "Hey, you know people are slicing baby dicks for religious and aesthetic reasons right? That's fucking crazy. Put an end to that now" and leave as Congress makes a unanimous vote to end circumcision.
From what I understand about the whole case in Germany though was that it had underlying intolerant issues. Circumcision isn't common in Germany amongst the white population, however, if the few who still do, its predominantly the Jewish community. This would encroach on their religious freedoms, where it is seen as a critical part of thier doctrine. It had an underlying anti Semitic nature (whether purposeful or not) and it was, in my opinion, rightfully overturned until a better discussion could be had on the issue.
I don't want to go into this too deeply 'cause it's kind of off-topic, but I do feel there are some religious traditions that should be stopped.
I'd say a better comparison would be an all female panel on whether or not men can be covered for vasectomies. And all of our answers consisted of "just wear a condom or don't have sex I don't see the issue here?"
I should have gone with this example instead.
les papillons sexuels
Banned
I'd say a better comparison would be an all female panel on whether or not men can be covered for vasectomies. And all of our answers consisted of "just wear a condom or don't have sex I don't see the issue here?"
this actually sounds quite fine in my book. Not really sure i see the problem. A vesectomy, is more or less a quality of life procedure.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
I feel like something like circumcision shouldn't even require a panel. One sane person of either sex should just walk into Congress and say "Hey, you know people are slicing baby dicks for religious and aesthetic reasons right? That's fucking crazy. Put an end to that now" and leave as Congress makes a unanimous vote to end circumcision.
You would think the patriarchy would be more pro-male than they are.
IHaveCandy
Banned
Could you imagine how many dudes are going to line up for vasectomies paid on the government's dime?
les papillons sexuels
Banned
Could you imagine how many dudes are going to line up for vasectomies paid on the government's dime?
better yet, studies show that a vesectomy can reduce the rate at which hiv is transmitted, wouldn't that be hugely beneficial for the gay population?
travisbickle
Member
You would think the patriarchy would be more pro-male than they are.
Patriarchy isn't "pro-men" it's rule by the "father".
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
Patriarchy isn't "pro-men" it's rule by the "father".
I see, so it must be pro-women then because we all know it isn't fair and balanced.
I see, so it must be pro-women then because we all know it isn't fair and balanced.
...I don't think anyone is looking for a pro woman society. People simply want equality. Women don't want to rule men, just be seen as equals.
I don't think believing a fetus is equal to a human and deserves life is sexist. It certainly negatively impacts women, but the reasons aren't due to anything sexist if that is their line of logic. I believe most pro-lifers have that line of reasoning, not an anti-women motive.
But this is what my earlier post was about. Why do people have this idea that the fetus has the moral status of an adult human? It seems to me that that matters. It must be relevant if we think that there is a fact of the matter about morality - people's moral opinions are relevant to the extent that their moral reasoning is reliably truth-seeking. In addition to the things I pointed out in my earlier post, a really striking feature of the abortion debate in the US is that many members of the pro-life movement are bizarrely in favor of things that almost certainly increase the abortion rate and are opposed to many things that would almost certainly decrease it. Many of them will perfectly seriously claim that there is a Holocaust happening every few years. And yet they're worried about government spending?
There's no reason for the pro-life movement not to be agitating for a war on poverty on an unheard-of scale. For massive welfare benefits per child and huge bounties for women putting children up for adoption. But the same people will rant for hours about the importance of personal responsibility and bootstraps and so forth if anyone proposes more generous welfare. BABIES ARE DYING!!!! Millions of them each year! Whatever strategy they think they're following has not been very successful over several decades. Either these people are moral monsters or they don't really believe the principles they spout. It makes a lot more sense if you figure that they actually enjoy being outraged and pretending that they're oppressed minorities subject to persecution from baby-killing atheist socialists - it's like LARPing for people who think D&D is satanic - and are getting most of what they want when they pass policies that inconvenience and shame women. Edit: I don't mean the minimize the effects of the policies they want; many are willing to go so far as to force women to bear a rapist's baby, but these rarely stick.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
...I don't think anyone is looking for a pro woman society. People simply want equality. Women don't want to rule men, just be seen as equals.
Ok, so are you saying patriarchy is fair and balanced? Sorry, I don't really see how this ties into what you quoted.
travisbickle
Member
I see, so it must be pro-women then because we all know it isn't fair and balanced.
I don't understand what this means?
but patriarchy is a system that views a senior authority figure as necessary for social development, and historically that has been viewed as the "father" throughout most societies.
The negative effects of a patriarch society are felt greater on women because they are both daughters and mothers within the society, but sons do feel oppressed.
What exactly would an extreme equalist look like?
Probably pretty much the same as an extreme feminist, I would think, given that you seem to feel that they're interchangeable ideas.
But even if not, they may believe in radical action to achieve their aims. This is a common form of extremism that infects pretty much all social justice movements.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
I don't understand what this means?
but patriarchy is a system that views a senior authority figure as necessary for social development, and historically that has been viewed as the "father" throughout most societies.
The negative effect of a patriarch society is felt greater on women because they are both daughters and mothers within the society, but sons do feel oppressed.
Ok, let me explain.
You said patriarchy is not pro-men. So I said that it must be pro-women then because we all know it isn't fair and balanced.
So, do you agree that patriarchy is pro-women or do you think it is fair and balanced?
I think I actually felt at least 10 of my brain cells dying listening to just that one woman! I would've heard them too if I was not laughing so hard at that woman saying to "shut the fuck up".
But the talk about MRM being bad and all, and yet...we have boys being raped in the Catholic churches, and it took a while for anything to be done about it.
Then there was that Rutgers coach who threw basketballs at people's heads and shoved around like they were nothing to him. When it was brought up to higher heads, the person who brought it up got fired!
These are men that are supposed to actually be teaching other men, and yet, when things like abuse or rape of them happens, they need to shut up because they are told to "be men about it".
Yet, this woman is telling this guy to "shut the fuck up!"
GG, woman! You made Anita Sarkessian look tame by comparison!
Ok, let me explain.
You said patriarchy is not pro-men. So I said that it must be pro-women then because we all know it isn't fair and balanced.
So, do you agree that patriarchy is pro-women or do you think it is fair and balanced?
The patriarchy negatively affects men and women in different ways.
This topic is too broad, but...
Women do get more degrees in humanities the thing is these degrees tend to offer less jobs and money. Men still get the degrees that pay more more often. Boys need more focus regarding education than girls now partly because girls comply and boys do not leading more girls to excel in education when given opportunity. Too big a subject for one thread.
Women do get more degrees in humanities the thing is these degrees tend to offer less jobs and money. Men still get the degrees that pay more more often. Boys need more focus regarding education than girls now partly because girls comply and boys do not leading more girls to excel in education when given opportunity. Too big a subject for one thread.
Ok, so are you saying patriarchy is fair and balanced? Sorry, I don't really see how this ties into what you quoted.
Sorry, I must have just misread. I thought it was a a comment, sarcastically saying that we should shift from the unfair patriarchy to the far more fair matriarchy.
But again I misread the context/tone.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
The patriarchy negatively affects men and women in different ways.
That's a political answer that says nothing.
Let's just face it, no one wants to come out and admit that patriarchy is NOT pro-men and leave it at that (before it grows into a huge argument).
Sorry, I must have just misread. I thought it was a a comment, sarcastically saying that we should shift from the unfair patriarchy to the far more fair matriarchy.
But again I misread the context/tone.
I should have put a question mark in, it's my fault.
travisbickle
Member
Ok, let me explain.
You said patriarchy is not pro-men. So I said that it must be pro-women then because we all know it isn't fair and balanced.
So, do you agree that patriarchy is pro-women or do you think it is fair and balanced?
It's pro senior-male authority figures, so no matter what women get fucked, yet some men thrive.
no it's not. Nothing about it is real or useful. In fact, it masks the real issues, such as socio-ecenomic issues, class issues, wealth disparity, gender issues, cultural issues, and lumps all of this under a magical guiding force with no evidence, and is completely impossible to actually change. People end up attacking the symptom as opposed to the cause, and all we end up with is wheel spinning.
I'm confused. Is it not real, a symptom, or a completely intractable fact? These are not the same things as each other.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
It's pro senior-male authority figures, so no matter what women get fucked, yet some men thrive.
Really? Just because they are men, women get fucked by default?
Devolution
Member
Really? Just because they are men, women get fucked by default?
Have you actually read up on history lately?
That's a political answer that says nothing.
Let's just face it, no one wants to come out and admit that patriarchy is NOT pro-men and leave it at that (before it grows into a huge argument).
I don't think anybody was claiming that patriarchy is strictly pro-men. It's not binary like that. There are both positive and negative aspects. Many people already were discussing how the patriarchy negatively affects men. The article in the OP discusses it too.
Devolution
Member
I don't think anybody was claiming that patriarchy is strictly pro-men. It's not binary like that. Many people already were discussing how the patriarchy negatively affects men. The article in the OP discusses it too.
It isn't strictly pro-men it backfires on them too because it specifically marginalizes men who don't fall into a very narrow category.
That's a political answer that says nothing.
Let's just face it, no one wants to come out and admit that patriarchy is NOT pro-men and leave it at that (before it grows into a huge argument).
I should have put a question mark in, it's my fault.
Its all good.
So I think I just got confused throught the course of conversation, but where do you stand on the whole issue?
Are you saying well all understand that patriarchy is in fact NOT pro men, but no one wants to actually say such a thing?
Or are you saying that it clearly is pro men, and no one is really going to say other wise because we all know better.
Let's just face it, no one wants to come out and admit that patriarchy is NOT pro-men and leave it at that (before it grows into a huge argument).
Except a lot of us that are speaking out against patriarchy on GAF have acknowledged openly before that patriarchy also harms men.
The "Patriarchy" is and was, a complete load of dung though. A patriarchy has to actually be able to exist to cause damage to men and women.
You do know what a patriarchy is, right? The US is one. Women do not even have equal rights in the United States. In 2013.
And that doesn't even get into the societal side of it, women literally are not viewed as equals in our laws. Our legislative body does not reflect the actual demographics of the nation.
BobbyRobby
Member
You do know what a patriarchy is, right? The US is one. Women do not even have equal rights in the United States. In 2013.
what rights are you talking about?
IHaveCandy
Banned
But this is what my earlier post was about. Why do people have this idea that the fetus has the moral status of an adult human? It seems to me that that matters. It must be relevant if we think that there is a fact of the matter about morality - people's moral opinions are relevant to the extent that their moral reasoning is reliably truth-seeking. In addition to the things I pointed out in my earlier post, a really striking feature of the abortion debate in the US is that many members of the pro-life movement are bizarrely in favor of things that almost certainly increase the abortion rate and are opposed to many things that would almost certainly decrease it. Many of them will perfectly seriously claim that there is a Holocaust happening every few years. And yet they're worried about government spending?
There's no reason for the pro-life movement not to be agitating for a war on poverty on an unheard-of scale. For massive welfare benefits per child and huge bounties for women putting children up for adoption. But the same people will rant for hours about the importance of personal responsibility and bootstraps and so forth if anyone proposes more generous welfare. BABIES ARE DYING!!!! Millions of them each year! Whatever strategy they think they're following has not been very successful over several decades. Either these people are moral monsters or they don't really believe the principles they spout. It makes a lot more sense if you figure that they actually enjoy being outraged and pretending that they're oppressed minorities subject to persecution from baby-killing atheist socialists - it's like LARPing for people who think D&D is satanic - and are getting most of what they want when they pass policies that inconvenience and shame women. Edit: I don't mean the minimize the effects of the policies they want; many are willing to go so far as to force women to bear a rapist's baby, but these rarely stick.
To be fair, it is totally reasonable for somebody to think they have little to no responsibility in helping you make it on your own while thinking others shouldn't kill you, be it in the womb or out. I'm not seeing an inconsistency with that view.
travisbickle
Member
Really? Just because they are men, women get fucked by default?
Women get put into specific roles defined by the authoritative father figure in society.
The symbolic order is still in place from centuries ago.
Probably pretty much the same as an extreme feminist, I would think, given that you seem to feel that they're interchangeable ideas.
So an extreme equalist would... fight for the rights of females to the exclusion of all other groups?
I'm sorry if I couldn't quite capture the correct terminology, but I'd hope you could properly infer the point I was making, rather than hammering home on a semantic misunderstanding.
But even if not, they may believe in radical action to achieve their aims. This is a common form of extremism that infects pretty much all social justice movements.
And this isn't the 'extreme' I was talking about either. And given that any social justice movement can be derided in this fashion, it doesn't make much sense to not name something out of fear of this kind of extremism.
The point is simple - feminism to a lay person can be easily misconstrued as a misandrist movement, whereas equalism is a term that better highlights the goals that the feminism movement is attempting to achieve (or at least the logical extrapolation of the goals of feminism is attempting to achieve).
The idea that it is impossible to rebrand a movement strikes me as asinine; especially when we're discussing this in the context of "Mens Rights Advocacy" which is just a successful rebranding of misogyny.
Except a lot of us that are speaking out against patriarchy on GAF have acknowledged openly before that patriarchy also harms men.
Which is not true because if it was the other way around, it would be called a "matriarchy". Patriarchy is a term exclusively for male superiority.
You do know what a patriarchy is, right? The US is one. Women do not even have equal rights in the United States. In 2013.
And that doesn't even get into the societal side of it, women literally are not viewed as equals in our laws. Our legislative body does not reflect the actual demographics of the nation.
This is somewhat vague because you need to define what you would want for women to be equal. Is it being paid the same as a man or have an equal chance for a promotion in a workplace? That would be a good thing to fight for since they should be, and that would make them more equal.
But preferential treatment doesn't help anyone, and that's the type of thing the woman in that video was trying to get there. Look up the words "extreme radical feminist" on Wikipedia and you might see her picture.
To be fair, it is totally reasonable for somebody to think they have little to no responsibility in helping you make it on your own while thinking others shouldn't kill you, be it in the womb or out. I'm not seeing an inconsistency with that view.
I wasn't doing the "they're pro-fetus but not pro-baby" thing. The policies I was describing would almost certainly reduce the abortion rate. Many pro-lifers think of themselves as caring enormously about all these dying babies, and even think of themselves as 'fighting' for life, but they aren't willing to make real sacrifices of other things they value (such as keeping the unworthy in poverty) to produce a world with less abortion. They prefer theater. Because they're really just playing, even if they have deceived themselves.
But that highlights a problem with rebranding, doesn't it? MRA is a rebranding of misogyny. An obvious one. It doesn't get respect everywhere misogyny doesn't get respect. When all the feminists insist on being called equalists, do you really think that people won't just keep saying exactly the same things? People who are opposed to it are going to poison that term just as thoroughly.The idea that it is impossible to rebrand a movement strikes me as asinine; especially when we're discussing this in the context of "Mens Rights Advocacy" which is just a successful rebranding of misogyny.
BobbyRobby
Member
The point is simple - feminism to a lay person can be easily misconstrued as a misandrist movement, whereas equalism is a term that better highlights the goals that the feminism movement is attempting to achieve (or at least the logical extrapolation of the goals of feminism is attempting to achieve).
The idea that it is impossible to rebrand a movement strikes me as asinine; especially when we're discussing this in the context of "Mens Rights Advocacy" which is just a successful rebranding of misogyny.
hear, hear!
there's a reason civil rights wasn't branded 'black rights' in the sixties.
feminists don't want to give up the brand. more than 50% of the population is too large a demographic.
i think a big reason feminism is so popular is that it absolves women of guilt and responsibility, and gives them a scapegoat in the 'patriarchy.' people like being told, "it's not your fault." people don't like being told "we have met the enemy, and he is us." everybody is at fault for society's failings.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.