Support NeoGAF

[Vane_MagicCity]

The root cause often comes down to subconscious impulses and instinctive reactions that people aren't even aware guide their thinking or the way they interact with other people. So how do you propose we fix that?

People adjust to reality.

Maybe people can't envision certain things because they are not reality (like an equal number of single fathers) but if it became reality, people would have less problem seeing it and adjusting to it. Soon it becomes common place and that it is a big step in killing discrimination.

Affirmative Action accelerates that process, ideally.

Why not treat the symptoms while you're treating the root cause as well? That's how modern medicine works anyway to follow through with your analogy, and is how any sensible affirmative action policy should be implemented.

Changing deep-rooted social norms takes time, affirmative action is important because it accelerates that process.

Yes this is what I want to say.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

I think there are legitimate socio-economic problems that are disproportionately hitting (some) men, but I'd argue it's not really at the hand of other women so much as other men. Men are still overwhelmingly at the top of most power structures on the planet.

See, I don't understand this logic.

"MRA's who blame women are bad BUT MRA's who don't blame women shouldn't be complaining at all because it's all mens fault anyway. "

Surely, I am misunderstanding?

 

[diffusionx]

See, I don't understand this logic.

"MRA's who blame women are bad BUT MRA's who don't blame women shouldn't be complaining at all because it's all mens fault anyway. "

Surely, I am misunderstanding?

It's just not as simple as you are making it out to be. The jobs that your typical "middle class white male" has been losing over the past three decades are not getting taken by women - the jobs that women are taking are either in historically female-dominated fields (like healthcare or education) or in professional settings that have been growing. Those jobs are getting taken by men in China or Mexico.

The processes that enable this were, without question, put into place by men. But it's not like they were looking at "the men's team" when doing this, they did it to make money. So maybe the MRA viewpoint of this situation is not adequate in capturing the dynamics of the situation.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

It's just not as simple as you are making it out to be. The jobs that your typical "middle class white male" has been losing over the past three decades are not getting taken by women - the jobs that women are taking are either in historically female-dominated fields (like healthcare or education) or in professional settings that have been growing. Those jobs are getting taken by men in China or Mexico.

The processes that enable this were, without question, put into place by men. But it's not like they were looking at "the men's team" when doing this, they did it to make money. So maybe the MRA viewpoint of this situation is not adequate in capturing the dynamics of the situation.

I don't know anything about employment issues and I wasn't talking about employment issues. Should we point the finger at Chinese and Mexican men over child custody issues?

 

[Kazerei]

See, I don't understand this logic.

"MRA's who blame women are bad BUT MRA's who don't blame women shouldn't be complaining at all because it's all mens fault anyway. "

Surely, I am misunderstanding?

You always seem to read too much into people's comments. DeBurgo didn't insinuate anything like "you shouldn't be complaining"

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

You always seem to read too much into people's comments. DeBurgo didn't insinuate anything like "you shouldn't be complaining"

That's the general attitude when people say things like "it's the patriarchys fault and a mens movement isn't needed since feminism covers that". Once you've seen the same argument over and over again it isn't difficult to see where he was going.

If not, well you'll notice I asked if I misunderstood.

 

[Kazerei]

That's the general attitude when people say things like "it's the patriarchys fault and a mens movement isn't needed since feminism covers that". Once you've seen the same argument over and over again it isn't difficult to see where he was going.

If not, well you'll notice I asked if I misunderstood.

I'm just not seeing where the "you shouldn't be complaining" part comes from. Everyone has valid complaints about the patriarchy, since it negatively affects us all. Unless you're super rich and powerful I guess.

Super late edit: I just don't see a general attitude like "stop complaining about prison rape" or "stop complaining about high depression/suicide" you know? I don't know where you're getting that from.

 

[Mumei]

That's the general attitude when people say things like "it's the patriarchys fault and a mens movement isn't needed since feminism covers that". Once you've seen the same argument over and over again it isn't difficult to see where he was going.

If not, well you'll notice I asked if I misunderstood.

I don't know about the general attitude, but my attitude is not "You shouldn't be complaining"; it is "You shouldn't be complaining about feminism." By all means, complain away! The problem is not that men's rights advocates complain (at least when they are complaining about something real; male rape in prison is real, but the idea that women often lie about domestic abuse or rape is not); it is that they complain about things and then say it is all feminism's fault and identify feminism as the enemy.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

I don't know about the general attitude, but my attitude is not "You shouldn't be complaining"; it is "You shouldn't be complaining about feminism." By all means, complain away! The problem is not that men's rights advocates complain (at least when they are complaining about something real; male rape in prison is real, but the idea that women often lie about domestic abuse or rape is not); it is that they complain about things and then say it is all feminism's fault and identify feminism as the enemy.

Maybe feminists need to stop complaining about MRA's too?

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Maybe feminists need to stop complaining about MRA's too?

One group was literally created just to antagonize and counter the other. It's valid to complain about the MRM.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

One group was literally created just to antagonize and counter the other. It's valid to complain about the MRM.

Nice double standard you have there. Do you have more in stock?

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Nice double standard you have there. Do you have more in stock?

I don't think you understand what "double standard" means.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

I don't think you understand what "double standard" means.

First of all the MRM was created to address mens issues that the other so called equality movement wouldn't touch directly. Much of the hostility towards feminism is due to the false claim that it is an equality movement for both genders.

Still, every time we have one of these discussion there are always many people, some who claim to be feminists, who bash MRA's and the movement as a whole. See the double standard now? Keep doing that and get it back.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

First of all the MRM was created to address mens issues that the other so called equality movement wouldn't touch directly. Much of the hostility towards feminism is due to the false claim that it is an equality movement for both genders.

Still, every time we have one of these discussion there are always many people, some who claim to be feminists, who bash MRA's and the movement as a whole. See the double standard now? Keep doing that and get it back.

You're so close to getting the context of it all, but you're only willing to be thoughtful about one side's perspective.

I don't understand why you think people shouldn't criticize movements they don't think are valid.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

You're so close to getting the context of it all, but you're only willing to be thoughtful about one side's perspective.

I don't understand why you think people shouldn't criticize movements they don't think are valid.

Well, if you think the MRM is invalid then you certainly should criticize it or you could ignore it. Either is fine but feminism is open to criticism too.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Either is fine but feminism is open to criticism too.

This just feels like such a "duh" moment. The person saying feminism doesn't allow itself to be open to criticism is you. You're arguing with yourself. As a person already said, you read too much into things. You're creating your own circular arguments.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

This just feels like such a "duh" moment. The person saying feminism doesn't allow itself to be open to criticism is you. You're arguing with yourself. As a person already said, you read too much into things. You're creating your own circular arguments.

It started with post #958. I quote:

I don't know about the general attitude, but my attitude is not "You shouldn't be complaining"; it is "You shouldn't be complaining about feminism."

So that's why we are talking about criticizing feminism.

Also, I never said feminism doesn't allow itself to be criticized.

Saying things like "The MRAs were created to specifically antagonize feminism" is missing the point. Even if that was originally true (I don't know), the points made in this thread have nothing to do with that. MRA people here in this thread are talking about legitimate issues which plague men that feminism isn't necessarily focusing on. That's all. The only reason feminism is mentioned at all is because MRAs are constantly being asked to justify their existence. I think the points that Vane has made in reply to that scrutiny are very fair in that respect.

Thank You.

 

[ThLunarian]

Saying things like "The MRAs were created to specifically antagonize feminism" is missing the point. Even if that was originally true (I don't know), the points made in this thread have nothing to do with that. MRA people here in this thread are talking about legitimate issues which plague men that feminism isn't necessarily focusing on. That's all. The only reason feminism is mentioned at all is because MRAs are constantly being asked to justify their existence. I think the points that Vane has made in reply to that scrutiny are very fair in that respect.

 

[rocketknight]

Saying things like "The MRAs were created to specifically antagonize feminism" is missing the point. Even if that was originally true (I don't know), the points made in this thread have nothing to do with that. MRA people here in this thread are talking about legitimate issues which plague men that feminism isn't necessarily focusing on. That's all. The only reason feminism is mentioned at all is because MRAs are constantly being asked to justify their existence. I think the points that Vane has made in reply to that scrutiny are very fair in that respect.

Like what?

 

[jimi_dini]

I think affirmative action is necessary and important (for both race and sex!). I wasn't really comfortable with it for a long time (white male, and there's still something a bit... discomfiting about the idea of being in competition for a position and my race or gender potentially being determinative), but the more I've learned about discrimination, unconscious biases, structural advantages, and blah blah blah, the more I've gotten over it.

Read this here and tell me it's fine:

Article 3 of the German Basic Law provides for equal rights of all people regardless of sex, race or social background. There are programs stating that if men and women have equal qualifications, women have to be preferred for a job; moreover, the handicapped should be preferred to healthy people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action#Germany

Do you agree with this?
Treating females the same as handicapped people? It's exactly the opposite of what equalism should be about. Now people can say: "oh well, she just got the job BECAUSE she has a vagina, not because she is competent or has the experience".

I mean for actually handicapped people, I see the point. But for females? Females are not some sort of handicapped gender or something like that. Surely, females may get pregnant and then - most of the time - will be the one who stays at home - that would be something to fight against. If you instead just make laws that say that females have to get paid more or the same even if they have way less experience in the field, then you are actually creating another form of discrimination.

Also how long would you want to keep that going? Forever? 100 years? 1000 years? Using laws to discriminate males. And then you will probably want to pass laws that favor males instead of females. It's idiotic.

And if you say that that's okay and "feminism", then in my opinion it's totally fine to criticize such thing even from a feminist standpoint (because you are not creating equalism, you are prefering one gender even by law - worse yet, you are making the situation worse unless of course people that support that are just in for the money, because that's the only thing that they are changing.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Also how long would you want to keep that going? Forever? 100 years? 1000 years? Using laws to discriminate males.

One idea in centuries that doesn't put men at the top by default, and you get upset.

I think dudes are still doing pretty okay, everything considered.

 

[jimi_dini]

One idea in centuries that doesn't put men at the top by default, and you get upset.

Ideas? That's actual laws that are active for 20 years now or something like that.

I'm getting upset? I'm just calling out discrimination. And it's even called that. Oh my bad it's positive discrimination. Isn't that great?
Feminists should get upset, because females are treated as disabled people by law. But strangely (some) feminists wanted those laws.

Also those laws are primarily in place for public service. That's not "at the top". It's regular jobs.

If you want to have a quick laugh, look at this:
https://hps.hs-regensburg.de/~nwfj_...es_m%E4nnlichen_Erziehers_im_Kindergarten.pdf

male workers at kindergardens:
1998 - 5.04% (total), 2.56% (pedagogues only)
2002 - 3.84% (total), 2.67% (pedagogues only)
2006 - 5.37% (total), 3.23% (pedagogues only)

No, not a problem. Not at all. Men should just look for different jobs. Men are still doing okay, nothing to complain about.
And yes, those discrimination laws are also valid for those jobs as well. I would call that crazy, but that's just me.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Why would people be upset about ideas that push us out of our kyriarchy?

 

[maharg]

This just feels like such a "duh" moment. The person saying feminism doesn't allow itself to be open to criticism is you. You're arguing with yourself. As a person already said, you read too much into things. You're creating your own circular arguments.

Especially since there is probably no harsher critic of feminism than feminists themselves. The movement is constantly deconstructing itself and changing, and that's almost certainly a bigger factor in its 'image problem' than the letters F, E, and M.

And honestly, you just have to look at any website for an MRM or any book about it, or any rant on the internet from an MRA, to see that it is still mostly about attacking and blaming feminism for men's problems. It's not a secret and it's not hidden, it's right there for everyone to see.

 

[Artemisia]

Ideas? That's actual laws that are active for 20 years now or something like that.

I'm getting upset? I'm just calling out discrimination. And it's even called that. Oh my bad it's positive discrimination. Isn't that great?
Feminists should get upset, because females are treated as disabled people by law. But strangely (some) feminists wanted those laws.

Also those laws are primarily in place for public service. That's not "at the top". It's regular jobs.

Discrimination has blatantly been in favor of straight white males since forever with limited public outcry, and now that something is introduced to counterbalance that discrimination it's an outrage?

 

[maharg]

Also most feminists would probably be more annoyed at you suggesting that being associated with physically handicapped people was a bad thing than by the association.

 

[rocketknight]

Now people can say: "oh well, she just got the job BECAUSE she has a vagina, not because she is competent or has the experience".

Also, what you quoted doesn't even support that assertion because it presupposes equal qualifications and experience :/

 

[jimi_dini]

Discrimination has blatantly been in favor of straight white males since forever with limited public outcry, and now that something is introduced to counterbalance that discrimination it's an outrage?

But feminism is supposed to be about equalism. Discrimination != equalism, don't you think? So surely feminists must have planned those laws just for some limited time, because otherwise it doesn't make sense at all. But strangely I don't see an expiration date for those laws.

And surely those laws were totally needed in case of kindergardens, because before that only straight white males got those jobs. That's for sure.

btw. if someone actually cared about equalism, they should prefer black males first, then black females, then white females, then white males and so on. Instead they just prefer females, which would imply that black males have it easier than black females and I seriously doubt that. It would also imply that black males are treated like white males and that's definitely not true.

Also, what you quoted doesn't even support that assertion because it presupposes equal qualifications and experience :/

No. First it says "qualifications", not experience. Secondly "qualifications" for public service jobs is primarily paper work. For some type of jobs experience, practice and knowledge are way more valuable but those don't count in case of public service. And job payment is based on that (and only that) as well.

That's why really competent people normally prefer the free market.

Also most feminists would probably be more annoyed at you suggesting that being associated with physically handicapped people was a bad thing than by the association.

I got an incurable (physical) disease (and it's the most severe case). And I know other patients like me as well. That's why I find it even more insulting. Because my life is definitely not normal. Not in the slightest. And even I don't want special treatment (noone can see my disease that's a bit of luck). I could get a disability grade from the country, but I don't. That's why I'm pretty sure that if I was a female, I would definitely also prefer no special treatment.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Feminism is intersectional now. I don't know what you think it is.

 

[poppabk]

I'm just not seeing where the "you shouldn't be complaining" part comes from. Everyone has valid complaints about the patriarchy, since it negatively affects us all. Unless you're super rich and powerful I guess.

Super late edit: I just don't see a general attitude like "stop complaining about prison rape" or "stop complaining about high depression/suicide" you know? I don't know where you're getting that from.

So what do we mean when we say patriarchy? Is it a mindset, historical oppression, an actual group of people? Can a woman be part of the patriarchy?

 

[maharg]

Patriarchy is a social order. Everyone is a part of it. And yes, women can and often do work to enforce it.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Patriarchy is a social order. Everyone is a part of it. And yes, women can and often do work to enforce it.

That's pretty meaningless then. If the Patriarchy is everyone:

MRA: Men don't get fair treatment in the Family Courts.
Feminist: Oh, that's caused by "everyone". We fight against that.

 

[Karkador]

So what do we mean when we say patriarchy? Is it a mindset, historical oppression, an actual group of people? Can a woman be part of the patriarchy?

It's been described in this thread as an 'inertia'. I'd say it's like a hive mind. There is no particular group responsible, it just is present because it has been present, like any tradition that doesn't get broken because 'tradition'- and women can be part of it, too.

I think a lot of people in this thread don't really get how it works or what it signifies and jump way ahead of themselves in debate.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

That's pretty meaningless then.

MRA: Men don't get fair treatment in the Family Courts.
Feminist: Oh, that's caused by "everyone". We fight against that.

You're being purposely stubborn about this.

 

[maharg]

That's pretty meaningless then. If the Patriarchy is everyone:

MRA: Men don't get fair treatment in the Family Courts.
Feminist: Oh, that's caused by "everyone". We fight against that.

Is the term "feudalism" meaningless? Were people who fought against it also saying meaningless things?

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

It's been described in this thread as an 'inertia'. I'd say it's like a hive mind. There is no particular group responsible, it just is present because it has been present, like any tradition that doesn't get broken because 'tradition'- and women can be part of it, too.

I think a lot of people in this thread don't really get how it works or what it signifies and jump way ahead of themselves in debate.

Patriarchy is a moving target. It is whatever feminists want it to be at any given time.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Patriarchy is a moving target. It is whatever feminists want it to be at any given time.

So is "feminism" to you, apparently.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

So is "feminism" to you, apparently.

That's a disappointing response. Anyway, it was brought up earlier in this thread I think.

"Girls not doing well in school while boys are, that's the patriarchy."
"Boys not doing well in school while girls are, that's the patriarchy."

It's like the perfect scapegoat. Everyone has a different answer and at different times.

Is the term "feudalism" meaningless? Were people who fought against it also saying meaningless things?

Ok, good point but I still say that Patriarchy is a moving target and as such can never be defeated.

Like the school example above, if situations completely flip and patriarchy is still to blame then how could one ever hope to defeat it?

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

You're thinking it's a scapegoat as a grand conspiracy rather than it being a scapegoat as a matter of fact.

It's like denying the US is a capitalist republic. It's just a fact of life.

 

[Mumei]

Maybe feminists need to stop complaining about MRA's too?

You're making a false equivalency. Your argument here is akin to this:

Me: Homophobes should stop complaining about gay people.
You: Well, maybe gay people shouldn't complain about homophobes!

When feminists complain about men's rights advocates, it is because of things that men's rights advocates actually do. Men's rights advocates actually argue that Western women are too slutty and un-feminine (read: they have minds of their own) and that mail-bride services are a great idea because foreign women know how to behave. Feminists think this is bad (for lots of reasons, particularly the sexist expectations of how women should behave to the often racist ideas about how women (particularly Asian women) are supposed to act), and criticize men's rights advocates who say it. Men's rights advocates argue against giving greater support for domestic abuse victims, and in doing so they lie about bills (claiming that they don't help men, when they do, or that they are actually misandrist, which they are not). Men's rights advocates claim that women often lie about domestic abuse in custody battles, which is one of the reasons why feminists don't have much sympathy for men's rights advocates who talk about this issue. Men's rights advocates also argue that women lie about rape a lot - the "had sex, regretted it the next morning and cried rape" story. One men's rights site maintains a website called Register-Her, where men can "register" women who have commited crimes against masculinity.

Does every men's rights advocate do this? No, I wouldn't say that. Have I ever seen a men's rights website where seething misogyny, rape myths, and fantasies about violence towards women is not the norm? Nope, and I think I've been on all the major sites. Feminists think that misogyny is bad... so they criticize people who are misogynists. In short, feminists criticize men's rights advocates (and related manosphere communities such as pick-up artists (PUAs) or the Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) communities) because of things they actually say and do.

When men's rights advocates complain about feminism, they don't complain about things that feminists actually do. They point to real (or imagined) problems that men face, and say, "This is all feminism's fault." This is not equivalent at all, and arguing that one side has no legitimate cause for complaint is not the same as arguing that the reverse is true.

That's pretty meaningless then. If the Patriarchy is everyone:

MRA: Men don't get fair treatment in the Family Courts.
Feminist: Oh, that's caused by "everyone". We fight against that.

He didn't say "Patriarchy is everyone"; he said that patriarchy is a social order. Yes, everyone [who lives in that society!] is a part of that social order, but that doesn't mean that every person is then equally responsible. We all have our spheres of influence, and it is possible for a person within their sphere of influence to work on not reinforcing patriarchal norms.