[MegaTuxRacer]

@The Roving ENFP These are merely cited quotes from women of a certain capacity to the movement. I mean who knows what type of influence they really had? I think your textbook may have a sexist bias.

[The Roving ENFP]

@The Roving ENFP These are merely cited quotes from women of a certain capacity to the movement. I mean who knows what type of influence they really had? I think your textbook may have a sexist bias.

I wish it were that simple Tux.. There were some very nice quote in the text books that spoke a lot about gender equality, etc. And there were others that were of the nature that I quoted.

Inverse feminism? What do you mean by that? Is that supposed to be an official term or something? Not trying to be an asshole... I'm genuinely curious here, because I'm googling it right now and I'm not getting any information on it.

And what are you trying to prove by linking that video to me? It's not like those women speak for all feminists anyway... so what's your point?

No, inverse feminism is not a term. I just made that up.. The point I am trying to make is that the sort of view you have of the Mens Rights Movement is the same sort of view I have on the feminist movement. I dug up those quotes because I wanted to highlight the sort of bigotry that I see a lot of, and that is represented a lot as well. Not all those individual's were 1st wave and 2nd wave feminists. There were a couple from the 21st century as well..

I am just trying to highlight a point that I have been trying to highlight all along, feminism isn't here to look out for men, and it is very biased towards the female side of the population. In doing so, it marginalizes men. That's not equal rights. That's sexism on an organisational level.

I BELIEVE IN EQUALITY! But I don't believe that it can be achieved through feminism..

[saintless]

@The Roving ENFP, we call that radical feminism. It exists. Yes. Just like there are misogynists in this world. There is misandry. I agree. Disgusting.

But though I don't agree with any of the statements presented and I have never met someone who has (blessing my stars that I don't know a radical feminist... they must be few and far between), I do at least understand their complaints.

For example, the patriarchy is a structure that should be weakened for the benefit of the human race. Should capitalism be weakened as well? That's a political debate not suited for this discussion, but it has its pros and cons like everything else in this world.

Should marriage be abolished? Not necessary. It is possible to have an equal marriage when neither partner must sacrifice their rights to uphold. However, does marriage have a history as an economic and political institution that has favored men? Yes. It used to be when a woman married a man she became his property. This is still true some African and Middle Eastern countries, but it also used to be true in Western countries like America and England.

Is being a housewife a slavery sentence? Gosh no. Should that be women's only choice in life? Nope. Should it be choice? Yes. I mean if were to degrade the status of a housewife, then I would be forced to degrade the status of my own father as a stay-at-home dad. He works a part-time job now because he never graduated from college, but for the first half of my life he stayed at home and raised my family while my mom went to work. I would have lived a pretty sore life if my mother was barred from the workforce since she is the only one with a college degree and thus with the ability to obtain an actual career and high-paying job. That is the goal of most feminists right there, to allow my mother to do what she did which is act a sole breadwinner. Would things have been alright if my mom stayed at home and my dad got a career? Of course. However, that's simply not the way the cards landed, and I don't think either of my parents should be degraded for taking on the roles they did.

Is rape used as a tool to intimidate women? Yes. By every man? No. Though, it is much more a systematic thing in Africa and the Middle East when soldiers, police officers, and even simply regular men who try to run a business or something, we seek out women for the sole purpose of rape to scare other women into their supposed inferior place. Now is heterosexual sex something that dehumanizes a woman? No. However, women have become sexualized objects in the eyes of much of society. Also, it is harder for a woman to achieve orgasm than compared to a man. This means a man can have sex with a woman without ever truly pleasing her but while giving himself an entirely good time. Though, I would consider that a crappy sex partner rather than a vicious man.

Finally, it does kind of make sense that some woman after feeling discriminated against, abused, and robbed of their rights would feel hatred to men. That is understandable. However, to act on that anger and to refuse to engage in mature intellect that allows a person to become less angry and more productive as a member of society is wrong. That is very, very wrong.

You see... you quoted women who take radical positions. They took a nugget of truth and run off with it, but these women are not leaders of the movement. They might have followers, but they few and far between. It's just like misogynists. Do I hold every man accountable for the words and behavior of Rush Limbaugh? Absolutely not. I don't even hold Republicans to his views. I know many more Republicans that agree with Limbaugh's misogynistic views than Democrats, but I don't therefore take the stance that Republicans are evil, woman-hating fiends like some people like to do these days. I know a handful of sexist Democrats anyhow to even out the balance.

Finally, title the textbook you cite. There is still phenomena often referred to as "mainstream sociology" which is often found in textbooks in community colleges, small colleges, or any other place that often has underdeveloped study programs. These textbooks often cite popular, mass views on how the world is and claim all sociology is truly common sense. It assumes that the individual is fully aware of societal tidings such that a black male is less likely to obtain a job than a white male, and most individuals are aware of this. People implicitly recognize how the world works, however people are rarely if ever fully conscious of the reasons of why black males receive less jobs or what kind of mechanisms prevent them from getting jobs. Yes, the color of their skin is a factor, but you also have to look at other things like the communities most black males grow up in. Are those impoverished communities? That might factor into the education level of a black male which will factor into how well his performance is perceived. Mainstream sociology textbooks don't usually discuss these things because they were often crated by people wishing to keep the status quo or people who think they understand the world without truly researching into things (because perhaps it simply makes them uncomfortable).

[MegaTuxRacer]

Here's a question: why continue to call third wave feminism "feminism" when "gender egalitarianism" is much more appropriate?

[saintless]

Here's a question: why continue to call third wave feminism "feminism" when "gender egalitarianism" is much more appropriate?

Well, I have stated before that I am not against using a new term. I even wrote a speech about it once (though I used for reasons why we should change discussions like this since a lot people seem to get caught up on something they think feminism stands for when it truly doesn't stand for that). Though, I think it is a matter of time, progress, and history. The movement started out as being called feminism, and that term doesn't necessarily need to change despite some people's beliefs. Second, there is actually a push towards a less female-centered. As I mentioned in another post, most feminist study courses are now referred to as "Gender Studies" in order to be more politically and technically accurate to what they do.

Then maybe as Vaan himself pointed out, opinions these days have to be marketable. I left that point behind a long time ago because I think it is ridiculously that everything needs a poppy catch phrase or the like, but gender egalitarianism is a mouthful. Hell, I forget half the time how to pronounce the word let alone spell it. I am sure that impedes the rate at which it catches on. I am not for catchy titles, but I at least understand what kind of things drive most people (or else all my sociology courses would be for not though I think this is where my communication courses actually come into play).

Yeah, it might thusly seem weird that I entered into this conversation given my stance on changing terms, but my original point was that these claims being thrown out feminism are baseless and surface-level. They're kicking up dirt for no reason. However, if you want to find a catchy derivate from the word "Genderist" (which is my personal favorite substitute for feminist, then please find it. I would stick with genderist but it seriously does not roll off the tongue. Though, I guess genderist might also be a throw back to sexist or racist and imply a prejudice against a particular gender. *sighs* This is why the world is so complicated... if only people could look the heart of the matter instead of attacking cosmetic applications.

[The Roving ENFP]

Here's a question: why continue to call third wave feminism "feminism" when "gender egalitarianism" is much more appropriate?

Good Question

Second, there is actually a push towards a less female-centered.

@vinndi Good answer.. I am glad that there is actually progress happening, and I do see it, but if you are right and it is actually going into a more bi-gender approach - I think it's time we pushed very hard so that it actually becomes an egalitarian movement, rather than one that is basically labelled "Female".

[saintless]

@The Roving ENFP, if you actually looked into the Feminism movement and other fields of study, you would realize this amongst other things. Though, I have never cared that much for "politically correct" terms. Like, I think there is no real need to distinguish between a waiter and a waitress, a fireman and a firewoman. This might be contrary to a many feminists' trains of thoughts, but eh. Feminism really isn't an all-defining, absolute term. Also, meanings, ideas, theories really do change over time. It's unnecessary to hold people to such nuanced measures.

Though this is a little straying off and into a another discussion (somewhat), but there will never be a "bi-gender" approach because gender and even sex exists on a continuum. Most people involved with feminism and other fields hold this view on the world. So, it really isn't male versus female. It's about... people and whatever body they have and however they wish to express themselves. Feminism truly isn't about women. It's about women, men, intersex, transpeople, homosexuals of all races etc. Don't let a misnomer mislead you.

[The Roving ENFP]

@The Roving ENFP, if you actually looked into the Feminism movement and other fields of study, you would realize this amongst other things. Though, I have never cared that much for "politically correct" terms. Like, I think there is no real need to distinguish between a waiter and a waitress, a fireman and a firewoman. This might be contrary to a many feminists' trains of thoughts, but eh. Feminism really isn't an all-defining, absolute term. Also, meanings, ideas, theories really do change over time. It's unnecessary to hold people to such nuanced measures.

Though this is a little straying off and into a another discussion (somewhat), but there will never be a "bi-gender" approach because gender and even sex exists on a continuum. Most people involved with feminism and other fields hold this view on the world. So, it really isn't male versus female. It's about... people and whatever body they have and however they wish to express themselves. Feminism truly isn't about women. It's about women, men, intersex, transpeople, homosexuals of all races etc. Don't let a misnomer mislead you.

@vinndi
I agree! .. Yay, more common ground. I like this! But what I must say is that reputation does actually represent a lot when it comes to Human Relations and any form of "promotion" or anything that seeks to change the status quo. Reputation is 75% of the driving force behind the change (I picked that 75% out of the air, but I think you know what I am trying to express)..

My issue is with the current reputation that feminism has and I am not sure that it will be able to actually clean that reputation. A lot is said in a name, and a lot is said in a label. The very face that Mitsubishi had to change the name of it's V6 range performance car from "Magna" to the "380" is testimony to the sort of thing that a label can do. No matter how much Mitsubishi tried to clean up the image of it's "family car" it was permanently soiled. So in 2006, they discontinued the Magna and started manufacturing the Mitsubishi 380 (which is the replacement car). Is it the same car? No! Was it derived from the routes of Magna? Yes. You see, I am using this illustration to say that Feminism needs a new and fresh face that say's "Hey, we represent the rights of both genders." It would be wise that if Feminism actually wants more support that it should throw out it's old image and adopt a complete different name and a different strategy.

Political correctness can be like walking on eggshells sometimes, but there is a lot that is in a name. If the goal is egalitarianism, then perhaps letting go of a name is the least one could do to achieve peace amongst the political parties..

I don't actually actively advocate for any "rights groups." However I do try my best to do my part by using my influence in the community to the best of my ability. With that being said, I don't actually advocate against feminism. I am just simply stating that I don't agree with the feminist movement..

I hope that puts things into a new perspective for you.. I probably came off as very strong in my previous posts.

[KINGoftheAMAZONS]

And femininity can?

If it can't, then why does feminism exist.

No, femininity can't be defined. There's a reason why there is no scientific definition of either femininity, or masculinity. And that is because both terms, and their applied meanings are man-made suppositions that were probably created as a natural result of gender hierarchies. I.e, Masculine = Dominant. Feminine = Submissive.

Feminism exists for the sole purpose of ending sexism (though it's added racism, homophobia, and classism to its hit list).

No.. According to me, masculine identity is under fire by a lot of feminist idealism.. I am so sick of feminism pulling it down

What is your definition of masculine identity, and how is feminism pulling it down? We can't get anywhere in this debate until you start defining the very terms and phrases that you claim are under attack.

gender roles aren't necessarily a bad thing. My parents have ran the most successful relationship I have ever seen - and after 3 decades of marriage, AND they're still pretty frisky.. my dad has gone with the traditional male role, and mum has gone with the traditional female role

The feminists on this forum have already stated that people have a right to engage in gender roles if they wish, but that we renounce the forced adherence to, and dependency on gender roles. I've even said that perhaps some people are naturally inclined to be submissive, or dominant. However, contrary to popular opinion, I also acknowledge that many men are naturally submissive, while many women are naturally dominant. My contention is that everyone can be who they are, and choose to run their relationships as they see fit. But neither I, nor anyone else should be forced to model their lives or relationships off of traditional gender standards. And the way to achieve this freedom is for gender roles to no longer be seen as the set foundation for relationships in society.

If you are saying that gender roles are bad and "harmful"

Read above ^.

Leave gender roles alone

Naturally I will continue to critique gender roles in order to get to the true purpose, and intentions of its existence. So far it seems that gender roles tend to propagate hierarchies of power, in which the woman, or whomever is perceived as the "feminine" one in the relationship, is expected to submit to the dominance of the man, or to the person that is perceived to be the "masculine" one in the relationship. This assumption of power seems to also be rooted in misogyny. I wonder if you might be willing to make a list of male gender roles, and female gender roles?

Can you tell me what "manhood" is?

Being a man rather than a child.

Can you tell me how feminism is attacking the natural progression in which male children grow into adult men?

[The Proof]

feminism is good, it lets you identify and avoid its most extreme proponents, which is a great relief