Let's talk about Gender equality.

[Lincoln]

Feminism is the long-standing, and recently ever-controversial, egalitarian philosophy of the genders. According to merriam-webster dictionary, there are two definitions to the debate world's favorite world. First, we have it defined as the "theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes". This, pretty simply, extends the egalitarian desires of feminism to practically and idealistically include both genders. This, of course, begs the question, why do we need a separate movement for men-specific rights? The pinnacle of both arguments can be seen in the second definition (same source). Feminism: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests. This second definition, unlike the first, actively posits the main (and only) entity that feminism is striving to provide with equality, as women. Later, we'll go into what the first definition, and its contrast with the second, implicates about the arguments at hand. But first, let's talk for a bit about where we stand in equality.

Starting with the tangible inequalities between men and women, there are four factors. We have our political equalities, our legal equalities, our economic equalities, and our measurable social trends. In terms of politics, to put a measure on things, we are going to analyze the United States. This is because the United States provides very up-to-date stats on our representatives politically. For economics, we'll be referring to both world and country-specific calculations, to get a broad scope of both the direct and indirect implications of economic equalities/inequalities. Finally, in one of the most noticeable, yet hard to prove, trends in terms of gender, we will use case studies, empirical observations, and our own backgrounds, to examine social equality of men and women.

Political: There are "100 women out of 535 legislators (435 representatives, 100 senators)" in congress. "[This] means that more than 80% of the country's federal legislators are still men." (CNN, 11/05/14). This is obviously a disparaging difference in representation. Although observable as a current stat, it's obvious that the numbers are going up. history.gov, on women representation in congress, posits that "Since 1917, when Representative Jeannette Rankin of Montana became the first woman to serve in Congress, a total of 299 women have served as U.S. Representatives or Senators." This means that over 1/3 of all women ever to serve in congress are currently in office. As a net trend, the numbers are substantially improving for women. The gap is still present, however. The problem with fixing this problem, for feminism and fans of political representative equality (it's nice to have more than 1/5 women debating on women's health...), is that there really is no democratic legal course of action. Seemingly all obstacles, in a legal since, keeping women from congress, have been eliminated. One obstacle remains, however, and that is the obstacle of the people. You see, the problem seems to lie in a fundamental bias in society. We'll talk on that later.

Legality: This is an area where it seems that (in common and criminal law), men seem to be the main sufferers of inequality. A new study by Sonja Starr, an assistant law professor at the University of Michigan, found that men are given much higher sentences than women convicted of the same crimes in federal court. This distinct study on law suggests that there is an issue with sentencing based on race in criminal court. Furthermore, it is widely known to be more difficult for a man to retain custody for a child than a woman. Lastly, we are going to hit some rough water, with a bit of controversial topic: Woman on male rape. In a substantial number of legal jurisdictions, the definition of criminal rape, or sexual assault includes penetration. This makes 'forced to penetrate' rape impossible to go to court with, and even more impossible to get a conviction with. Part of the problem is the social stigma surrounding the idea of male rape. The social paradigm that men 'always' want sex seems to permeate a large amount of our sexual laws, culture, and discussions. Although the problem is legal, the roots are social. This seems to be a common theme.

Economic: The wage gap? It's totally a thing. There is not a nation in the world in which a woman makes the same amount of money as a man for doing the same job. ([Only registered and activated users can see links]). In fact, as you can tell from my convenient source title, the apparent 'progressive' united states didn't even break top 50 in wage equality.

Social: Again, a majority of the gender inequalities mentioned can be noted for their extreme roots in the view of the sexes (and sex of course!) in our culture.


The solution: As we discussed earlier, the definitions of feminism both suggest different types of egalitarian philosophy; one gender-specific, and one not. The thing about MRAs and feminists-- they hate eachother. Each group, each movement, believes the other is being ridiculous. The common theme is that they both seem to want equality. At some point, one needs to step up, and include both genders in efforts for equality. The feminist argument to rebut the MRA arguments from the start has always been 'feminism cares about those issues too'. However, in mainstream feminism, especially the more radical of those, are commonly associated with women's issues in regards to equality, not men's. If the MRA wants equality, stop bashing feminism on its face value. For both sides, the solution can be found in simply listening, and attempting to break the social bounds permeating feminist and MRA culture, and accept that true equality exists for neither sex, and if it's going to be achieved, it can't be achieved in a one-sided philosophy.

So what do you think?

Which side of this great debate needs to back down?

Can true equality ever be achieved?

[Banannie]

If the MRA had less Elliot Roger-esque entitlement problems with the vast majority of them being sexually frustrated and socially awkward men, I might take them seriously. Might.
If you look at how women have been treated throughout history, the idea that we even need an MRA to counteract the feminist movement makes no sense.

That sort of shit is deployed by people with selfish agendas as a way to keep people away from the facts. Women are used and abused all over the world and now that we are more connected than ever we need to fix this. It's half of the human population not being given the chance to grow as much as they could in a more progressive society.

I believe we will reach equality, but that along with racial, mental and sexual orientation (rights for) we have a ways to go.

[Lincoln]

If the MRA had less Elliot Roger-esque entitlement problems with the vast majority of them being sexually frustrated and socially awkward men, I might take them seriously. Might.

You honestly should try to look past the ad hom attacks, and focus on some of the better points. The vast majority of hardcore feminists I've seen seem to be assholes that just want to belong to a group. But look past it, and find some good points.

Example?

Just detention was supposedly started by MRAs. It's an organization that works to combat the often-overlooked issue of prison rape. Excellent organization with a fair cause. Talk about rape culture! The MRA can be stupid, so can feminists. But the important shit is what needs to be focused on.



You edited, so I'll add the following:

The fact that women have been treated (and still are) like shit has absolutely nothing to do with the needs for men's rights. The goal is equality. If feminism is ignoring men-specific issues simply because they are men, then they're going against their very backbone. And the point at which injustice is being done (legal examples I mentioned), we need a movement.

That argument was basically:

You may be mistreated, but we are mistreated worse, so we don't need to care about you.

It just doesn't work with the whole egal. mindset.

[Banannie]

I like having my views challenged.

My mindset on this is how the men's rights movement sprung up, not as it's own entity to combat the problems men face, but as a counter to the feminist movement.

For instance, if a disabled rights movement was entangled in a dispute with an able rights movement that sprung up to combat it, I would think that the movement had less to do with progress for themselves and more to do with impeding the rights of people who they are afraid of empowering. Because that is generally how these things work.

Feminism isn't ignoring men's issues, it's that men's issues are:
1. Less of a problem worldwide.
2. Women's rights is about women's rights. Problems that are exclusive to women.

[Lincoln]

I like having my views challenged.

My mindset on this is how the men's rights movement sprung up, not as it's own entity to combat the problems men face, but as a counter to the feminist movement.

For instance, if a disabled rights movement was entangled in a dispute with an able rights movement that sprung up to combat it, I would think that the movement had less to do with progress for themselves and more to do with impeding the rights of people who they are afraid of empowering. Because that is generally how these things work.

Feminism isn't ignoring men's issues, it's that men's issues are:
1. Less of a problem worldwide.
2. Women's rights is about women's rights. Problems that are exclusive to women.

First off, thanks for being polite! I really like talking about shit like this, and it's nice to find someone who's not a dick about it.

Now, to start, let's talk about some philosophy. Consequential specifically, would say that the results outweigh the motivation. The point I was, and still am, trying to make, is that, regardless of the assholish methods of the MRM, there are legitimate issues facing men that are not addressed by feminism. Quoting your last post, 'Women's rights is about women's rights. Problems that are exclusive to women. '. Absolutely! You argue that men's issues aren't as significant, but that still relies on an overall assumption that because B is more important than A, A is not important at all. The issue here is that 1) feminism does not address the legal examples I brought up, and 2) In doing so, we have the need for a movement that DOES address these issues.

Then, the next logical question, what we are talking about, is whether or not MRM does this. In my last post, I brought up how the MRM has sprung some very important advancements in justice. Yet still, you argue that the MRM is simply there to be a dick to feminists. At this point I feel like you confuse the MRM with r/mensrights. Check out some honest MRM (not MRA) literature, and tell me what you think.

I'm not defending the worst. I'm saying that, a lot of both sides is bigotry and flawed logic. But if one side just believed in equality, not just winning the argument, social justice is achievable.

[Banannie]

I'll come back with a retort to this tomorrow, I'm literally argueing about a topic I don't know much about, I'm going off of the quick history of both movements. If you have some onlime literature I'll read up on it and give you a more sound rebuttal.

You know when someone points out a flaw in your logic and the first thought is I don't think that way! Well... maybe I do? It's weird to think you stand for one thing, but your actions and mindset speak otherwise.

[Lincoln]

I'll come back with a retort to this tomorrow, I'm literally argueing about a topic I don't know much about, I'm going off of the quick history of both movements. If you have some onlime literature I'll read up on it and give you a more sound rebuttal.

You know when someone points out a flaw in your logic and the first thought is I don't think that way! Well... maybe I do? It's weird to think you stand for one thing, but your actions and mindset speak otherwise.

Thanks for being open-minded! I'll read up a little more too.

[Water]

Feminism is a key tool, pushing equality for women whilst still supporting men(mostly overlooked). Men who created a supporting argument against feminism, are basically saying that "oh, there is a difference, men are dominant and women want to take that away, lets stop them".

Political inequality, besides a male dominated congress, the laws that come out of their arses are ridiculous. Women who seek abortions, differing by state, might need parental consent if under 18, a forced ultrasound where they have to look/hear the fetus, and may not even get the right to have one. Denied access to birth control pills. All bills have been passed by men, all about womens health. Another recently debated "law/rule", can you fire a women if she is too sexy? Iowa Supreme Court says Yes. Those are recent, it must have come from somewhere yes?

1769 - Women Lose Autonomy in Marriage
1777 - Voting Rights Abolished
1866 - Rights of Voters and Citizens are Defined as Being “Male”
1873 - Women Barred From Practicing Law
1875 – Once Again, Voting Rights Are Denied to Women
1908 – Women’s Workdays Are Shorter Than Men’s
1924 – New York Waitresses Must Work Days
1932 – A Law to Force Women Out of Government Jobs
1981 – Women Cannot be Drafted

Laws against men.
Men must be drafted at the age of 18.(only official one I could find) This is debated on a forum, where men want females drafted, fair enough right? Too bad males in congress ruled that women cant be drafted! :S

Legality: To me it makes sense for women to keep their children if they want them, birthgiver, provider, stability. It should defiantly be in favor of the women if they both want custody, assuming they view all aspects of the lives of the parents, it could go either way.
Men and Women are both raped, this is another strong suite for feminism, both parties should be protected at all costs. 3 out of every 100 rapists will be convicted.
Men who murder their partners, are more likely not to be charged with murder than women who murder their partners.

Economic: THE WAGE GAP IS THE WORST PART
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Social: A mass part of social norm really needs to change, it basically starts with you.

I think the most important part of feminism is to protect humans, males, females, the people inbetween genders, and most of all different races/religions.

One day an alien invasion will occur and people will finally fucking realize that all this time we should have been united.

[Lincoln]

Feminism is a key tool, pushing equality for women whilst still supporting men(mostly overlooked). Men who created a supporting argument against feminism, are basically saying that "oh, there is a difference, men are dominant and women want to take that away, lets stop them".

Political inequality, besides a male dominated congress, the laws that come out of their arses are ridiculous. Women who seek abortions, differing by state, might need parental consent if under 18, a forced ultrasound where they have to look/hear the fetus, and may not even get the right to have one. Denied access to birth control pills. All bills have been passed by men, all about womens health. Another recently debated "law/rule", can you fire a women if she is too sexy? Iowa Supreme Court says Yes. Those are recent, it must have come from somewhere yes?

1769 - Women Lose Autonomy in Marriage
1777 - Voting Rights Abolished
1866 - Rights of Voters and Citizens are Defined as Being “Male”
1873 - Women Barred From Practicing Law
1875 – Once Again, Voting Rights Are Denied to Women
1908 – Women’s Workdays Are Shorter Than Men’s
1924 – New York Waitresses Must Work Days
1932 – A Law to Force Women Out of Government Jobs
1981 – Women Cannot be Drafted

Laws against men.
Men must be drafted at the age of 18.(only official one I could find) This is debated on a forum, where men want females drafted, fair enough right? Too bad males in congress ruled that women cant be drafted! :S

Legality: To me it makes sense for women to keep their children if they want them, birthgiver, provider, stability. It should defiantly be in favor of the women if they both want custody, assuming they view all aspects of the lives of the parents, it could go either way.
Men and Women are both raped, this is another strong suite for feminism, both parties should be protected at all costs. 3 out of every 100 rapists will be convicted.
Men who murder their partners, are more likely not to be charged with murder than women who murder their partners.

Economic: THE WAGE GAP IS THE WORST PART
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Social: A mass part of social norm really needs to change, it basically starts with you.

I think the most important part of feminism is to protect humans, males, females, the people inbetween genders, and most of all different races/religions.

One day an alien invasion will occur and people will finally fucking realize that all this time we should have been united.


First, "Men who murder their partners, are more likely not to be charged with murder than women who murder their partners. ", can I see a source or something for that? It sounds like basic rhetoric.

Then, the assumption that women are naturally more entitled to their children is still an issue. Simple birthgiving should mean nothing, in the long run. It's important that the kid crawled out of you, yes. But in many cases, the dad is the major breadwinner, and a lot of that cash is going towards raising the kid. Both sides have advantages to being single parents, but we just default to the woman, and that's an issue.

Again, legally, 65% higher charges on men than women. This is an issue.

Onto the actual question that you picked up on: "Men who created a supporting argument against feminism, are basically saying that "oh, there is a difference, men are dominant and women want to take that away, lets stop them".
As I said above, don't focus on the appearance or background of the movement. Think about the arguments that come out of the movement, and how they overall affect society. If we want to go by the radical and dumbass MRAs, then we can also include tumblr accounts that preach that men are all rapists. Not right. The key of the discussion is, and needs to be, argumentation, not presentation.

And in terms of argumentation, it's evident that feminism is not focusing on men's issues. This is understandable, feminism is female dominated, and focused on oppressing women. But then, we get to a point where the focus is diverted from equality, to womanism/feminism, women in general.

Wage gap = bad.

males having a WAY longer sentence in jail = bad.

Women not being represented in congress = bad.

Men having a harder time keeping children = bad.

both sides have issues, albeit women have it worse.

3 out of every 100 rapists will be convicted. --- difficult to use sources like this. Very, very difficult to find real numbers on rape. For example, the 1 in five stat on women getting raped was done in a college study that included people as victims who simply said that they had been drinking when they had sex (they didn't even think that they had been raped). More recent studies hypothesize the real number to be closer to 1/24 women. The point? Statistics are a bitch.

[Water]

First, "Men who murder their partners, are more likely not to be charged with murder than women who murder their partners. ", can I see a source or something for that? It sounds like basic rhetoric.

Then, the assumption that women are naturally more entitled to their children is still an issue. Simple birthgiving should mean nothing, in the long run. It's important that the kid crawled out of you, yes. But in many cases, the dad is the major breadwinner, and a lot of that cash is going towards raising the kid. Both sides have advantages to being single parents, but we just default to the woman, and that's an issue.

Again, legally, 65% higher charges on men than women. This is an issue.

Onto the actual question that you picked up on: "Men who created a supporting argument against feminism, are basically saying that "oh, there is a difference, men are dominant and women want to take that away, lets stop them".
As I said above, don't focus on the appearance or background of the movement. Think about the arguments that come out of the movement, and how they overall affect society. If we want to go by the radical and dumbass MRAs, then we can also include tumblr accounts that preach that men are all rapists. Not right. The key of the discussion is, and needs to be, argumentation, not presentation.

And in terms of argumentation, it's evident that feminism is not focusing on men's issues. This is understandable, feminism is female dominated, and focused on oppressing women. But then, we get to a point where the focus is diverted from equality, to womanism/feminism, women in general.

Wage gap = bad.

males having a WAY longer sentence in jail = bad.

Women not being represented in congress = bad.

Men having a harder time keeping children = bad.

both sides have issues, albeit women have it worse.

3 out of every 100 rapists will be convicted. --- difficult to use sources like this. Very, very difficult to find real numbers on rape. For example, the 1 in five stat on women getting raped was done in a college study that included people as victims who simply said that they had been drinking when they had sex (they didn't even think that they had been raped). More recent studies hypothesize the real number to be closer to 1/24 women. The point? Statistics are a bitch.

I'll pull the source out later, its in a big law book from my years.

So then what is the point on talking about gender equality.
Both you and me, can agree that these inequalities are bad, they do nothing good for anyone.

Issues like representation, mentality, safety of men are fully supported through feminism.
It may just be me but I will fully support anyone who needs help/support.

Also about the men being more sentenced.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

In 2011, the United States Department of Justice compiled homicide statistics in the United States between 1980 and 2008.[1] That study showed the following:

Offenders

Males committed the vast majority of homicides in the United States at that time, representing 90% of the total number of offenders.[1]
Young adult black males had the highest homicide offending rate compared to offenders in other racial and sex categories.[1]
White females of all ages had the lowest offending rates of any racial or age groups.[1]
The overall offending rates for both males and females have declined since 1990.[1]
Of children under age 5 killed by a parent, the rate for biological fathers was slightly higher than for biological mothers.[1]
However, of children under 5 killed by someone other than their parent, 80% were killed by males.[1]
Victims

Victimization rates for both males and females have been relatively stable since 2000.[1]
Males were more likely to be murder victims (76.8%).[1]
Females were most likely to be victims of domestic homicides (63.7%) and sex-related homicides (81.7%)[1]
Males were most likely to be victims of drug- (90.5%) and gang-related homicides (94.6%).[1]

This is just homicide,

* probably very outdated
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Statistics indicate that men are more likely to commit crime than women. For example, in 2002 80% of known offenders (481,000+) were men.

If men are committing more crime than women, would it be right to suggest that conviction would be higher for men?

[Lincoln]

I'll pull the source out later, its in a big law book from my years.

So then what is the point on talking about gender equality.
Both you and me, can agree that these inequalities are bad, they do nothing good for anyone.

Issues like representation, mentality, safety of men are fully supported through feminism.
It may just be me but I will fully support anyone who needs help/support.

Also about the men being more sentenced.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


This is just homicide,

* probably very outdated
[Only registered and activated users can see links]


If men are committing more crime than women, would it be right to suggest that conviction would be higher for men?

Feminism vs. what feminism is preaching is the issue. Look up any modern feminist speaker, and try to find where they talk on men-specific issues of equality, other than when they are calling the MRA stupid.

Then, on sentencing, you misunderstand. They are SENTENCED longer. As in, if a man and a women kill someone the same way, the man will be sentenced to 65% MORE prison time than the woman. [Only registered and activated users can see links]

The argument is that men and women aren't being treated equal in the law, and law is in favor of women.

The issue, as I brought up in my first, third, and fifth post, is that feminism is concerned with women's rights. It IS supposed to be equality, but with the large majority of its members being female, and therefore concerned with the pressing women's issues, men's rights are overlooked. And this means that we NEED a movement to deal with these overlooked issues.


"Men who murder their partners, are more likely not to be charged with murder than women who murder their partners. " I feel like this is either a misquote, or an assumption. Not calling you a liar, but given my cited statistic of 35% more leniency on average for woman, I find it hard to believe that Men who kill their wives get away with it more than women.

[Mama Bear]

The argument is that men and women aren't being treated equal in the law, and law is in favor of women.

You need to consider that, as you rightly pointed out earlier, that the majority of lawmakers in countries such as the US and Australia are men themselves. Logically, you would think that a patriarchal society would hold the best interests of its male inhabitants first, however I think it's also difficult for many of those in power to ignore their fundamental instinct to 'protect' women. Female criminals, aside from those who commit infantacide, tend to be treated with far less severity in both the media and the law (both male dominated and controlled industries). My only thought it that female offenders are seen to be less of a danger, less of a threat, and therefore don't need to be given the same strict punishments as their male counterparts. I'm not saying this is right or the way things should be, but until the 'powers that be' decide to concede to the equality of female offenders' risk, rather than treating them as silly broads, the law won't change. There are gender issues on both sides that are of concern, but nothing will get changed until our thinking does. Biologically speaking, females are typically smaller, weaker and under the protection of men. If we can overcome this innate belief, we can take steps in a positive direction.

Here in Australia we have recently had a horrible multiple murder commited by a woman; she killed 7 of her children and a niece. Because it is a mother and her children, we have the heightened outrage and disbelief, with shots of the heartbroken father. Straight away there was talk of mental illness as a possible defense, without any word or proof to prior history. Our society does not want to view women as capable criminals.

As I said before, I think it's strange that a legal system run by men doesn't serve the interests of men. I guess, too, it might be partly due to the mindset that it is punishing men who aren't like them. It's not a system designed to be harshest on the white collar conservatives. We'll go easy on the women, like good protectors, and be super tough on crime that is unlikely to be committed by people like us. That's where issues of race and class start to tussle for blame.

I think the fact of men's issues being overlooked in the equality part of feminism is why people are starting to call themselves "humanist" instead. Well, that and the stigma of the word "feminist", with its connotations of misandry, cats and sandy, sandy vaginas. I consider myself a feminist in the intended sense of the word, simply wanting equality between the genders. If I commit the same crime as my male partner, it's only fair that I receive the same punishment. Hell, I was probably the mastermind anyway. :P

In terms of the MRA as a group, I think it's always going to be difficult for a dominant societal group to organise itself like that without getting backlash. We have different pride days for races, sexualities, religions etc, but when someone (even jokingly) suggests one for the dominant group they are abused as being bigoted. White pride is obviously racist. MRA is totally sexist. Straight pride, pfft, talk about homophobic.

[Lincoln]

You need to consider that, as you rightly pointed out earlier, that the majority of lawmakers in countries such as the US and Australia are men themselves. Logically, you would think that a patriarchal society would hold the best interests of its male inhabitants first, however I think it's also difficult for many of those in power to ignore their fundamental instinct to 'protect' women. Female criminals, aside from those who commit infantacide, tend to be treated with far less severity in both the media and the law (both male dominated and controlled industries). My only thought it that female offenders are seen to be less of a danger, less of a threat, and therefore don't need to be given the same strict punishments as their male counterparts. I'm not saying this is right or the way things should be, but until the 'powers that be' decide to concede to the equality of female offenders' risk, rather than treating them as silly broads, the law won't change. There are gender issues on both sides that are of concern, but nothing will get changed until our thinking does. Biologically speaking, females are typically smaller, weaker and under the protection of men. If we can overcome this innate belief, we can take steps in a positive direction.

Here in Australia we have recently had a horrible multiple murder commited by a woman; she killed 7 of her children and a niece. Because it is a mother and her children, we have the heightened outrage and disbelief, with shots of the heartbroken father. Straight away there was talk of mental illness as a possible defense, without any word or proof to prior history. Our society does not want to view women as capable criminals.

As I said before, I think it's strange that a legal system run by men doesn't serve the interests of men. I guess, too, it might be partly due to the mindset that it is punishing men who aren't like them. It's not a system designed to be harshest on the white collar conservatives. We'll go easy on the women, like good protectors, and be super tough on crime that is unlikely to be committed by people like us. That's where issues of race and class start to tussle for blame.

I think the fact of men's issues being overlooked in the equality part of feminism is why people are starting to call themselves "humanist" instead. Well, that and the stigma of the word "feminist", with its connotations of misandry, cats and sandy, sandy vaginas. I consider myself a feminist in the intended sense of the word, simply wanting equality between the genders. If I commit the same crime as my male partner, it's only fair that I receive the same punishment. Hell, I was probably the mastermind anyway. :P

In terms of the MRA as a group, I think it's always going to be difficult for a dominant societal group to organise itself like that without getting backlash. We have different pride days for races, sexualities, religions etc, but when someone (even jokingly) suggests one for the dominant group they are abused as being bigoted. White pride is obviously racist. MRA is totally sexist. Straight pride, pfft, talk about homophobic.

This was a 10/10 post. Great wording, thanks so much for the input!

It's absolutely true that, as feminists write, a lot of 'men's rights issues' are a result of patriarchy. The idea that women get lesser sentences is a result of males believing that women need to be protected, I.e patriarchy. However, in a larger sense, we need to see that feminism, and those who have come to represent it, heavily prioritize negative towards women patriarchal actions over positive towards women patriarchal actions. The wage gap, for example, may be the biggest talking point of the feminist movement and philosophy. It is said that this is a part of the patriarchy. However, when it comes to lesser prison sentencing, which seems as beneficial to all but the philosophically heavy ones ( cue, net benefit is not there if it comes from a bigoted background arguments), the backlash is not nearly as heavy.

The answer isn't a counter movement. It's not attacking feminism, nor is it about attacking the MRM. It's about the issues of inequality. What we need is a movement founded irrespective of gender.

It has been said that racism arguments fall when the sole determining factor of someone's argument is their race, or their intended race to help with the argument. The same goes for gender-based issues. The point at which our movement is focused specifically on one gender is the point at which we recognize the (flawed) desirability in recognizing inequality of the sexes. The key thing to remember, In my shitty opinion: it shouldn't be about making women equal to men. It should be about making men and women equal.

[Mama Bear]

This was a 10/10 post. Great wording, thanks so much for the input!The key thing to remember, In my shitty opinion: it shouldn't be about making women equal to men. It should be about making men and women equal.
Thanks, I appreciate it. :)



In my shitty opinion: it shouldn't be about making women equal to men. It should be about making men and women equal.
I wouldn't call that a shitty opinion. It suggests equality as the norm, rather than needing to drag one to meet the other. In an ideal world, that would be the case.

[Lukaz]

It is undeniable that since the feminist movement began women started to have a "new voice" and in this movement they found a way to express their opinions and to fight for their rights. Even that things are better (in a sense that women are getting closer to achieve equal rights) I don't think that man kind will ever see or experience gender equality (any kind of equality, actually) and, in my opinion, this isn't about economics or the law, the main problem is actually social and cultural. If you think, if everyone in a society respected women, economic and constitutional difference between women/men wouldn't be a thing.

In my view, history is an important foundation for a society or culture and since this foundation is marked by thousands of years of disrespect I don't think the solution is to build respect on top of it.
The only way for equal rights to happen would be to each person in the world to look at their own "foundation" and understand that something is wrong, so that they can build a new one and cultivate love and peace, for what I've seen from us I would say that's extremely unlikely to happen.

By the way, great post, I think that it is extremely important to discuss this themes.

and again, sorry about my english.

[Lincoln]

It is undeniable that since the feminist movement began women started to have a "new voice" and in this movement they found a way to express their opinions and to fight for their rights. Even that things are better (in a sense that women are getting closer to achieve equal rights) I don't think that man kind will ever see or experience gender equality (any kind of equality, actually) and, in my opinion, this isn't about economics or the law, the main problem is actually social and cultural. If you think, if everyone in a society respected women, economic and constitutional difference between women/men wouldn't be a thing.

In my view, history is an important foundation for a society or culture and since this foundation is marked by thousands of years of disrespect I don't think the solution is to build respect on top of it.
The only way for equal rights to happen would be to each person in the world to look at their own "foundation" and understand that something is wrong, so that they can build a new one and cultivate love and peace, for what I've seen from us I would say that's extremely unlikely to happen.

By the way, great post, I think that it is extremely important to discuss this themes.

and again, sorry about my english.

To start, your English is totally fine, very great for someone who doesn't speak it naturally, thank you for the post!

That was my exact argument. The issues lay in the social aspects of gender. I get that. However, not every problem hurts women, or is perpetrated by men. For example, why do we not have better laws protecting 'female on male' rape? It's because society views men as the strong ones, and the ones that always want sex. This has minimal, if anything, to do with how we view women in society, yet it continues to be an issue of equality. We have men everywhere that feel like shit because they were 'forced to penetrate', but they aren't even protected by the law and are, in many cases, ridiculed for their 'weakness'.

Countless other examples show that it isn't just women that are viewed by society in a way that is overall harmful to our constituents.

And the problem with defending feminism as a protector of 'all rights', is that the social issues that permeate the male gender are typically not going to fall under the scope of feminists.

In some cases, male's problems are smaller than female's. At this point, an argument for prioritization of the larger and latter can be made. This does not, however, take away from the need to address the men-specific issues. Feminism cannot, and does not, do it all.

Finally, let's talk about society respecting women. IT's an issue, and one we need to do something about. And that is what feminists are trying to do. However, imagine that we lived in a society where WOMEN were perfectly respected. In this society, would you say that this would mean that women and men were equal? I wouldn't say so. The fact remains that, in certain instances, problems affect men that do not affect women (male rape). And at this point, there comes a need to regard these problems independently.

Thanks, and great post!

[Lukaz]

To start, your English is totally fine, very great for someone who doesn't speak it naturally, thank you for the post!

That was my exact argument. The issues lay in the social aspects of gender. I get that. However, not every problem hurts women, or is perpetrated by men. For example, why do we not have better laws protecting 'female on male' rape? It's because society views men as the strong ones, and the ones that always want sex. This has minimal, if anything, to do with how we view women in society, yet it continues to be an issue of equality. We have men everywhere that feel like shit because they were 'forced to penetrate', but they aren't even protected by the law and are, in many cases, ridiculed for their 'weakness'.

Countless other examples show that it isn't just women that are viewed by society in a way that is overall harmful to our constituents.

And the problem with defending feminism as a protector of 'all rights', is that the social issues that permeate the male gender are typically not going to fall under the scope of feminists.

In some cases, male's problems are smaller than female's. At this point, an argument for prioritization of the larger and latter can be made. This does not, however, take away from the need to address the men-specific issues. Feminism cannot, and does not, do it all.

Finally, let's talk about society respecting women. IT's an issue, and one we need to do something about. And that is what feminists are trying to do. However, imagine that we lived in a society where WOMEN were perfectly respected. In this society, would you say that this would mean that women and men were equal? I wouldn't say so. The fact remains that, in certain instances, problems affect men that do not affect women (male rape). And at this point, there comes a need to regard these problems independently.

Thanks, and great post!

I totally forgot to mention the other side of the coin, not just me but the entire world to be honest. Since the 19th century that women are the center of this movement and I'm not aware of something accomplished for the male gender within this 2 centuries.

I hope that one day there will be as much campaigns defending men rights as there is campaigns defending women rights and personally, I think that the fight for men rights will be much harder because no one speaks about it, there are fifty percent woman and fifty percent men in this world, the feminist movement started because 50% of the population or almost was uncomfortable with the way that they were treated, the problem is that the number of men who are also uncomfortable is small, besides, the men who suffer from this issue don't speak up for their rights because they probably wouldn't be heard. (This paragraph is pretty messed up)

As I said, gender equality is impossible for man kind and it will always be an issue, what we can do is discuss this themes in the internet, school, etc... and with them make other people think about this so that they can reach a conclusion and join the true movement.

Union makes strength, get a society united and you would get any constitutional change you want.

Thanks for replying ^_^

[Lincoln]

I totally forgot to mention the other side of the coin, not just me but the entire world to be honest. Since the 19th century that women are the center of this movement and I'm not aware of something accomplished for the male gender within this 2 centuries.

I hope that one day there will be as much campaigns defending men rights as there is campaigns defending women rights and personally, I think that the fight for men rights will be much harder because no one speaks about it, there are fifty percent woman and fifty percent men in this world, the feminist movement started because 50% of the population or almost was uncomfortable with the way that they were treated, the problem is that the number of men who are also uncomfortable is small, besides, the men who suffer from this issue don't speak up for their rights because they probably wouldn't be heard. (This paragraph is pretty messed up)

As I said, gender equality is impossible for man kind and it will always be an issue, what we can do is discuss this themes in the internet, school, etc... and with them make other people think about this so that they can reach a conclusion and join the true movement.

Union makes strength, get a society united and you would get any constitutional change you want.

Thanks for replying ^_^

No problem! I totally agree, but if I may:

"not aware of something accomplished for the male gender within this 2 centuries. " Look up the 'just detention' organization. They seem to have been founded by mens rights activists, and they do a lot of good attempting to combat male-on-male prison rape. This problem was overlooked by many until this organization. This is one of the few organizations that I actively donate to, they are dong something many are scared to.

[Mama Bear]

For example, why do we not have better laws protecting 'female on male' rape? It's because society views men as the strong ones, and the ones that always want sex. This has minimal, if anything, to do with how we view women in society, yet it continues to be an issue of equality. We have men everywhere that feel like shit because they were 'forced to penetrate', but they aren't even protected by the law and are, in many cases, ridiculed for their 'weakness'.

This example reminds me of the changes and developments in law and society regarding spousal rape. The viewpoint used to be that 'they're married, so she can't be raped', just as many still believe 'he got hard, so he wanted it'. Recognition has been achieved for the former, and is slowly starting to happen for the latter. Not quickly enough, mind you, but let's hope it follows the precedent of the other 'impossible' rape scenario.
,
In my country we have a very strong culture of men as stoic and tough. Complaints by men are met with derision, for being a 'sook' or a 'whinger'. It'll be a very difficult mindset to change.

---------- Post added at 04:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:45 PM ----------


I totally forgot to mention the other side of the coin, not just me but the entire world to be honest. Since the 19th century that women are the center of this movement and I'm not aware of something accomplished for the male gender within this 2 centuries.

I know that parental rights for fathers is something that has gained a lot of ground in the past 10 years in my country, rather than the assumption that the mother should have all the rights.

[Lukaz]

No problem! I totally agree, but if I may:

"not aware of something accomplished for the male gender within this 2 centuries. " Look up the 'just detention' organization. They seem to have been founded by mens rights activists, and they do a lot of good attempting to combat male-on-male prison rape. This problem was overlooked by many until this organization. This is one of the few organizations that I actively donate to, they are dong something many are scared to.
I didn't know about the existence of this organization. It makes me happy to see people fighting for the minority of the minorities and to see problems that were underestimated to gain some visibility.
Thank you!!

[Lincoln]

This example reminds me of the changes and developments in law and society regarding spousal rape. The viewpoint used to be that 'they're married, so she can't be raped', just as many still believe 'he got hard, so he wanted it'. Recognition has been achieved for the former, and is slowly starting to happen for the latter. Not quickly enough, mind you, but let's hope it follows the precedent of the other 'impossible' rape scenario.
,
In my country we have a very strong culture of men as stoic and tough. Complaints by men are met with derision, for being a 'sook' or a 'whinger'. It'll be a very difficult mindset to change.

---------- Post added at 04:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:45 PM ----------



I know that parental rights for fathers is something that has gained a lot of ground in the past 10 years in my country, rather than the assumption that the mother should have all the rights.

Absolutely. The point here is that both sides have issues that need to be dealt with. Although often culminating in political, legal, and economic ways, the roots are always in the social aspect.

[I_royalty_I]

I don't mind feminism, but there are "feminists" who are bordering on sexism. That's the point where I tune out and immediately discredit anything else they have to say. I think I've posted before about how I was going to class one time and held the door open for this girl. She got mad and said something along the lines of, thanks but I could have gotten it. Coincidentally, same girl behind me when I was leaving my class. It was one of those times where they are far enough away and you aren't sure whether to wait or not. So I let the door go because I saw who was coming. This time I got a, thanks for holding the door, dick. Can win sometimes.

The main issue that I have with the movement is that it's something that isn't changed overnight, while people think it should be. There are some things that could easily be changed, little tidbits of legislature that I've seen posted in this thread, sure. But then there are other things like comparing how much a man makes versus how much a woman makes at the same job. Or comparing how many upper management are males versus females. These types of statistics seem kind of repetitive to me. I feel like eventually things will even outs but at this point, men have had a leg up for awhile. So expecting the field to be level won't happen instantly. You have to wait til all the old folks who fucked things up for our generation to die out and retire before any real progress can be made

[boomer]

There are people of both genders who make both sides look bad...
I just wish the more level-headed, sensible people are the ones who are heard, instead of the radical voices that tend to make the news when something extreme happens.

We need feminism.
We need recognition for men's rights and problems too.

We don't need people who think these are somehow mutually exclusive.

[Lincoln]

There are people of both genders who make both sides look bad...
I just wish the more level-headed, sensible people are the ones who are heard, instead of the radical voices that tend to make the news when something extreme happens.

We need feminism.
We need recognition for men's rights and problems too.

We don't need people who think these are somehow mutually exclusive.

I don't think anyone actually believes that rights for women can't coexist with rights for men. The argument here to look at is that feminism, idealistically, is supposed to represent equality. But it doesn't do much for men specific rights. So then, we do need a movement for men-specific rights.

[spleef35]

When it comes to gender equality, I think we should be treated the same.

The concerns I have about gender definition relate to trans-sexuality. It bothers me that people with a "feminine" body, and a "masculine" mind, believe that the two things need to match in order to be one gender. What's so wrong with having a masculine mind and a feminine body (or vice versa)? I often wonder if these people don't feel right because they feel like their body made a mistake with their gender during their development (genetically speaking), or do the feel like they aren't right because they don't fit a supposed societal norm? Granted, we can do what we want with our bodies, but the question is, why do we need to do it? Ultimately, what will it accomplish? Will someone who chose to change their sex actually feel like they fit into society? I'm not sure they always will, given the extreme hatred that people who are trans-sexual face.

Some cultures nowadays have a third gender, rather than just male or female. I think there are many people who are in between, or better said, a little bit of both.

[Mama Bear]

The concerns I have about gender definition relate to trans-sexuality. It bothers me that people with a "feminine" body, and a "masculine" mind, believe that the two things need to match in order to be one gender. What's so wrong with having a masculine mind and a feminine body (or vice versa)? I often wonder if these people don't feel right because they feel like their body made a mistake with their gender during their development (genetically speaking), or do the feel like they aren't right because they don't fit a supposed societal norm? Granted, we can do what we want with our bodies, but the question is, why do we need to do it? Ultimately, what will it accomplish? Will someone who chose to change their sex actually feel like they fit into society? I'm not sure they always will, given the extreme hatred that people who are trans-sexual face.

Some cultures nowadays have a third gender, rather than just male or female. I think there are many people who are in between, or better said, a little bit of both.

That might be the next step.
Though today there is increasing acceptance of transgendered people by the cis world, I think much of the reason that they want to physically embody what their mind feels like is to make up for the time lost by hiding it. One of my friends became very femme after transitioning, and said that for her it was about rewarding herself with what was previously denied. Everyone is different of course. It can be difficult enough to come to terms with the duality of mind and body as it is. I wonder if the recent Glee story-line will assist the younger generation in accepting transgendered people.

I have another friend who came out as intersex after spending much of their life as an openly gay man. I admire how fluid and free they seem now that they're not bound to a gender and the societal expectations that come with it (either to conform to to rebel against). Unfortunately it takes society as a whole a while to catch up. My friend will undoubtedly encounter ignorance all their life.

[spleef35]

That might be the next step.
Though today there is increasing acceptance of transgendered people by the cis world, I think much of the reason that they want to physically embody what their mind feels like is to make up for the time lost by hiding it. One of my friends became very femme after transitioning, and said that for her it was about rewarding herself with what was previously denied. Everyone is different of course. It can be difficult enough to come to terms with the duality of mind and body as it is. I wonder if the recent Glee story-line will assist the younger generation in accepting transgendered people.

I have another friend who came out as intersex after spending much of their life as an openly gay man. I admire how fluid and free they seem now that they're not bound to a gender and the societal expectations that come with it (either to conform to to rebel against). Unfortunately it takes society as a whole a while to catch up. My friend will undoubtedly encounter ignorance all their life.

I admit that changing my body to match my mind is difficult to understand. And it has nothing to do with how I was brought up, either. I definitely have a male-oriented mindset, always have. And I enjoy my body the way it is. Changing it wouldn't make me any more me than the me that I currently am.