Support NeoGAF

[Jburton]

There is a real problem with men accepting that they need to get regular prostate examines or that prostate cancer is even worthy of concern.

Also a real issue of a lack of funding for research, funding for education etc.


Lets not paint that all we need for prostate cancer to be beaten is for men to get a finger up the hole, do we only need for women to get their bombs squeezed to beat breast cancer?

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

I do. It's a shame that patriarchial gender roles has caused this to be the case and it's good that there is a force fighting patriarchy.

We are still waiting on the evidence that feminists groups are actually fighting for equality in the family courts.

 

[diffusionx]

Also the issue of men's health issues not getting equal treatment in comparison to women ........ such as in terms of the promotion, awareness, fundraising etc of Breast Cancer in comparison to Prostate Cancer ..... just as an example.

When I told someone that prostate cancer kills as many men as Breast cancer does women in the UK every year they did not believe me, where is the same level of promotion, funding for research etc?

Breast cancer gets so much attention because the people who were affected by it went out and lobbied for that attention. They earned it. Same with HIV to some extent - Reagan and the like were perfectly willing to ignore all the dead gay men (yes men) out there on the streets of big cities.

If prostate cancer isn't getting the attention of breast cancer, it's because advocates aren't pushing for it. Sitting around and not pushing for it while also blaming some anti-men industrial complex is a twofer in nonaction.

 

[poppabk]

Isn't the purpose of research to solve a problem we currently don't understand? The prostate cancer problem is solved in the sense that all we need to deal with it is early detection. It would seem to me like it would be a huge waste of scientific resources to put money towards a problem that has a very high recovery rate if detected early.

Considering people are advocating stopping the current PSA test due to its relatively poor diagnostic value, shouldn't more money be put into research for more effective diagnostics?

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Breast cancer gets so much attention because the people who were affected by it went out and lobbied for that attention. They earned it. Same with HIV to some extent - Reagan and the like were perfectly willing to ignore all the dead gay men (yes men) out there on the streets of big cities.

If prostate cancer isn't getting the attention of breast cancer, it's because advocates aren't pushing for it. Sitting around and not pushing for it while also blaming some anti-men industrial complex is a twofer in nonaction.

You know what happens when men talk about Mens Issues? We are told that we are whining and that we are speaking from our seat of privilege. This probably discourages alot of men.

 

[poppabk]

If prostate cancer isn't getting the attention of breast cancer, it's because advocates aren't pushing for it. Sitting around and not pushing for it while also blaming some anti-men industrial complex is a twofer in nonaction.

Isn't this topic about how men shouldn't be advocating for their rights in a separate group because the feminist groups are already advocating for them?

 

[marrec]

I am simply asking. I haven't screamed or demanded anything. Others have also asked this, in fact, others asked for it first. Are they also screaming and demanding too?

I imagined you screaming, standing on a soap box with a loudspeaker in hand. Forgive my imagination please it's been affected by mens rights advocates that I've experienced in the past and I should not ascribe those caricatures to you. Demands have been made however. In the very face of a self-proclaimed feminist (me) telling you that they are just as concerned for men's rights as they are for women's rights, you're demanding that I provide proof of a group of feminists who feel the same; instead of accepting the fact that out of the 6 pages in this thread there is at least one feminist who's concerned for men's rights. Surely this concern is shared between other feminists as well and you are not just lucky enough to have experienced this rare beast of a feminist known as Marrec.

 

[Jburton]

Breast cancer gets so much attention because the people who were affected by it went out and lobbied for that attention. They earned it. Same with HIV to some extent - Reagan and the like were perfectly willing to ignore all the dead gay men (yes men) out there on the streets of big cities.

If prostate cancer isn't getting the attention of breast cancer, it's because advocates aren't pushing for it. Sitting around and not pushing for it while also blaming some anti-men industrial complex is a twofer in nonaction.

I am talking about the fact that cancer charities (advocates) are not allocating not providing or doing as much in relation to prostate cancer.

Also I am not asking for money to be taken from Breast cancer awareness etc, just a bit more to be done in relation to prostate cancers.

I am not blaming anybody, just want some equality of action.

 

[Air]

The most useless counter movement ever.

 

[Jburton]

We are still waiting on the evidence that feminists groups are actually fighting for equality in the family courts.

They aren't.

 

[shanshan310]

Because it really is about equality FOR WOMEN. It's really not about gender equality.

You know what "equality" means right? because "equality for half" doesn't actually make sense.

I would say there won't be any evidence shown because there isn't any to show. Feminism is about equality for WOMEN and they don't directly fight for equality for men. Also, I am not the only one asking for that evidence.

We are still waiting on the evidence that feminists groups are actually fighting for equality in the family courts.

Go do your own research. Shouting to the internet "PROVE ME WRONG" isn't going to provide you with anything. Are you even genuinely interested in the answer? Methinks you just want another excuse to complain in ignorance.

 

[Jburton]

Isn't the purpose of research to solve a problem we currently don't understand? The prostate cancer problem is solved in the sense that all we need to deal with it is early detection. It would seem to me like it would be a huge waste of scientific resources to put money towards a problem that has a very high recovery rate if detected early.

So it's solved, we have a cure?

Wise up ffs.

 

[Dead Man]

I imagined you screaming, standing on a soap box with a loudspeaker in hand. Forgive my imagination please it's been affected by mens rights advocates that I've experienced in the past and I should not ascribe those caricatures to you. Demands have been made however. In the very face of a self-proclaimed feminist (me) telling you that they are just as concerned for men's rights as they are for women's rights, you're demanding that I provide proof of a group of feminists who feel the same; instead of accepting the fact that out of the 6 pages in this thread there is at least one feminist who's concerned for men's rights. Surely this concern is shared between other feminists as well and you are not just lucky enough to have experienced this rare beast of a feminist known as Marrec.

It's not that anyone doubts YOUR convictions marrec, it is the lack of tangible evidence that major femenist groups take action on these things that people are talking about.

You know what "equality" means right? because "equality for half" doesn't actually make sense.





Go do your own research. Shouting to the internet "PROVE ME WRONG" isn't going to provide you with anything. Are you even genuinely interested in the answer? Methinks you just want another excuse to complain in ignorance.

Shan, they are not the ones making the claim. The claim is that femenism is about helping all people regardless of gender. They are asking for evidence that this is true. Vane_MagicCity is not really helping his cause though.

 

[diffusionx]

You know what happens when men talk about Mens Issues? We are told that we are whining and that we are speaking from our seat of privilege. This probably discourages alot of men.

Yea, nobody has ever called a women advocating for women's issues any bad names.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

I imagined you screaming, standing on a soap box with a loudspeaker in hand. Forgive my imagination please it's been affected by mens rights advocates that I've experienced in the past and I should not ascribe those caricatures to you. Demands have been made however. In the very face of a self-proclaimed feminist (me) telling you that they are just as concerned for men's rights as they are for women's rights, you're demanding that I provide proof of a group of feminists who feel the same; instead of accepting the fact that out of the 6 pages in this thread there is at least one feminist who's concerned for men's rights. Surely this concern is shared between other feminists as well and you are not just lucky enough to have experienced this rare beast of a feminist known as Marrec.

You don't seem to understand WHY we are asking for evidence. We are told everytime this comes up that the MRM is not needed because feminism is fighting for us. Well, if we are to throw in the towel and join the feminists, is it so much to ask for proof of the deeds being claimed? To see the progress of these battles waged on our behalf?

 

[Earthstrike]

Considering people are advocating stopping the current PSA test due to its relatively poor diagnostic value, shouldn't more money be put into research for more effective diagnostics?

Sure, absolutely. Perhaps a more fundamental point I should be making is that distribution of scientific resources isn't necessarily optimized when dividided by the proportionality of the deaths caused by said diseases. Two diseases killing people at an equal frequency shouldn't necessarily receive equal funding due to extraneous factors.

Isn't this topic about how men shouldn't be advocating for their rights in a separate group because the feminist groups are already advocating for them?

I don't have a problem with people trying to actually identify men's right to fight for, but functionally, most MRA's I've observed have more to do with attacking feminism, than actually promoting male rights.

 

[poppabk]

Go do your own research. Shouting to the internet "PROVE ME WRONG" isn't going to provide you with anything. Are you even genuinely interested in the answer? Methinks you just want another excuse to complain in ignorance.

People on this thread have made the claim that there is no need for a men's rights movement because feminist groups are already advocating for men as well as women. Asking for evidence of that is not the same as saying 'prove me wrong' .

 

[Dead Man]

Yea, nobody has ever called a women advocating for women's issues any bad names.

Not the most effective rebuttal. 'Well, these other pople said horrible things, so there'?

 

[diffusionx]

Not the most effective rebuttal. 'Well, these other pople said horrible things, so there'?

No, it's actually a perfectly effective rebuttal. Women get called all manner of terrible things, the word feminist itself is practically a pejorative these days. They still do it, because they believe in it. Vane is saying that men pushing for more prostate cancer research would get called mean things, I say so what?

Two diseases killing people at an equal frequency shouldn't necessarily receive equal funding due to extraneous factors.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease. That's how it always is.

Maybe approaching prostate cancer from a public health angle rather than a "mean feminists are sucking up all the cancer money for their breasts" angle would be useful. Messaging is important here.

The thing is, are people actually interested in this, or are they just using prostate cancer funding as a bullet point in their wars against feminists?

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

You know what "equality" means right? because "equality for half" doesn't actually make sense.

Well, I know it doesn't make sense but it is what it is. Feminism fights for equality FOR WOMEN. I already listed the definition but you can check a few dictionaries too if you like.

Go do your own research. Shouting to the internet "PROVE ME WRONG" isn't going to provide you with anything. Are you even genuinely interested in the answer? Methinks you just want another excuse to complain in ignorance.

I have and I have found no evidence that feminist groups are fighting the inequality in the family courts.

 

[Dead Man]

I don't have a problem with people trying to actually identify men's right to fight for, but functionally, most MRA's I've observed have more to do with attacking feminism, than actually promoting male rights.

This is the problem. Legitiamte problem x is not being addressed by feminists in any noticable way. People then proceed to raise the concern, get told either 'MRA, LOL Shut up', or 'Feminism is all you need'. Neither answer is useful in the slightest.

No, it's actually a perfectly effective rebuttal. Women get called all manner of terrible things, the word feminist itself is practically a pejorative these days. They still do it, because they believe in it. Vane is saying that men pushing for more prostate cancer research would get called mean things, I say so what?



The squeaky wheel gets the grease. That's how it always is.

Maybe approaching prostate cancer from a public health angle rather than a "mean feminists are sucking up all the cancer money for their breasts" angle would be useful. Messaging is important here.

The thing is, are people actually interested in this, or are they just using prostate cancer funding as a bullet point in their wars against feminists?

Holy shit, do people actually care about cancer? And saying 'so what' is a valid rebuttal? You are not really doing yourself any favours here kid.

 

[shanshan310]

Shan, they are not the ones making the claim. The claim is that femenism is about helping all people regardless of gender. They are asking for evidence that this is true. Vane_MagicCity is not really helping his cause though.

I see, my apologies. He's really really not.


I don't see why men's and women's rights groups can't coexist peacefully or even work together.

 

[Earthstrike]

This is the problem. Legitiamte problem x is not being addressed by feminists in any noticable way. People then proceed to raise the concern, get told either 'MRA, LOL Shut up', or 'Feminism is all you need'. Neither answer is useful in the slightest.



Holy shit, do people actually care about cancer? And saying 'so what' is a valid rebuttal? You are not really doing yourself any favours here kid.

Just out of curiosity, how are MRA's fighting for equal custody rights?

 

[Dead Man]

I see, my apologies. He's really really not.


I don't see why men's and women's rights groups can't coexist peacefully or even work together.

Because people.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Vane_MagicCity is not really helping his cause though.

Why is that?

 

[marrec]

You don't seem to understand WHY we are asking for evidence. We are told everytime this comes up that the MRM is not needed because feminism is fighting for us. Well, if we are to throw in the towel and join the feminists, is it so much to ask for proof of the deeds being claimed? To see the progress of these battles waged in our benefit?

The problem is there is no evidence the feminist groups are wages battles for the benefit of men because that's not what's being claimed. Feminist groups wage battles for equality and an emergent property of those battles is to the benefit of both men and women.

The argument I'm presenting is that the fight against patriarchy is to the benefit of men BECAUSE the legitimate problems that MRMs and MRAs advocate against are a property of our patriarchal society.

However, it is my understanding that MRMs and MRAs were formed as a direct counter to Feminism. Is this the case?

 

[Jburton]

No, it's actually a perfectly effective rebuttal. Women get called all manner of terrible things, the word feminist itself is practically a pejorative these days. They still do it, because they believe in it. Vann is saying that men pushing for more prostate cancer research would get called mean things, I say so what?



The squeaky wheel gets the grease. That's how it always is.

Maybe approaching prostate cancer from a public health angle rather than a "mean feminists are sucking up all the cancer money for their breasts" angle would be useful. Messaging is important here.

The thing is, are people actually interested in this, or are they just using prostate cancer funding as a bullet point in their wars against feminists?

As a man and the fact it is one of the biggest killers of men ....... then of course it is a god damn concern!

Is breast cancer for example only a concern of women with breast cancer?

I have family members directly affected by this issue, so no it is not just a point to attack feminists with ........ in fact I brought it up to point out that there are issues where men are suffering from a lack of equality, I really don't give a fuck about feminists, they do nothing for me.


I never stated "mean feminists where sucking up all the cancer money for their breasts" you condescending, arrogant ass.

 

[shanshan310]

Men can get breast cancer too...

Well, I know it doesn't make sense but it is what it is. Feminism fights for equality FOR WOMEN. I already listed the definition but you can check a few dictionaries too if you like.

Come on, at least just call it women's rights.

I have and I have found no evidence that feminist groups are fighting the inequality in the family courts

Are there not other ways they can do this? You don't think changing women's role as "feminine" can also help to change men's role too? You've set quite a narrow definition for what constitutes "fighting for equality".

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

The problem is there is no evidence the feminist groups are wages battles for the benefit of men because that's not what's being claimed. Feminist groups wage battles for equality and an emergent property of those battles is to the benefit of both men and women.

The argument I'm presenting is that the fight against patriarchy is to the benefit of men BECAUSE the legitimate problems that MRMs and MRAs advocate against are a property of our patriarchal society.

However, it is my understanding that MRMs and MRAs were formed as a direct counter to Feminism. Is this the case?

So men are being told that the MRM is not needed, that we should get under the umbrella of feminism (at the end of the line) and wait until feminism indirectly deals with equality for men?

No thanks. You are right though, there is no evidence of feminist groups directly fighting against inequalities in the family courts.

It's fine too, feminism fights for women and I understand that but let's stop pretending they are about equal rights for both genders.

 

[Dead Man]

Just out of curiosity, how are MRA's fighting for equal custody rights?

Did I ever say they were? And regardless, is that actually a real question? You haven't heard of any of the rallies, letters to politicians, and general craziness that some of them get up to?

Here, have a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_rights_movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers'_rights_movement_by_country

Why is that?

Your tone, mainly. Instead of letting people answer you are telling them what the answer will be.

But hey, I get told I'm an arrogant shit all the time, so drive on.

 

[bjb]

Honest question: Someone mind articulating why advocating "Men's Rights" is such a horrible movement assuming it's not being used to attack feminism or potentially other nefarious purposes?

Isn't the purpose of research to solve a problem we currently don't understand? The prostate cancer problem is solved in the sense that all we need to deal with it is early detection. It would seem to me like it would be a huge waste of scientific resources to put money towards a problem that has a very high recovery rate if detected early.

Since when was prostate cancer cured?

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Did I ever say they were? And regardless, is that actually a real question? You haven't heard of any of the rallies, letters to politicians, and general craziness that some of them get up to?

Here, have a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_rights_movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers'_rights_movement_by_country



Your tone, mainly. Instead of letting people answer you are telling them what the answer will be.

But hey, I get told I'm an arrogant shit all the time, so drive on.

My tone? This is text, my tone is how you read it. I am not using all caps or lots of exclamation points.

I am asking for evidence of something and being told that I am wrong to ask for that evidence. I then respond with "because there isn't any evidence".

I didn't tell people what the answer was until it became clear that no evidence would be shown.

 

[Dead Man]

Honest question: Someone mind articulating why advocating "Men's Rights" is such a horrible movement assuming it's not being used to attack feminism or potentially other nefarious purposes?



Since when was prostate cancer cured?

It's sort of like the attacks on feminism. People attack the bigotted(misandrist or misogynist) groups, and ignore the ones actually doing some good.

 

[marrec]

So men are being told that the MRM is not needed, that we should get under the umbrella of feminism (at the end of the line) and wait until feminism indirectly deals with equality for men?

There's no line my friend, the umbrella of feminism is about equality for genders, it's not about putting men at the back of the line as an act of revenge. A society where gender roles and identity is not based on historical misconceptions is the goal.

No thanks. You are right though, there is no evidence of feminist groups directly fighting against inequalities in the family courts.

Actually, there's lots of evidence for this! Take for example Caroline Norton, a feminist from the early to mid 19th century who fought against inequalities in family courts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Norton

It's fine too, feminism fights for women and I understand that but let's stop pretending they are about equal rights for both genders.

You're simply mistaken if you believe this. How did you ever get this notion?

 

[diffusionx]

I have family members directly affected by this issue, so no it is not just a point to attack feminists with ........ in fact I brought it up to point out that there are issues where men are suffering from a lack of equality, I really don't give a fuck about feminists, they do nothing for me.

I'm not sure what you expect. People with breast cancer pushed for the funding, came up with the messaging, and got the money. People with prostate cancer did not. That's all there is to it. Any "inequality" comes down to effectiveness of campaigning for funds.

If men want more money devoted to prostate cancer they should come up with some campaigns and push for it. I can say with 100% certainty that people are responsive to pushes for more cancer funding. They are not responsive to tying in that funding with political messaging they find distasteful (look at Komen and the Planned Parenthood fiasco last year). So if you want more prostate cancer funding, tying it to MRAs who talk about the wage gap and rape culture and all that... maybe not a good idea.

 

[Earthstrike]

Honest question: Someone mind articulating why advocating "Men's Rights" is such a horrible movement assuming it's not being used to attack feminism or potentially other nefarious purposes?



Since when was prostate cancer cured?

Men's right wouldn't be a horrible movement if it didn't attack feminism, or see feminism as antithetical to their cause.


I never said prostate cancer was cured. Early detection can help save a lot of lives though.

 

[shanshan310]

My tone? This is text, my tone is how you read it. I am not using all caps or lots of exclamation points.

I am asking for evidence of something and being told that I am wrong to ask for that evidence. I then respond with "because there isn't any evidence".

I didn't tell people what the answer was until it became clear that no evidence would be shown.

You're not asking genuine questions. Anytime Marrec attempts to answer or debate with you, your retort is always "because there is no evidence". It would appear that your mind is already made up. I'm not sure why you're even here, you're obviously not interested in discussion.

Men's right wouldn't be a horrible movement if it didn't attack feminism, or see feminism as antithetical to their cause.

It shouldn't, but I think perhaps therein lies the problem. We should all be working together to create a better society.

 

[marrec]

I'm not sure what you expect. People with breast cancer pushed for the funding, came up with the messaging, and got the money. People with prostate cancer did not. That's all there is to it. Any "inequality" comes down to effectiveness of campaigning for funds.

If men want more money devoted to prostate cancer they should come up with some campaigns and push for it.

I'd say this ties directly back to traditional gender roles as well, but I doubt Jburton wants to hear my reasoning for this.

Instead, I'd say that Jburton should read the very interesting and enlightening book 'Birth' by Mary Roach. Ostensibly it's about how women give birth... but tangentially it has an amazing history of Women and Healthcare in America that pertains to the issue of Breast Cancer and the lack of funding for Prostate Cancer.

 

[snap0212]

Honest question: Someone mind articulating why advocating "Men's Rights" is such a horrible movement assuming it's not being used to attack feminism or potentially other nefarious purposes?

I've noticed this as well. It seems to me like feminism is judged by its “best” members while MRA is judged by its very worst parts. I firmly believe that you will find plenty of bad people in both of these groups but when they appear in an MRA group they're considered the norm while they are considered to be misguided and/or not representative of the feminism movement when they appear there, if that makes sense.

 

[shanshan310]

I've noticed this as well. It seems to me like feminism is judged by its “best” members while MRA is judged by its very worst parts. I firmly believe that you will find plenty of bad people in both of these groups but when they appear in an MRA group they're considered the norm while they are considered to be misguided and/or not representative of the feminism movement when they appear there, if that makes sense.

hahahahaahahah.

I'm sorry.

Have you been paying attention to the mainstream media at all these past 20 years?

 

[Jburton]

I'm not sure what you expect. People with breast cancer pushed for the funding, came up with the messaging, and got the money. People with prostate cancer did not. That's all there is to it. Any "inequality" comes down to effectiveness of campaigning for funds.

If men want more money devoted to prostate cancer they should come up with some campaigns and push for it.

Why are cancer charities not doing this themselves, is that not their mandate?


Also I did not ask for a plan of action, I pointed out an inequality.


So by your reckoning, go out and get it yourselves men, it's every man / woman for themselves?

In that case I should not give a fuck about breast cancer? ........ Go get it yourselves, what do you want us to do?


In that case lobby groups for men are in dire need, feminists groups are not suitable for all.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

There's no line my friend, the umbrella of feminism is about equality for genders, it's not about putting men at the back of the line as an act of revenge. A society where gender roles and identity is not based on historical misconceptions is the goal.

We've already been through this, feminism by definition is about equality for women. When things are unequal for men, that is not something feminism fights against.

Actually, there's lots of evidence for this! Take for example Caroline Norton, a feminist from the early to mid 19th century who fought against inequalities in family courts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Norton

We've already been through this, this morning. Read back. In the end, it was determined that this system is no longer in place and that the current system is nothing like this.

You're simply mistaken if you believe this. How did you ever get this notion?

Oh you know, definitions, actions and the admission of more than a few feminists in debates like this who straight up say that feminism is about equality for women.

It's right under your nose and has been all along.

 

[snap0212]

hahahahaahahah.

I'm sorry.

Have you been paying attention to the mainstream media at all these past 20 years?

Um, yes? I've honestly never seen feminism being portrayed in a bad light in my entire life (in the mainstream media here).

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

You're not asking genuine questions. Anytime Marrec attempts to answer or debate with you, your retort is always "because there is no evidence". It would appear that your mind is already made up. I'm not sure why you're even here, you're obviously not interested in discussion.

What questions weren't genuine?

 

[shanshan310]

Um, yes? I've honestly never seen feminism portrayed in a bad light in my entire life (in the mainstream media).

I honestly have no idea what to say, except that there is a reason no one in gen Y wants to be branded a "feminazi". I've known many girls who recoil from the word feminism because of the connotations that they are loud and complain about nothing, and are butch lesbians and man haters who are intent on finding something that oppresses them in everything.

What questions weren't genuine?

"Where is evidence? I am interested in it".

 

[marrec]

We've already been through this, feminism by definition is about equality for women. When things are unequal for men, that is not something feminism fights against.

You do not define feminism Vane, it's not within your power.

We've already been through this, this morning. Read back. In the end, it was determined that this system is no longer in place and that the current system is nothing like this.

My reply was tongue in cheek but I also wanted to illustrate the fight for inequality in family court is one with a long history. You could say that the case the Supreme Court is hearing right this moment is one of equality in family court systems.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/adoptive-couple-v-baby-girl/

This isn't something that is as black and white as you've been implying. I have presented my argument for why I believe custody of children is negatively affect by patriarchal views of gender, but you've not addressed this issue... I'd like to hear what you think about my opinion.

I honestly have no idea what to say, except that there is a reason no one in gen Y wants to be branded a "feminazi". I've known many girls who recoil from the word feminism because of the connotations that they are loud and complain about nothing, and are butch lesbians and man haters who are intent on finding something that oppresses them in everything.

I'm flabbergasted as well. Feminism has been branded by the mainstream as a movement of hate against men...

 

[Platy]

Well, if things like Policeman, etc, were changed to be gender neutral, why is the term feminism excluded?

Because it really is about equality FOR WOMEN. It's really not about gender equality.

Because WHITE POWER =P

Because in 99% of the cases the one gender that is in bad way is WOMEN

If you fight for people to understand why those 99%¨are problematic, people will understand perfectly why the 1% is.

Fight for equality for women means that feminism only want fro women to be treated like men.
I don't see how that brings ANY problem to men.... by the contrary, since when feminility is treated the same as masculinity, men who don't fit perfectly into what society expects of men will still treated the same as those who fit

I don't think you're giving intersectionality enough credit -- it is a topic of far greater diversity than patriarchy and gender issues. On intersectionality:

But this is something beyond feminism ... since it also includes the battle for sexism in the definition.

Feminism embraces intersectionality because who usualy wants equality wants ...equality.

Intersectionality is more like a "cross platform server" where people who battle against racism, homophobia, cissexism and other minority inequalities can play games with each other =3

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

I honestly have no idea what to say, except that there is a reason no one in gen Y wants to be branded a "feminazi". I've known many girls who recoil from the word feminism because of the connotations that they are loud and complain about nothing, and are butch lesbians and man haters who are intent on finding something that oppresses them in everything.



"Where is evidence? I am interested in it".

Yes, feminists have a bad reputation in the media sometimes. I agree with that.

So...how is that not a genuine question?

 

[bjb]

I've noticed this as well. It seems to me like feminism is judged by its “best” members while MRA is judged by its very worst parts. I firmly believe that you will find plenty of bad people in both of these groups but when they appear in an MRA group they're considered the norm while they are considered to be misguided and/or not representative of the feminism movement when they appear there, if that makes sense.

Men's Rights (similar to feminism) exercised responsibly seems pretty harmless to me. Having the capacity to proactively approach certain issues with good intentions. Hopeful for positive results.

That being said, there seemingly will always be bigots and individuals with flawed logic on both sides. Using the platform to advance their own sic ideals.

Perhaps the main focus should be to eliminate the exclusivity of promoting just one gender. Coming together collectively to advance social issues for everyone. Maybe that's just wishful thinking, but surely there's some organizations / groups participating in such a manner?

 

[shanshan310]

Yes, feminists have a bad reputation in the media sometimes. I agree with that.

So...how is that not a genuine question?

Because you clearly aren't interested in an answer.

Why are cancer charities not doing this themselves, is that not their mandate?

This is the silliest thing I have read so far. They are.