It’s not the rejection of feminism, it’s the obsessive, aggressive and strangely angry nature of his campaign against feminism that is the reason for this question. It’s a pretty obvious elephant in the room.
Either feminist has come to mean a belief in the opposite of what it used to, or you’re crazy, or both. Which sums up most of this thread.
I’m for equality regardless of gender, so naturally you asked me a gender-specific equality question? You are curious.
In relatively modern western society, I met some chaps who, after a night of drinking, liked to play ‘who can urinate in an unbroken stream for the longest time’. I tend to think that your average woman would be at a disadvantage in that competition. But when it comes to ‘remembering who not to send a christmas card to because they didn’t send one to us last year’, women have it hands down.
My turn. Do you really think feminism is the best solution to the problems men face, given that it casts men as those responsible for inequalities in the first place (and, as evidenced in this thread and elsewhere, so many of them don’t even bother to disguise their contempt for and hatred of men)?
Sure sounds like an egalitarian to me!
It’s no worse than the literal pissing contest he used as an example for guys.
You confuse ‘equal’ with ‘identical’. Or, if you think you actually have a point (as opposed to a sarcastic comment), perhaps you could show us how, in modern western society, women (in heterosexual couples) aren’t still oppressed into taking care of the christmas card list.
Good man, nice to have someone else pulling up the gender bigots on their one-sided view of equality. You’re right, both examples were silly answers to a silly question.
And you’ve confused “Pretending that there are no inequities,” with “Being against inequities.” You’re no more an egalitarian than Donald Trump.
Excuse me? My best guess as to your meaning is that I’m ‘pretending there are no inequities’. This, despite my acknowledgement of (for example) those ways in which men are unequally treated in law and society. The ‘evidence’ you used to reach your erroneous and insulting conclusion is one silly answer to a very silly question (while ignoring any evidence that doesn’t suit your predetermined conclusion - excellent feminism, well done). I wasn’t asked for all the ways women are disadvantaged (or, tellingly, for any ways in which men are disadvantaged, let alone any meaningful comparison between genders). Your reasoning is flawed and your conclusion risible. Oh, and that last line is a personal attack, not a response to a post - and yet you wear a moderator’s badge. Shameful.
I’m taking that as conceding that you didn’t actually have a point. Funnily enough, I’m watching ‘Pointless’ as I type. Sums up your contribution nicely. Alas, no prizes here for being pointless.
I didn’t ask for ways you believe men are treated unequally because you have already provided examples of that. I was asking if there were any ways you believe women are treated unfairly. Instead you answered with pissing contests amd Christmas cards.
It doesn’t matter if there are still inequities or not. What matters is whether you oppose inequities. Whether there are any left to oppose doesn’t change that.
It’s all just more bigotry. The other person you quoted shows that quit well. I’m a man, I can’t possibly have valid opinions on issues! Apparently I’m ‘privileged’ and have ‘power’ over others so my life must be sooo much better than anyone else with a different background. The whole privilege thing is a joke. A favourite line of feminists is 'you don’t want to lose your privilege!
They are basically saying I have some sort of tangible benefit granted me from being born with white skin and a penis. Not only that though! I’m apparently so enamoured of this benefit that I don’t want to share! I apparently actively want to watch others suffer and go without, and I must get off on it because I don’t want to lose that ability to enjoy others suffering! What an **** they apparently think I am. And they wonder why I find it insulting.
Of course, none of that will get through. Someone will post ‘oh look, a man is whining about having privilege’ or some nonsense like that.
You know, I posted in a thread on micro-aggression about my own experience. Someone (a mod no less) told me I shouldn’t participate. Apparently I’m the wrong gender and race to participate in some threads on this board.
Oh, and I recall someone on this board (and other places) saying only white men can be accused of being racist or sexist. Pretty convenient, that. Redefining words like that so they don’t apply to you. Added idiocy is that apparently they think racism and sexism only happen in the west. Or maybe they think it only matters when white people are involved.
To be fair, that’s not really what they are thinking. They are mindlessly parroting dogma. Maybe if they stopped for a minute and really thought about the implications of what their dogma says they would see how wrong it is. I’m not holding my breath though.
I’d try to argue against all this nonsense but it would be like trying to convince a creationist the planet is more than 6000 years old. And believe me I’ve tried that.
As far as your opinions, well like I said, both sides have valid points and both sides blow those points out of proportion. For instance in your OP you said something, iirc, about teachers showing preference to girls over boys. I’m kinda doubtful about that.
Not exactly; the idea is that some people (I don’t agree with this) hold that it is not possible to be racist or sexist against the empowered class. In general, that would mean that it’s not possible for a white to be racist (and, let’s face it, it’s hard. There simply isn’t a nasty word for white people that has any sting at all.)
If you were to look at a setting like a majority-black neighborhood, where a white neighbor gets treated badly, excluded, disempowered, refused service, then that would be racism. So the concept is context-sensitive. Another example is the public library system in many cities, where librarians are nearly always women: men trying to break in to the profession have to fight an uphill struggle against this entrenched sexism. So women can be sexist, but only (per this definitional concept) when they are the ones in power.
So, it isn’t just self-serving definition, but a definition based on social power.
I think you may be confusing me with someone else (LinusK). Don’t worry about it - one of the more fanatical feminists has even suggested I’m his sock-puppet (less ludicrously, also that LK and I are ‘chums’. Neither is true.)
As it happens, though, I’ve done a lot of work in schools over the last 20 years. Feminism is as perniciously poisonous there as it is in almost every sphere of life. I think I’ve already relayed the anecdote about the state (US=public) school who explicitly stated they wouldn’t employ me because:
- I was a man (and would intimidate their female teachers) and
- I was a man (and would succumb to the allure of their 5th form girls “exercising their power”).
It’s true, I am man. But I’m not a bully or a paedophile…or a bigot. Shame the same can’t be said of so many women.
But don’t take my word for it. Here’s feminist icon, novelist Doris Lessing, in 2001 talking about feminist bullying of boys in schoolsshe visits. I can’t imagine the situation has improved.
Snerk.
I had to look it up. It’s something cool kids on the interwebs say, apparently. It means "My dogma is so powerful that I don’t need to think anymore, I can just mock, safe in the knowledge that others will mock with me. "
So now you have a far more efficient way to do what you do than painting the walls with words.
That - the bolded bit - is a particularly ugly bit of semantic legerdemain. Those who peddle it would have you believe that a boy who grows up in the projects and gets beaten up for being white is privileged, but Barack and Michelle’s daughters are not. It is - as you say - pure bigotry. It’s racism by choice.
Brevity, I’ve been told, is my friend. Brevity without efficiency, as in your post, is next to useless. Would you like to try to communicate again, while bearing in mind that others might have no earthly idea what you’re trying to say?
Snerk.*
*Did I use that right?