[sleepyhead]

Thanks for all the cogent arguments from both side.

@Shahada

You're not listening to what i'm saying at all. I'm saying that I disagree with the more radical positions of Feminism. While the theory sounds nice, the practice is not at all nice. I have had better experiences with women not from Feminist cultures. They have careers, they had advanced college degrees, they had strong intellectual arguments. They were fun to be around. They weren't pushovers. You make the very dubious logical leap of assuming that I because I don't agree with you that I hate equality and women. You hear "I don't agree with feminism" and then declare that it's because I am not a Casanova.
Here's one question for eveyone: If feminism is about choice, then why does it attack people who choose to reject it?

My issue with this is that I AM someone doing a lot of activist work both in my profession and in my volunteer work and the things you talk about me strike me as:
1) a misunderstanding of what the current mainstream practices of third wave, north american feminism are (again, I'm Canadian so some of my info may differ from the US)
2) a tendency to associate mainstream feminism with 2nd wave radical feminism of the 1960's - 1980's
3) Not seeing the work that feminist organizations are doing, like in my city with the Men's DV shelter, the Men's Resource Centre for men who have experienced childhood sexual abuse, and the Sexual Assault Crisis Program for people of all genders.

I don't really think you would have an issue with mainstream, third wave feminist theory or practice. I'm not saying that other types of more radical feminism don't exist, or that there are beliefs other feminists hold that I don't, but I'm talking about the mainstream, third wave that is pushing for degendering of language and quitting the hierarchy Olympics - because patriarchy and oppression hurt everyone.

[sleepyhead]

@Shahada You speak with such education and conviction.. You must be much more educated than me in this field.. You win.. Have your medal of honour..


FOR THE RECORD - in case anyone else is reading this - I believe that if one is to be truly supportive of "equal right" then they should support male issues too.. I think equality concerns both sexes and thus feminism is bias towards women.. I think Humanism is the way to go.. I fully respect everyone's right to their own choices.. I fully respect the female populace too. You are all beautiful, thus you all deserve respect.

But as you can see from my posts, I've given you lots of real examples in my own city of how feminist organizations are addressing men's issues including:

the Men's DV shelter, the Men's Resource Centre for men who have experienced childhood sexual abuse, and the Sexual Assault Crisis Program for people of all genders.

Again, if a real humanist organized movement emerges, then perhaps I will move closer to that one day. But right now, I don't see any movements besides the feminist movement really picking up these issues. I already said that I think 2nd wave did do damage in its earlier days excluding men, women of colour, LGBT women, lower class women, non US women, etc. But third wave is very clearly trying to fill in these gaps.

[The Roving ENFP]

I think we're probably saying more the same than we are different.

@sleepyhead - agreed.. I just attach a different label..

I am very pro choice, and you are too.. I like most of what you have to say.. I did have quite a bit of experience with feminism though, and it wasn't very good.. Maybe that's just in my country. I dunno.. Anyway.. Thanks sleepy for your insight.. I found your thoughts constructive..

Anyway, where I live, it's 3:45am.. I bid thee good night.. ;)

[Mutatio NOmenis]

@sleepyhead

I had no idea that Feminist organizations did those things for men. I've never heard of anything like it in the U.S.A. Here's my breakdown of Feminism:

1'st Wave: Womens' Suffrage. Neccessary and a very good thing.
2'nd Wave: Female job rights. Necessayr and a good thing.
3'rd Wave: (current): Trolling for attention and spreading sexism while hiiding behind a favorably-viewed ideology. Unnecessary and not accomplishing anything that needs to be done.

[Master Wolf]

Its good without hate.

Hate is always more bad than good.

[sleepyhead]

@sleepyhead

I had no idea that Feminist organizations did those things for men. I've never heard of anything like it in the U.S.A. Here's my breakdown of Feminism:

1'st Wave: Womens' Suffrage. Neccessary and a very good thing.
2'nd Wave: Female job rights. Necessayr and a good thing.
3'rd Wave: (current): Trolling for attention and spreading sexism while hiiding behind a favorably-viewed ideology. Unnecessary and not accomplishing anything that needs to be done.

I think a lot of people have this view. Third wave really rose out of the perceived gaps and backlash to some 2nd wave ideologies. I'm not saying 2nd wave didn't do a lot of good, but there's a reason the movement continues to evolve.

I think there's a lot of people out there today who aren't active in the feminist movement often fall into two categories:
1) Believing feminism is about man-hating, lesbian women who want to dominate men. Therefore, it's a dirty word.
2) Believing feminism is about double standards for men and women that put women in a privileged position and holds mysandrist beliefs.

I think both of these things are extremely inaccurate, but not surprising given the way the word has been used by media and the way that most mainstream media outlets have grabbed onto sensationalist authors or stories they purpose defines feminism. In reality, most of those sensationalist stories don't provide a realistic view of what feminists today are doing.

I think it's important to be able to look back on the whole history of a movement and be critical about things that have happened in the past while still pushing the movement forward and evolving. I like to try and use the practice of critical humility:

...the practice of remaining open to the fact that our knowledge is partial and evolving while at the same time being committed to speaking up and taking action in the world based on our current knowledge, however imperfect...If we are to hold ourselves accountable for acting, we must have confidence that our knowledge is valid enough to shape actions that are appropriate. At the same time, we must stay consciously aware that our knowledge is distorted by hegemony and self-deception.

This book gives a good overview of how third wave arose and some of the challenges it faces, particularly from the power of the media. The 2nd chapter actually goes into a lot of the stereotypes and misconceptions that have been proposed in this thread.
http://www.revalvaatio.org/wp/wp-con...xploration.pdf

I think it's also important to point out that I don't speak for all people who identify as feminist. I certainly come from a more Canadian standpoint, especially because I live in a City that has the highest population of Aboriginal people in Canada, but I also come from this third wave, grassroots, North American movement. My feminism takes into account race, class, gender, ableism, etc. I don't pretend to speak for everyone in this movement, but I do see that online and in person, it seems to be the most popular and widely circulated form of feminist theory among people around 20-40 who are working/volunteering in activism.

[Vaan]

I think a lot of people have this view. Third wave really rose out of the perceived gaps and backlash to some 2nd wave ideologies. I'm not saying 2nd wave didn't do a lot of good, but there's a reason the movement continues to evolve.

I think there's a lot of people out there today who aren't active in the feminist movement often fall into two categories:
1) Believing feminism is about man-hating, lesbian women who want to dominate men. Therefore, it's a dirty word.
2) Believing feminism is about double standards for men and women that put women in a privileged position and holds mysandrist beliefs.

I think both of these things are extremely inaccurate, but not surprising given the way the word has been used by media and the way that most mainstream media outlets have grabbed onto sensationalist authors or stories they purpose defines feminism. In reality, most of those sensationalist stories don't provide a realistic view of what feminists today are doing.

I think it's important to be able to look back on the whole history of a movement and be critical about things that have happened in the past while still pushing the movement forward and evolving. I like to try and use the practice of critical humility:

...the practice of remaining open to the fact that our knowledge is partial and evolving while at the same time being committed to speaking up and taking action in the world based on our current knowledge, however imperfect...If we are to hold ourselves accountable for acting, we must have confidence that our knowledge is valid enough to shape actions that are appropriate. At the same time, we must stay consciously aware that our knowledge is distorted by hegemony and self-deception.

This book gives a good overview of how third wave arose and some of the challenges it faces, particularly from the power of the media. The 2nd chapter actually goes into a lot of the stereotypes and misconceptions that have been proposed in this thread.
http://www.revalvaatio.org/wp/wp-con...xploration.pdf

I think it's also important to point out that I don't speak for all people who identify as feminist. I certainly come from a more Canadian standpoint, especially because I live in a City that has the highest population of Aboriginal people in Canada, but I also come from this third wave, grassroots, North American movement. My feminism takes into account race, class, gender, ableism, etc. I don't pretend to speak for everyone in this movement, but I do see that online and in person, it seems to be the most popular and widely circulated form of feminist theory among people around 20-40 who are working/volunteering in activism.

That's not Feminism then XD

Feminism is solely about the rights of women. If you care about both equally then you have what I am - Gender Egalitarian. If you believe in mens rights then you are a masculanist. If you believe in a mixed bag of different things then you are a Humanist.

Example - if you are using a microwave to heat something up and then you use it to completely cook something, you do not start calling the oven a microwave just because they are doing the same thing.

We don't do this because it is deceptive and incorrect, and the microwave can't cook as well as an oven can, because it wasn't primarily made for cooking, but reheating, and is thus limited.

The same case is true in Feminism - you are designed to take the priorities of women over men, that is the very nature of the word. The final nail in Feminisms coffin for me was when it tried to bullshit the world into thinking this wasn't the case. You can list off those nice shelters but one is failing to recognise the big picture stuff. In some places there could be over 200 domestic violence shelters/refuges for women (That wont even allow teenage males dependants inside) and not even 1 for men, infact a man taking his children out of a violent home could be charged with kidnapping in some places. This stuff is the stuff that we want adressed and it simply isnt.

When Feminism tries to push past it's boundaries it looks at the opposite genders problems in the wrong light and thus adresses them in a very destructive or harmful way. Same goes for masculanism. And as mentioned earlier, just because you do those things, does not make Gender Egalitarianism Feminism. This is because there has to be a bias towards females, so if we got an issue where the two genders were put up in a court fighting each for something that was in the way of equality for them but if one had it the other would not meet thier goal then the Feminist would have to side with the females or they wouldn't be a Feminist.

And as for the double standards, yes there still are huge double standards, on both sides of the fence.

[KINGoftheAMAZONS]

You miss the point.. The expectation of western women been a common complaint by a lot of single men who are worrying they will be "on the shelf" soon.. I have a few friends in that category and they are quality, hurting and lonely people.

No, you're missing the point. These complaints, while they may exist, have nothing to do with feminism. It's one thing to say that the women you meet tend to expect too much, as opposed to making a generalized statement that Western women in general have ridiculously high standards for their potential male partners, and then blaming this conjecturable phenomenon on feminism.

Let me ask you a question, and I've asked this a number of times on this website. Where's the specific link between feminism and high maintenance women? Where's the specific link between feminism, and the supposition that being an alpha male, and having a high salary, are the basic non-negotiable qualifications that a man must meet in order to get a date with most Western women?

Feminism also teaches that men are evil

No it doesn't. It teaches that a patriarchal society is evil, because of the evil that has been produced by it. And no, feminism doesn't advocate for a matriarchal society either. That doesn't mean that there aren't feminist extremists who have uttered ideologies of misandry, or pro-matriarchy sentiments. But they are just that: Extremists. And they do not speak for most feminists.

"Ok, so in the 1960s the feminists didn't want to make their husbands sandwiches anymore.. Cool.. But what about other women who don't mind providing their husbands with nurturing.. I've seen them torn down time after time by feminist women who think they know it all"

Okay, let's look at your language, and your implications with the above statement. You say that feminists don't want to make their husband's sandwiches, but that there are other women who actually like being "nurturing" by making their husbands a sandwich. This polarization does a number of fallacious things. Firstly, it implies that all women should be nurturing, which further implies that any woman who is not nurturing, is not exhibiting the behavior of a "real" woman. Secondly, because of how your statement defines a real woman as someone who is nurturing, in which doing things for her husband is the implied example, it polarizes feminists as not being real women, simply because they are perceived as women who will not make a sandwich, or to put it more bluntly, serve their husbands. This also polarizes any woman who refuses to serve her husband in the "traditional" sense, as an unnatural woman.

But surely I'm not really going so far as to compare making a sandwich to that of servitude? No, I'm not. There's nothing wrong with making a sandwich (or any other food dish) for one's partner. But notice how you made no mention of a man providing a nurturing attitude towards his wife, by making her a sandwich? You see, it's not the act of a woman making a sandwich for her partner that is sexist. What IS sexist, is the act of "expecting" a woman to make food for her husband, simply because she is a woman, and therefore "biologically determined" to nurture and serve her husband's needs. Especially when that exact same servitude is not socially expected to be reciprocated by her husband. Even today when women have full time jobs, they are still expected to come home and cook, clean, and take care of the children. And it's these kinds of expectations that feminists seek to destroy.

Feminism tramples all over traditional gender roles..

It doesn't trample over the existence of traditional gender roles, but it does trample over the implied dependency upon gender roles. This dependency should not exist. That doesn't mean that it's wrong if some people mimic traditional gender roles. But no person should be forced, or expected to live their lives under these superficial applications, or be ridiculed if they deviate from these standards (whether by natural predisposition, or choice). In this way for example, people like me who have a "masculine identity", won't have to worry about being ridiculed because I am both highly masculine, and highly nurturing at the same time.

[MegaTuxRacer]

Example - if you are using a microwave to heat something up and then you use it to completely cook something, you do not start calling the oven a microwave just because they are doing the same thing.

Your example actually does not support your point since microwaves are a type of oven. What you call an oven is probably a traditional convection oven. Each are different, yes, but they are still both subsets of the oven. Men and women are also both different, but both are subsets of people.

[Vaan]

Your example actually does not support your point since microwaves are a type of oven. What you call an oven is probably a traditional convection oven. Each are different, yes, but they are still both subsets of the oven. Men and women are also both different, but both are subsets of people.

Exactly, a microwave is an oven, but you do not call an oven a microwave, that is tthe difference. Men and Women can be put into the same categories, both appliances for cooking, yet are not the same thing and should be distinguished. So in the terms I was talking about Masculanism and Feminism are two types of Ovens and Gender Egalitarianism is a balance of the two so to speak ^_^