1st world Feminism. Is it necessary?

Revoltingest · Oct 7, 2015

psychoslice said:
That's what I'm saying, if we have feminism, we then need the opposite , there are a lot of women out there that do harm to men also, not just physical, but mental as well.

Men do at least as much harm to other men as do women.
It works that way for women too.
(Note that women are the ones with the most voting power in electing politicians.)
Since both genders cause problems for both, neither is the enemy or the ally of either.

psychoslice · Oct 7, 2015

Revoltingest said:
Men do at least as much harm to other men as do women.
It works that way for women too.
(Note that women are the ones with the most voting power in electing politicians.)
Since both genders cause problems for both, neither is the enemy or the ally of either.

I agree with that, but does some people take it too far, and hate the opposite sex, I have seen just that.

Leftimies · Oct 8, 2015

psychoslice said:
I agree with that, but does some people take it too far, and hate the opposite sex, I have seen just that.

In recent years, I've seen more and more encampment and hostility between feminists and the men's rights activists (MRA). The divide is deepening, and it has been worrying me for some time. It hasn't yet reflected profoundly into the general population, and I have my doubts that it ever will, but even so the current situation requires some remedy.

Now, one might argue that it is only the radical fringe groups of feminism and MRA that practice this, which is true, but what is important to note is that their following is growing. Monk of Reason here postulated that we need these specialist groups, but this situation is exactly where it leads to. Instead, we should care less about the finer nuances of human life and try to see social phenomena through greater context. Feminism and the MRAs are two sides of the same coin, and we shouldn't need either.

Instead of looking at every issue that women and men face through narrow, specific context, we should regard them as humans in distress and approach the situation from a human, rather than gendered, perspective. After all, that is the only way to treat them equally and to avoid encampment and further divide. Gosh, some people just miss the fact that the Humanity is what unites every human here; thats where the true essence of equality lies.

Monk Of Reason · Oct 8, 2015

Leftimies said:
Now, one might argue that it is only the radical fringe groups of feminism and MRA that practice this, which is true, but what is important to note is that their following is growing. Monk of Reason here postulated that we need these specialist groups, but this situation is exactly where it leads to. Instead, we should care less about the finer nuances of human life and try to see social phenomena through greater context. Feminism and the MRAs are two sides of the same coin, and we shouldn't need either.

I have debated the topic of MRA quite a bit over the years of feminism. The current MRA and feminism are not two sides of the same coin. If one thinks so then one is not informed on the current MRA.

Originally in the 60's and 70's the first of the three waves of MRA began. It was an organization that went hand in hand with feminism and they both worked together in rallies. They were two sides of the same coin. Fast forward to the 80's. At this time both feminism and MRA had fallen out of the spotlight of current politics. Feminism still existed but more or less the MRA was non-existent. The second revitalized wave of MRA was anything but menisit philosophy. It was actually founded on the conservative notion of a family structure where women were supposed to be at home and men went out to work. They were not for advancing men's rights but re-claiming the conservative structure of families and halting this "independent woman" nonsense. They mostly died out and this marked the first "anti-feminist" version of the MRA.

Now fast forward to the age of the internet. The MRA has gained new footing in online communities that have more or less been unanimously led by anti-feminists. There is little to nothing being done about advancing men's rights and it seems that has been left to the even smaller divisions of groups such as "fathers united" and the like. Thanks to feminists and Father's groups uniting together they gained many laws to make the custody of children after divorces more equal. In some states currently it is totally equal and nationally a Father can appeal a courts decision based on suspected sex based discrimination. TBH this is the only major accomplishment I have seen in menisit issues and the MRA was no where to be found.

I implore you to go and research MRA websites, articles, blogs. ect.

For example I just googled Mens rights activists just now. I went to the first link which is called http://mensrightsactivism.com/ . This is the largest and most centralized site for the MRA. What is the first article when i clicked it just now? "Bill Cosby’s victims? Or just a bunch of drug whoring star ****ers?"
This isn't uncommon. This isn't a special case. This is the vast majority of cases. So do not mistake the MRA as the flip side of feminism. I am highly distressed at the fact there doesn't seem to be a flip side to feminism for men's rights. Most that I have found are specialized such as for gay men, male victims of domestic abuse, father's rights advocates and things like that.

psychoslice · Oct 8, 2015

Leftimies said:
In recent years, I've seen more and more encampment and hostility between feminists and the men's rights activists (MRA). The divide is deepening, and it has been worrying me for some time. It hasn't yet reflected profoundly into the general population, and I have my doubts that it ever will, but even so the current situation requires some remedy.

Now, one might argue that it is only the radical fringe groups of feminism and MRA that practice this, which is true, but what is important to note is that their following is growing. Monk of Reason here postulated that we need these specialist groups, but this situation is exactly where it leads to. Instead, we should care less about the finer nuances of human life and try to see social phenomena through greater context. Feminism and the MRAs are two sides of the same coin, and we shouldn't need either.

Instead of looking at every issue that women and men face through narrow, specific context, we should regard them as humans in distress and approach the situation from a human, rather than gendered, perspective. After all, that is the only way to treat them equally and to avoid encampment and further divide. Gosh, some people just miss the fact that the Humanity is what unites every human here; thats where the true essence of equality lies.

Yes and well said, I think this would also apply to racism ?.

Leftimies · Oct 8, 2015

Monk Of Reason said:
I have debated the topic of MRA quite a bit over the years of feminism. The current MRA and feminism are not two sides of the same coin. If one thinks so then one is not informed on the current MRA.

Originally in the 60's and 70's the first of the three waves of MRA began. It was an organization that went hand in hand with feminism and they both worked together in rallies. They were two sides of the same coin. Fast forward to the 80's. At this time both feminism and MRA had fallen out of the spotlight of current politics. Feminism still existed but more or less the MRA was non-existent. The second revitalized wave of MRA was anything but menisit philosophy. It was actually founded on the conservative notion of a family structure where women were supposed to be at home and men went out to work. They were not for advancing men's rights but re-claiming the conservative structure of families and halting this "independent woman" nonsense. They mostly died out and this marked the first "anti-feminist" version of the MRA.

Now fast forward to the age of the internet. The MRA has gained new footing in online communities that have more or less been unanimously led by anti-feminists. There is little to nothing being done about advancing men's rights and it seems that has been left to the even smaller divisions of groups such as "fathers united" and the like. Thanks to feminists and Father's groups uniting together they gained many laws to make the custody of children after divorces more equal. In some states currently it is totally equal and nationally a Father can appeal a courts decision based on suspected sex based discrimination. TBH this is the only major accomplishment I have seen in menisit issues and the MRA was no where to be found.

I implore you to go and research MRA websites, articles, blogs. ect.

For example I just googled Mens rights activists just now. I went to the first link which is called http://mensrightsactivism.com/ . This is the largest and most centralized site for the MRA. What is the first article when i clicked it just now? "Bill Cosby’s victims? Or just a bunch of drug whoring star ****ers?"
This isn't uncommon. This isn't a special case. This is the vast majority of cases. So do not mistake the MRA as the flip side of feminism. I am highly distressed at the fact there doesn't seem to be a flip side to feminism for men's rights. Most that I have found are specialized such as for gay men, male victims of domestic abuse, father's rights advocates and things like that.

But there shouldn't be a flip side; there should be no coin in the first place. Human rights in themselves are sufficient, are they not? If men and women should have same rights, they do not need separate movements. They need one movement. Egalitarianism, or perhaps even more broadly some sort of Universal Humanism. In my opinion, people are doing a great disservice to themselves by allowing the identity/gender/race politics to dominate the discourse. There is no equality whatsoever to be found from that practice. Well, at least so I contend.

I am aware of what you said in regards to the relationship between Feminism and MRAs, but you must know that Feminism itself is not a unified movement and has its own radical faction, which I dread. As for the MRAs and male anti-feminists, the most disturbing movement is the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) which adheres to a philosophy where men comprehensively disengage from relationships with women. I have never seen a relationship gap this wide between men and women emerge, and the whole ordeal makes me depressed. Although, after a quick look at radical feminist thought, I think no one can blame men for going their own way - there is something particularly repulsive about radical feminism, and its not just the lack of coherent thought process.

It would have never happened if we had kept race and gender out of the core of the discourse, and stuck to a very basic and inclusive human criteria in policing individual rights. Such discourse would have covered various groups of people, and tackled gender issues, but with a universal human context. When there are individual cases, trust the human ingenuity and allow common sense to prevail - common sense educated by humanism, that is. There is no justification for the micro-managing of human rights that is characteristic for identity/gender/race politics. If identity/gender/race politics are continued, eventually people will grow cynical of equality - this is already happening. And it might just be disastrous.

Best solutions are simple, because they work the best under the greatest variety of circumstances. Complexity, as much as we love it, is fragile.

Revoltingest · Oct 8, 2015

Leftimies said:
But there shouldn't be a flip side; there should be no coin in the first place. Human rights in themselves are sufficient, are they not? If men and women should have same rights, they do not need separate movements. They need one movement. Egalitarianism, or perhaps even more broadly some sort of Universal Humanism. In my opinion, people are doing a great disservice to themselves by allowing the identity/gender/race politics to dominate the discourse. There is no equality whatsoever to be found from that practice. Well, at least so I contend.

I am aware of what you said in regards to the relationship between Feminism and MRAs, but you must know that Feminism itself is not a unified movement and has its own radical faction, which I dread. As for the MRAs and male anti-feminists, the most disturbing movement is the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) which adheres to a philosophy where men comprehensively disengage from relationships with women. I have never seen a relationship gap this wide between men and women emerge, and the whole ordeal makes me depressed. Although, after a quick look at radical feminist thought, I think no one can blame men for going their own way - there is something particularly repulsive about radical feminism, and its not just the lack of coherent thought process.

It would have never happened if we had kept race and gender out of the core of the discourse, and stuck to a very basic and inclusive human criteria in policing individual rights. Such discourse would have covered various groups of people, and tackled gender issues, but with a universal human context. When there are individual cases, trust the human ingenuity and allow common sense to prevail - common sense educated by humanism, that is. There is no justification for the micro-managing of human rights that is characteristic for identity/gender/race politics. If identity/gender/race politics are continued, eventually people will grow cynical of equality - this is already happening. And it might just be disastrous.

Best solutions are simple, because they work the best under the greatest variety of circumstances. Complexity, as much as we love it, is fragile.

Individual people will decide what they need.
If they're advancing justice, even narrowly focused justice, then it's all good.

Saint Frankenstein · Oct 8, 2015

psychoslice said:
The thing is if we have Feminism, then we need the opposite, which would be masculineism if there is such a word, but the point is that there is the opposite, and that is not healthy at all.

Better yet, just do away with identity politics as a whole and just be straight up egalitarians. At this point, identity politics is poisonous, divisive by design, egotistical and supremist.

Leftimies · Oct 8, 2015

Revoltingest said:
Individual people will decide what they need.
If they're advancing justice, even narrowly focused justice, then it's all good.

Even at the risk of creating a backlash that, ultimately, might undo all the progress they aimed to achieve?
Besides, justice is justice; it is moral agency and moral judgement. I don't think one should approach such a field
with a narrow focus. Narrow justice has rarely worked well, amongst those examples some of the more notorious
periods in certain religions' and ideologies' histories. Narrow justice often comes at the expense of others and,
in that light, is quite a poor brand of justice.

Revoltingest · Oct 8, 2015

danddolo said:
Why would you want to discuss an issue unless youre interested in it and have something to lose or something to gain from it? so i was asking for the motivation and interest of his defense of gender equality. if he has only little to no justification then id view it as bizzarely arrogant to defend a position you yourself are ignorant about.

I don't understand this.
(Fatigue induced hebetude.)

Revoltingest · Oct 8, 2015

Leftimies said:
Even at the risk of creating a backlash that, ultimately, might undo all the progress they aimed to achieve?
Besides, justice is justice; it is moral agency and moral judgement. I don't think one should approach such a field
with a narrow focus. Narrow justice has rarely worked well, amongst those examples some of the more notorious
periods in certain religions' and ideologies' histories. Narrow justice often comes at the expense of others and,
in that light, is quite a poor brand of justice.

They risk backlash if they pursue the rights of their own at the expense of others, or by abusive tactics.
Narrow focus is quite normal......feminism, MRA, gun rights, black rights, prisoner rights, etc.
Not everyone is called to pursue the general case.
So some prefer feminism to egalitarianism, while I prefer the latter to the former.
(I tried a thread to explain this, but some people caused a train wreck, & locked it up.)

Leftimies · Oct 8, 2015

Revoltingest said:
They risk backlash if they pursue the rights of their own at the expense of others, or by abusive tactics.
Narrow focus is quite normal......feminism, MRA, gun rights, black rights, prisoner rights, etc.
Not everyone is called to pursue the general case.
So some prefer feminism to egalitarianism, while I prefer the latter to the former.
(I tried a thread to explain this, but some people caused a train wreck, & locked it up.)

Well, of course everyone is free to pursue whatever it is that their heart desires, as long as nobody is harmed. This naturally includes silly pursuits (some of the best things in life are silly pursuits). However, when it reaches the point where feminist students aim to suppress their opposition at campuses and in some cases get students expelled based on something said on twitter (that, supposedly, was 'triggering' and traumatic); when we have feminists micro-managing how men should sit on metros (and make it into a law, resulting to arrests) and to 'check their privilege' constantly, it should be obvious that its not a justice movement, but an impunity movement. Also, they label anyone who doesn't agree with them 'misogynist', no matter how illogical that assertion would be - a form of shaming.

A culture where a 'white straight cis-male' is a slur, is not a fine culture. Particularly if you happen to be one. In fact, I've met feminists who have turned out to be some of the most racist and sexist people I ever knew. These are the radical kinds, and their numbers are growing explosively in social media. Hell, they completely took over the site Tumblr and made it their own little empire. I had the misfortune of being there when it happened. This the 'social justice warrior' variety of Feminism, which I suspect is the most popular kind. I just haven't, in my experience, seen any "justice" pursuit amongst them.

Revoltingest · Oct 8, 2015

Leftimies said:
Well, of course everyone is free to pursue whatever it is that their heart desires, as long as nobody is harmed. This naturally includes silly pursuits (some of the best things in life are silly pursuits). However, when it reaches the point where feminist students aim to suppress their opposition at campuses and in some cases get students expelled based on something said on twitter (that, supposedly, was 'triggering' and traumatic); when we have feminists micro-managing how men should sit on metros (and make it into a law, resulting to arrests) and to 'check their privilege' constantly, it should be obvious that its not a justice movement, but an impunity movement. Also, they label anyone who doesn't agree with them 'misogynist', no matter how illogical that assertion would be - a form of shaming.
A culture where a 'white straight cis-male' is a slur, is not a fine culture. Particularly if you happen to be one. In fact, I've met feminists who have turned out to be some of the most racist and sexist people I ever knew. These are the radical kinds, and their numbers are growing explosively in social media. Hell, they completely took over the site Tumblr and made it their own little empire. I had the misfortune of being there when it happened. This the 'social justice warrior' variety of Feminism, which I suspect is the most popular kind. I just haven't, in my experience, seen any "justice" pursuit amongst them.

Of course, the misbehaviors you cite are misguided, & serve the opposite of justice.
SJWs who would attack males, females, trans, whites, religions, etc, deserve our scorn.

psychoslice · Oct 8, 2015

Saint Frankenstein said:
Better yet, just do away with identity politics as a whole and just be straight up egalitarians. At this point, identity politics is poisonous, divisive by design, egotistical and supremist.

Yes most certainly, anything that divides us from each other can never be good, and that includes racism of any kind.

Curious George · Oct 8, 2015

Leftimies said:
I am aware of what you said in regards to the relationship between Feminism and MRAs, but you must know that Feminism itself is not a unified movement and has its own radical faction, which I dread. As for the MRAs and male anti-feminists, the most disturbing movement is the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) which adheres to a philosophy where men comprehensively disengage from relationships with women. I have never seen a relationship gap this wide between men and women emerge, and the whole ordeal makes me depressed. Although, after a quick look at radical feminist thought, I think no one can blame men for going their own way - there is something particularly repulsive about radical feminism, and its not just the lack of coherent thought process.

.

I am reading this thinking, how prevalent is the "radical feminist" view. Most people I know do not consider themselves feminists, let alone radical feminists. So, I would assume we could agree that "radical" feminism is only a small percentage of the total population. How then, is a reactionary element wherein "no one can blame men for going there own way?" This makes no sense.

These reactionaries are not going to be treating radical feminists, or likely even feminists with this contempt. They are then attacking women that don't hold the point of view to which they are reacting. The lack of logic behind this doesn't raise questions?

Were they to react to "radical" feminism, by addressing "radical" feminists, then maybe (and a very big maybe) less people could fault them.

Curious George · Oct 8, 2015

Leftimies said:
But there shouldn't be a flip side; there should be no coin in the first place. Human rights in themselves are sufficient, are they not? If men and women should have same rights, they do not need separate movements. They need one movement. Egalitarianism, or perhaps even more broadly some sort of Universal Humanism. In my opinion, people are doing a great disservice to themselves by allowing the identity/gender/race politics to dominate the discourse. There is no equality whatsoever to be found from that practice. Well, at least so I contend.
.

This has been addressed with the analogy of general practitioners vs. Specialists.

But perhaps I can explain a different way. We have all sorts of special interest lobbyists. Some of these lobby corporate interests, some lobby humanitarian interests, some lobby religious interests, some lobby workers interests, etc.

Now pick any major category and you will find sub-groups in that category. Environmental groups exist. Some environmental groups are broad, some are specific, but no one says well you already have environmental groups so therefore you save the whale groups are causing strife.

There is nothing wrong with having groups with a more specialized or nuanced advocacy. Why do you think there is?

Curious George · Oct 9, 2015

Leftimies said:
It would have never happened if we had kept race and gender out of the core of the discourse, and stuck to a very basic and inclusive human criteria in policing individual rights. Such discourse would have covered various groups of people, and tackled gender issues, but with a universal human context. When there are individual cases, trust the human ingenuity and allow common sense to prevail - common sense educated by humanism, that is. There is no justification for the micro-managing of human rights that is characteristic for identity/gender/race politics. If identity/gender/race politics are continued, eventually people will grow cynical of equality - this is already happening. And it might just be disastrous.

Best solutions are simple, because they work the best under the greatest variety of circumstances. Complexity, as much as we love it, is fragile.

How can you keep the basis on which specific inequality revolves out of the core discourse?

You seem to want to imagine that race, gender, etc are not part of the equation, but they are. The inquiry does not end once you realize something is not facially discriminatory.

For example, let us look at a policy that says no pets. Pretty simple right. I doubt the person who wrote the policy intended for it to be discriminatory, but it is possible that is the ultimate effect.

Now if we are disproportionately affecting one group with our laws, or regulations, or rules, or etc. Shouldn't any real attempt at equality address this? And how is this to happen if we leave the basis, on which the disparate impact occurs, out of the equation?

Monk Of Reason · Oct 9, 2015

Leftimies said:
But there shouldn't be a flip side; there should be no coin in the first place. Human rights in themselves are sufficient, are they not? If men and women should have same rights, they do not need separate movements. They need one movement. Egalitarianism, or perhaps even more broadly some sort of Universal Humanism. In my opinion, people are doing a great disservice to themselves by allowing the identity/gender/race politics to dominate the discourse. There is no equality whatsoever to be found from that practice. Well, at least so I contend.

Name one group that has ever gotten anything done that was all inclusive all representing? How does one function? How does it focus its attention? What side of the argument does it argue? How can there be a consensus? That is where I disagree with you. If it were possible to have a single unifying movement without going into sub-categories I would be all for it. However that doesn't actually function. We already have equitarian umbrella and several under than umbrella. Feminism for example is under the umbrella and part of the equitarian thought. It doesn't stand apart from it.

I am aware of what you said in regards to the relationship between Feminism and MRAs, but you must know that Feminism itself is not a unified movement and has its own radical faction, which I dread. As for the MRAs and male anti-feminists, the most disturbing movement is the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) which adheres to a philosophy where men comprehensively disengage from relationships with women. I have never seen a relationship gap this wide between men and women emerge, and the whole ordeal makes me depressed. Although, after a quick look at radical feminist thought, I think no one can blame men for going their own way - there is something particularly repulsive about radical feminism, and its not just the lack of coherent thought process.

Radical feminism isn't in any means the majority of feminist. There are radicals of any group that often say and do things that the majority does not agree with. The problem with the MRA was that it doesn't seem to be a small fringe group. IT seems to be the majority.

Though I would like an example of what you mean by radical feminism. This means many different things to different people. To some it means misquoting and taking out of context the words of feminist bloggers or people on television to make it look like they said that all men need to be castrated when that in fact isn't in any way what happened. Then there are feminist that claim little things that shouldn't particularly matter in the grand scheme of things. Then there are other more hateful feminist. Which one do you refer to?

It would have never happened if we had kept race and gender out of the core of the discourse, and stuck to a very basic and inclusive human criteria in policing individual rights. Such discourse would have covered various groups of people, and tackled gender issues, but with a universal human context. When there are individual cases, trust the human ingenuity and allow common sense to prevail - common sense educated by humanism, that is. There is no justification for the micro-managing of human rights that is characteristic for identity/gender/race politics. If identity/gender/race politics are continued, eventually people will grow cynical of equality - this is already happening. And it might just be disastrous.

Best solutions are simple, because they work the best under the greatest variety of circumstances. Complexity, as much as we love it, is fragile.

In America the vast majority have always been too "okay" with racial problems. It is human nature that if something isn't your problem then not only do you usually not notice it but you don't fight for it even when you do notice it.

Lets take the "black lives matter" movement. They have done things I have disagreed with but overall they are doing something that needs to be done. They, as a minority and affected demographic, are speaking out to try and get things changed. They are not suffering now more than they did before. They spoke up and started a movement. This wouldn't have happened with a bunch of white kids starting up a movement about "black lives matter". It isn't about all lives matter. Its a very specific problem and challenging that problem for racial equality. Same for feminist. If we don't tackle the problem of inequality between the sexes it won't actually change.

MysticSang'ha · Oct 9, 2015

I've given links to some of my favorite feminist links. I'd like the naysayers to find the hate and misandry in any of them.

The vast vast majority of feminists (and I've identified myself as one for nearly 40 years now) are not tumblr feminists (who are more RadFem and TERF separatists). Most of us are the "lean in" kind where we carry out our discussions in our spaces while also reaching out for education and resource acquisition/sharing.

I'm curious if self-described egalitarians and anti-feminists would have fought for suffrage 100 years ago. Let's at least start there.

MysticSang'ha · Oct 9, 2015

Monk Of Reason said:
.... It is human nature that if something isn't your problem then not only do you usually not notice it but you don't fight for it even when you do notice it ...

Highlighted for truth.

1st world Feminism. Is it necessary?

Pragmatic Libertarian

Veteran Member

Dwelling in the Principle

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

Veteran Member

Dwelling in the Principle

Pragmatic Libertarian

Wanderer From Afar

Dwelling in the Principle

Pragmatic Libertarian

Pragmatic Libertarian

Dwelling in the Principle

Pragmatic Libertarian

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

Big Squishy Hugger

Big Squishy Hugger