|
new phone who dis posted:The idea that manhood is inherently toxic and the entire gender needs to be feminized is about as far away from equality as you can. This isn't even remotely true, no one believes this. You need to be on medication or something, you're loving crazy.
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 03:15 |
|
|
new phone who dis posted:The idea that manhood is inherently toxic and the entire gender needs to be feminized is about as far away from equality as you can. "manhood" would need to be inherently a thing first though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:The idea that manhood is inherently toxic and the entire gender needs to be feminized is about as far away from equality as you can. At that point you're advocating cultural supremacy and colonialism while stoking largely unfounded or exaggerated problems with maleness to begin with. When feminism starts demandingg conformity instead of equality it ceases to be progressive and becomes authoritarian. It is not the right or the place for one form of thought to dictate the identity of an entire gender and if any group outside feminists tried to do it to women they would be rightly rejected. Good morning, new phone who dis, did you have a good night's sleep?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Good morning, new phone who dis, did you have a good night's sleep? It'll be better when I go back for round 2 after my chores bu good morning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
I think the example here is instructive, as to explaining what motivates a lot of anti-feminism: the fear of castration. 'I won't be sexy anymore! I won't be important anymore! I'll just wither away in this new world!'. What new phone who dis, and a lot of others who express this very sentiment, is expressing when he talks about 'men being feminized' is basically this personal fear he has, of his own future, not just in the literal sense of the loss of sexual satisfaction/impotence, but in the more general sense of becoming 'irrelevant', 'disposable', 'degraded' etc etc. The constant efforts you see in terms of over-compensation, from people like Alex Jones but from a lot of the right-wing in general, is rooted in this fear. The key to inverting anti-feminism is not to ignore this fear, but to disprove it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Fruit Smoothies posted:(oh and don't forget feminism wants more male nurses too. We'd expect a 50/50 split there.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:The idea that manhood is inherently toxic and the entire gender needs to be feminized is about as far away from equality as you can. At that point you're advocating cultural supremacy and colonialism while stoking largely unfounded or exaggerated problems with maleness to begin with. When feminism starts demandingg conformity instead of equality it ceases to be progressive and becomes authoritarian. It is not the right or the place for one form of thought to dictate the identity of an entire gender and if any group outside feminists tried to do it to women they would be rightly rejected. man this idea of feminism you have constructed in your head sure sounds scary
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I think the example here is instructive, as to explaining what motivates a lot of anti-feminism: the fear of castration. 'I won't be sexy anymore! I won't be important anymore! I'll just wither away in this new world!'. What new phone who dis, and a lot of others who express this very sentiment, is expressing when he talks about 'men being feminized' is basically this personal fear he has, of his own future, not just in the literal sense of the loss of sexual satisfaction/impotence, but in the more general sense of becoming 'irrelevant', 'disposable', 'degraded' etc etc. The constant efforts you see in terms of over-compensation, from people like Alex Jones but from a lot of the right-wing in general, is rooted in this fear. The key to inverting anti-feminism is not to ignore this fear, but to disprove it. Its not a fear of anything but the possibility of living under a pseudo religious authoritarian cult that wants to dictate your identity to you. Whether its evangelicals or the terminally woke feminists their argument of virtue ends where their societal control fetish begins.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
You already live under a pseudo-religious authoritarian cult that dictates your identity to you. It's called the patriarchy. It dictates, based on your gender, what you should wear, what you should drink, how you should talk, how you should act, how you should think, how you should feel, how you see others, and how you see yourself. Maybe you should make your own choices?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
rudatron posted:You already live under a pseudo-religious authoritarian cult that dictates your identity to you. I can't tell if this is a parody post in support of anti-feminism, or a real post in support for feminism. new phone who dis posted:The idea that manhood is inherently toxic and the entire gender needs to be feminized is about as far away from equality as you can. From the tone of some posts outside of this forum and some news articles I think that some extremists believe this. Man-splaining and Man-spreading are some of the dumbest terms i have heard in my life and contribute to the tone of the discussion. During the woman's march a woman who kidnapped someone and tortured them got to speak. Can someone explain to me why that women is being supported? Exmond fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:The fact that despite slightly higher academic achievement, women are still suffering from a jobs and income imbalance is excellent proof that there are other factors severely hampering equality of opportunity. Isn't this just another case where it's complicated? Young, childless, single women in cities earn more than their male peers. That probably isn't the whole picture but women in this group earning 8% more than peers in this group doesn't make the situation sound dire. It's obviously not the whole story but trying to look at a general population statistic for these things instead of drilling down into representative populations is going to put you at risk of Simpson's Paradox.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
rudatron posted:You already live under a pseudo-religious authoritarian cult that dictates your identity to you. The idea that I can only truly make my own choices under your ideology of choice is not a new or attractive feature of most cults.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
If I was trying to be as charitable as possible to new phone who dis (which, oh god why am i?), I would say that feminism has a lot to say about aspects of masculinity that are toxic or harmful, but doesn't concern itself with defining a masculinity that is positive. It's easy to come away with the impression that feminism is just anti-masculinity in general, when it's really anti-the lovely part of masculinity, and not really concerned with figuring out what the positive aspects are. Ultimately, that's one of the few spots where men's advocacy can be legitimate. Not as a counter to feminism, but as something that can focus on what it means to be a good, progressive man. Feminism isn't going to solve that problem, nor should it, so I don't see anything wrong with men taking that on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:Isn't this just another case where it's complicated? Young, childless, single women in cities earn more than their male peers. That probably isn't the whole picture but women in this group earning 8% more than peers in this group doesn't make the situation sound dire. It's obviously not the whole story but trying to look at a general population statistic for these things instead of drilling down into representative populations is going to put you at risk of Simpson's Paradox. Tons of people do look very closely at these numbers. And you're right, the answer is a lot more complicated than just "there's direct, intentional discrimination against women". Or even just subconscious biases (although I've never seen any study that *completely* eliminates discrimination as a cause). But the fact that woman earn less because they spend more time raising kids, or taking care of the household, or even just prioritize free time more than men doesn't mean we can just call it a day. All of those things are types of discrimination against women to. Maybe not by the employer themselves, but there's an expectation that women should be maintaining the household, or taking time off to raise children, and that is just as much a disadvantage as anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Exmond posted:I can't tell if this is a parody post in support of anti-feminism, or a real post in support for feminism. It's a real post in support of feminism, and it says nothing more than "there are social norms regarding a whole lot of aspects of our lives, and these social norms are patriarcal", which is pretty pretty incontrovertible. NovemberMike posted:Isn't this just another case where it's complicated? Young, childless, single women in cities earn more than their male peers. That probably isn't the whole picture but women in this group earning 8% more than peers in this group doesn't make the situation sound dire. It's obviously not the whole story but trying to look at a general population statistic for these things instead of drilling down into representative populations is going to put you at risk of Simpson's Paradox. Of course it's much more complicated than that, but I'm operating at a 101 level here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:The idea that manhood is inherently toxic and the entire gender needs to be feminized is about as far away from equality as you can. At that point you're advocating cultural supremacy and colonialism while stoking largely unfounded or exaggerated problems with maleness to begin with. When feminism starts demandingg conformity instead of equality it ceases to be progressive and becomes authoritarian. It is not the right or the place for one form of thought to dictate the identity of an entire gender and if any group outside feminists tried to do it to women they would be rightly rejected. Except feminists are right, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:The idea that I can only truly make my own choices under your ideology of choice is not a new or attractive feature of most cults.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Feminists aren't asking you to accept a prefabricated identity dude. You are part of a society, your actions have effects on others, you should consider those effects. That's it. No one else really gives a poo poo what you think 'maleness' is, has been, or should be. In the same way most people don't give a poo poo what feminists think about maleness which is fine too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
enki42 posted:If I was trying to be as charitable as possible to new phone who dis (which, oh god why am i?), I would say that feminism has a lot to say about aspects of masculinity that are toxic or harmful, but doesn't concern itself with defining a masculinity that is positive. It's easy to come away with the impression that feminism is just anti-masculinity in general, when it's really anti-the lovely part of masculinity, and not really concerned with figuring out what the positive aspects are. I'll just add on one thing to what you are saying, and which is pretty important: None of the things that constitute toxic masculinity are inherent to manhood.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:In the same way most people don't give a poo poo what feminists think about maleness which is fine too. You seem to care a lot, and yet not enough to actually figure out what feminists think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:You seem to care a lot, and yet not enough to actually figure out what feminists think. Can you explain why feminists came up with the term Man-Splaining, Man-spreading and what they are trying to get across with those terms? I feel like something is lost in translation when those terms are thrown out there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:You seem to care a lot, and yet not enough to actually figure out what feminists think. If your belief system supposedly rooted in equality for women finds that it needs to dictate men's identity to them then somewhere along the way you've abandoned equality in favor of hegemony.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Income imbalance is impacted by more things than structural inequality. If women have more access to education than men and still choose to go into lower paying jobs of their own free will, there isn't an issue feminism needs to solve involved. A teacher isn't going to make the same as a businessman or an engineer. That's not a problem for feminism. I'm guessing you're not an engineer if you don't understand that fields can be reeeaaallly hostile towards women sometimes. Between my engineering education and career, a short list of some of the stuff poo poo I've seen or heard happen to my female colleagues: - Anonymous death threats for "taking the spot of a man" in an engineering program - Posters of female candidates for the Engineering Society defaced because "Women can't be trusted in Engineering" - Promotion discussions where "So and So is in their late 20s and getting married soon so they'll probably get pregnant and we don't want someone in that position maybe taking a year off in the near future" is a behind the scenes factor - A request for a transfer to an office a quarter of the distance away from home compared to the current one denied because "You're over 25, you'll just be starting a family soon and be living out here in the suburbs anyway" And this is all in Canada within the last like...6 years  But no it's entirely of "their own free will" and no other factors might make someone wary of entering in or staying in a field... Mr Luxury Yacht fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:If your belief system supposedly rooted in equality for women finds that it needs to dictate men's identity to them then somewhere along the way you've abandoned equality in favor of hegemony. No. One. Cares. About. Your. Identity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:The idea that manhood is inherently toxic and the entire gender needs to be feminized If by "manhood" you mean simply the presence of XY chromosomes, and biological manifestations thereof, quite literally nobody is making the argument you're claiming to make. If by "manhood" you mean identifying and expressing as a man, there probably are some weird "female supremacists" people making that argument, but that is way way out of the mainstream. If by "manhood" you mean patriarchal norms that are actively or passively (through popular culture) pushed on male children, of which some are actively toxic, like "be aggressive", "men don't cry", "keep trying, eventually she'll say yes", "you're the one making decisions in your household" (i.e. "man of the house"), then yes, feminists will actively fight against those because *they are actively hurting society, and a vast section of its members*. You are misinterpreting "we'd like what people see as the normal male to be less agressive, and for it to be more acceptable for them to cry, and all those other things" as "WE WANT TO FEMINIZE MEN BECAUSE MEN ARE EVIL".
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:If your belief system supposedly rooted in equality for women finds that it needs to dictate men's identity to them then somewhere along the way you've abandoned equality in favor of hegemony. No. That's what patriarchy does. According to traditional gender roles, men and women must behave, think, dress, and live in certain ways. Feminism wants to free people of that. It's like you are ordinarily only allowed to use 2 crayons out of the box and you're complaining about people who want to give you the whole set.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Mm, your identity is entirely up to you precisely insofar as it does not affect others, to the extent it informs your actions which affect others, it is everyone's concern. This is not very controversial.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
rudatron posted:They aren't doing that. That's factually not true. This is just doublespeak. Its completely obvious to anyone who isn't being a disingenuous poo poo that large sections of the feminist community obsessed over and seek to regulate the male identity. Up to and including the way they sit in an empty bus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:- Promotion discussions where "So and So is in their late 20s and getting married soon so they'll probably get pregnant and we don't want someone in that position maybe taking a year off in the near future" is a behind the scenes factor I've worked as an executive in a not-tiny startup (like 150 people), and lol if you think this sort of thing isn't super commonplace. God help you if you want to be on an exec team and are of fertile age.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:This is just doublespeak. Its completely obvious to anyone who isn't being a disingenuous poo poo that large sections of the feminist community obsessed over and seek to regulate the male identity. Up to and including the way they sit in an empty bus. Presumably if I identify as someone who punches you in the face you would not feel justified in telling me to stop doing that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
enki42 posted:Tons of people do look very closely at these numbers. And you're right, the answer is a lot more complicated than just "there's direct, intentional discrimination against women". Or even just subconscious biases (although I've never seen any study that *completely* eliminates discrimination as a cause). But the fact that woman earn less because they spend more time raising kids, or taking care of the household, or even just prioritize free time more than men doesn't mean we can just call it a day. All of those things are types of discrimination against women to. Maybe not by the employer themselves, but there's an expectation that women should be maintaining the household, or taking time off to raise children, and that is just as much a disadvantage as anything else. Sure, but this gets into a weird situation where you can call something discrimination but it's hard to look at the statistics and call that the only possible reason. If you assume that the only purpose in life is to sacrifice at the altar of capitalism and these women are being discriminated against because society doesn't expect them to work themselves to death by 50, that's one thing. If you think that it's totally legitimate to want to spend time with your kids when they're young and pursue your interests, maybe it's not discrimination. This narrative is a little extreme but I'm just trying to paint arguments from different values. To give a concrete example I know about, a company I know recently introduced a part time system where people can work 75% time for 75% pay while keeping benefits. From talking to people, mostly women took advantage of that so they could pick up the kids from school and drop them off and generally spend time with them. Are they being oppressed?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Exmond posted:Can you explain why feminists came up with the term Man-Splaining, Man-spreading and what they are trying to get across with those terms? I feel like something is lost in translation when those terms are thrown out there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:This is just doublespeak. Its completely obvious to anyone who isn't being a disingenuous poo poo that large sections of the feminist community obsessed over and seek to regulate the male identity. Up to and including the way they sit in an empty bus. You don't actually know what feminists care about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Dancer posted:Again, that's not actually a thing. The fact that the word aggression has replaced violence in thus argument us pretty telling in how feminism has reached the decadent phase. There's nothing wrong with many kinds of aggression and the blanket disavowal of it is just another unnecessary escalation of attempted control.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Honestly I think privilege theory is a wasteful dead end because it consists of vague, wide-net accusations that will never draw a useful response from anyone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
enki42 posted:I've worked as an executive in a not-tiny startup (like 150 people), and lol if you think this sort of thing isn't super commonplace. God help you if you want to be on an exec team and are of fertile age. I own a small company in a country with generous maternity leave and while it's not something you really WANT to take into account...drat does it suck when someone in a key position decides to take a year off. But yeah, thinking like this is very common. NovemberMike posted:To give a concrete example I know about, a company I know recently introduced a part time system where people can work 75% time for 75% pay while keeping benefits. From talking to people, mostly women took advantage of that so they could pick up the kids from school and drop them off and generally spend time with them. Are they being oppressed? At several points in my career I would have jumped on 75% for 75% in a heartbeat. That would have owned. (I am a man)
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Jethro posted:They're pithy and they point out problems with how many men are taught how to act in our culture. Nobody has "taught" me to spread my legs in a crowded (or empty) bus. And nobody has "taught" me to explain things. Really these two terms are some of the worst things from the "Feminist" movement. Im wondering if people think there origins are from feminists or if they came from buzzfeed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:The fact that the word aggression has replaced violence in thus argument us pretty telling in how feminism has reached the decadent phase. There's nothing wrong with many kinds of aggression and the blanket disavowal of it is just another unnecessary escalation of attempted control. Actually I would posit that the only real value of aggression to the individual in response to an aggressive society and that seeking to eliminate it from society would both eliminate the need and the drawbacks. Exmond posted:Nobody has "taught" me to spread my legs in a crowded (or empty) bus. And nobody has "taught" me to explain things. Your anatomy sort of dictates the former but actually the latter is very much a result of your socializing because it's certainly not a thing that is universal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:Sure, but this gets into a weird situation where you can call something discrimination but it's hard to look at the statistics and call that the only possible reason. If you assume that the only purpose in life is to sacrifice at the altar of capitalism and these women are being discriminated against because society doesn't expect them to work themselves to death by 50, that's one thing. If you think that it's totally legitimate to want to spend time with your kids when they're young and pursue your interests, maybe it's not discrimination. I think for things like this, "oppression" is not a super-useful word (that's me, and I'm sure people will disagree with me on that). Society has different expectations of men and women. A lot of those expectations have positive and negative aspects to them. The thing is, not everyone is going to weigh those expectations in the same way. You're going to have women who would prefer to focus on their career, and so many parts of society are going to push against that in subtle ways. If you go even deeper, most women value time over money or career advancement because they're indoctrinated to. It's indirect, it's subtle, but it is something that limits opportunity for women.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 03:15 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Actually I would posit that the only real value of aggression to the individual in response to an aggressive society and that seeking to eliminate it from society would both eliminate the need and the drawbacks. You can aggressively pursue many things. Aggression and competitiveness in context is not an inherently bad thing and the effort to label it so is just that much more ideological fluff to have to wade through.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:49
|
|