Not all of those “problems” exist.
That most men do not request custody?
That many men do not take an active role in day-to-day childcare?
That many families expect women to make the career sacrifices?
That when someone is misbehaving in a marriage, the aggrieved party is likely to file for divorce?
That these are ALL things that feminists are trying to change?
Baby steps.
And do you think an article would be possible in a large newspaper with a title like “It’s time to do away with the concept of ‘femininity’ altogether” containing a list of a number of toxic feminine traits considered universal to women, such as hysteria or manipulative or overemotional or slutty behavior and which needed to be removed?
I doubt it. For some reason it has become perfectly reasonable on large mainstream media sites to comment extremely negative on masculinity and associate awful traits with that, but not on femininity. Must be the patriarchy or something.
Btw. the first google result of “toxic masculinity” is to a feminist site. Oddly enough the same site doesn’t seem to have an entry on toxic femininity.
Right. Because an article doesn’t take on femininity, the author or publisher doesn’t give a damn about femininity. Great logic. Dismiss the article because of what’s not in it.
If you read the article, you’ll see that it is more complex than you give it credit for:
"This is theoretically a good next step to stopping the violence that is polluting not just college campuses but the entire world, but it’s very “us and them” rather than “we’re all human together”. It just lets men be more educated about the women they are perpetrating violence against.
Until men en masse consider women to be part of the same ecosystem, masculinity will continue to be primarily a rejection of everything feminine, the tool men use to measure and gauge their own self-worth to other men – the foundation of bro culture. And until then, when they feel that their masculinity is in jeopardy, when they don’t feel man enough, manly violence will seem like a reasonable way to react to their feelings."
In other words, he sees the part of masculinity that sets men apart from simply humanity as the problem. Men can still be men, different from women, just not in a way that rejects the feminine - not defining masculinity as “anything not feminine.”
Aren’t they typically the ones serving as primary care givers?
Ooooo… Scary number!. But here are the facts on conditions for alimony qualification in Texas. I can’t imagine they are very different in the rest of the country.
Also, it rarely happens.
So?
Once again, ONLY WHEN THERE IS NO SUPERCEDING AGREEMENT REACHED BY THE TWO PARTIES.
SOME feminists (read: mysandrists). SOME. The majority do not. A fact that has been stated over and over in this thread by many and which you are pathologically determined to ignore.
Of course women may become less happy for a legion of reasons, but one would be silly to claim that feminism has progressed nowhere in the last half century or more, yet for all those years women have become less and less happy. Feminism have fixed many of their problems (and all of their original ones), yet women are becoming less happy.
I looked at the Wikipedia article, and a couple of definitions around on the web. And the word “happy” wasn’t mentioned a single place on any of them. Why is the pursuit of female happiness not a central goal of feminism?
But they are DIFFERENT WOMEN in each survey. The women who said they were happy back then likely had much lower expectations for happiness.
I doubt you’d find the word “happy” in the definition of the civil rights movement, or any other comparable movement either. It kind of goes without saying.
Not even then. I will die on this fucking hill. What he is saying is not true.
What the hell does ‘pursuit of happiness’ have to do with feminism?
Is ‘pursuit of happiness’ a fundamental goal of the MRA?
Who is the official census keeper on objective levels and trends of happiness in society in general?
I stand corrected.
You appear not to understand. I see the article as an expression of a general trend in society whereby it has become widely accepted and normalized to talk dismissive or extremely negatively about masculinity, but not of femininity.
Both men and women in general have a more favorable view of women than of men. But where they sexes differ is that women have a remarkable greater level of in-group favoritism than men do. So what we see is that masculinity does not result in negative views of women or a “rejection of everything feminine”, whereas femininity does lead to negative views on men and extensive favouritism of women over men. Yet, it is the exact opposite that this article concerns and is the same lie that I’ve read other feminists being busy repeating other places. So why is he no bewailing the feminine rejection of masculinity?
But whatever, he’s clearly a gobshite. Incidentally fairly ironic that he decries the “rejection of everything feminine” in an article titled “end manhood”.
Masculinity can handle it.
I’m not defending it, just explaining it.
If you want to write an article about femininity, go ahead. Just because the author left it out doesn’t mean he believes femininity is beyond reproach.
Absolutely. I’m not too concerned. That’s why I don’t really care about MRA any more than I do feminism. Men can handle a bit of adversity, it just makes us stronger. Don’t really feel a lot of solidarity with other men on account of the sex either, and all this whining and crying by effeminate girlymen don’t really seem to have a lot to do with me. They mostly seem to want to enter into a contest with feminism in the Oppression Olympics for the chattering classes.
No, not you - the prevailing concept of masculinity. This isn’t about you and your feelings. You’re safe from those bad old girlymen.
Certainly.
Unless you believe that manhood means hurting others so as to demonstrate your manhood, there’s nothing insulting to the concept of masculinity in that article. If you do believe that (as many here in the South where I live do), then that’s a problem that needs to be addressed.
Ahem…
My bolding. Your claim.
I haven’t actually checked, since you’re playing that tiresome, slithery game of multiquoting rather than, well let’s say ‘manning up’ and engaging with the issue (I suppose it would be “too easy” to have a sensible discussion of the issues rather than play silly games), but I think I meant this statement:
Again, my bolding, your statement - one you ignored repeated requests to back up.
Yes, we’ve already covered, at length, your cheap stunt in response to a hyperbolic statement. Why, if you show that his wild claim of ‘all’ (where we know he means ‘all of those that matter and most of those that don’t’) is (of course) untrue, then feminism wins and any objection is defeated! Or somesuch… (are you still also claiming we can’t possibly know where you stand if you never say so bluntly?)
No confusion on my part…
I ‘insist’ (at best you may have meant ‘persist’ - I persist in asking you to hold yourself to your own standards, and “post a few links that show that leading feminist groups think just the opposite of your ridiculous claims.”)
One link. Are you also confused about the difference between ‘a few’ and ‘one’, or have I wandered unwittingly into a realm of ‘feminist counting: down with oppressive patriarchal numbers!’?. Hang on, I’ll have a look at [del]them[/del] it. Shall we bet I don’t think it says what you think it says? Let’s take a moment to recall that LK said:
“Whenever there’s a proposal to make 50/50 custody the default, instead of every-other-weekend, feminists have opposed it. Whenever there’s a measure to get rid of alimony, feminists have opposed it.”
And you said:
“*Please post links to every single proposal *[which is a reasonable response to the claim ‘whenever’] *and show every single feminist opposing it *[which isn’t]” [My interjections]
And then you said:
“Or maybe I’ll just post a few links that show that leading feminist groups think just the opposite of your ridiculous claims. But that’s too easy.”
And then you ignored repeated requests to back that up, possibly because it’s “too easy”. Possibly not…
You offered one link. Not to a leading feminist group, but to a blog. That blog makes a claim that, in 1966, NOW expressed an opinion on alimony (no mention of custody and no real clarity on whether NOW wanted to ‘get rid of it’). That blog goes on to say:
*"The principles that NOW has fought for over 50 years are ignored by the courts, and by NOW itself.
You have to ask yourself why, with this statement of purpose displayed so boldly on the NOW site, they aren’t fighting with more zeal to demand that lifetime alimony be abolished as they did in seeking equality in the first place."*
So I was right, it doesn’t really say what you think it says, does it?
Furthermore, the blog’s link to any evidence that NOW ever said anything at all is broken.
So, to recap, you believe it’s “too easy” to show several leading feminist groups supporting shared custody and equality of alimony - but you failed to provide one.
tl;dr: Lance made a foolish claim. Lance evaded requests to address that claim. When pressed, Lance failed spectacularly to even begin addressing it.
Again, sorry I confused you. I explained.
I think my link says what I think it said.
The point, which has been completely lost, is that it’s nonsense to say that “every feminist group always opposes” X. It is almost impossible to prove that, and it’s almost certainly false. It’s the all-or-nothing kind of thinking that LinusK is engaged in.
Let’s get back on topic. Not all feminists think alike. You can always find some radicals in any group, but they don’t necessarily represent the mainstream.
Again, I’m not the one that’s confused. I just pasted LK’s original claim in my last post. It does not say * “every feminist group always opposes” X*" (apparently you couldn’t bring your self to repeat the actual Xs - the claim was never for ‘any X’, but a deceitful move like that is hardly surprising given that you’ve also deliberately (or with stunning negligence) misrepresented the actual claim that is right there for you to read, comprehend, copy and paste.
Not all feminists think alike, it’s true. This keeps coming up, with the analogy of fundamentalist christians (the comparison to a religion being rather apt, I think). But while the christians I work with don’t share Fred Phelps’ view that the funerals of soldiers should be picketed, they do share the christian view that a mysterious sky-magician sent his son to earth to be nailed to a cross for our benefit. Feminists share a similarly ludicrous foundation for their ideology. If you don’t believe christ died for your sins, you’re not a christian. If you don’t believe that men are inherently responsible for a system that purposefully oppresses women, you’re not a feminist. ‘Christianity preaches love and tolerance’ = ‘Feminism is a movement for gender equality’. If the best defence of a flawed philosophy is to look no further than a dictionary definition, you are not sufficiently well-informed to discuss it.
It pretty much did. Perhaps he didn’t mean to.
Since I’d bet you agree with many of the tenets of feminism, such as simple equal opportunity and freedom and all that, maybe you should think again.
Or maybe you don’t believe in that stuff. If so, you should.
What you should stop doing is misrepresenting the bulk of feminists’ beliefs.
So you don’t believe women have EVER been oppressed by men?
Or just that you think it doesn’t happen now?
I’m speaking as someone who considers himself a feminist. And who has spoken with others who do.