• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ladies on the forum, do you consider yourself to be a feminist?

Alceste

Vagabond
The Impression I have is that it's not what one stands for so much as the baggage laden label which induces an unwanted reaction.
Is it time to keep the values you have but change the name to "egalitarianist"?

There's nothing wrong with the label, I think. It's got history, and some amazing accomplishments we should all be proud of. It's not long ago women were not considered legal persons at all, and we still need to fight for our reproductive freedom in most countries. Also the situation for women in many parts of the world is still appalling. We're not done yet, obviously. There's no point obscuring that the primary focus of feminism is issues that affect women.
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
Because feminism not always means equality, sadly.

By dictionary, it shoulud meanthat though, but the term itself lends to problems.

We've been through this before, MM. You have yet to offer an example that is solely from feminism itself, and not from a patriarchal system that hurts both genders.

But, since I asked Dawny for examples of misandry within feminism itself, I'll ask you: what from feminism itself calls for inequality where women are favored and men are disenfranchised?
 

dust1n

Zindīq
We've been through this before, MM. You have yet to offer an example that is solely from feminism itself, and not from a patriarchal system that hurts both genders.

But, since I asked Dawny for examples of misandry within feminism itself, I'll ask you: what from feminism itself calls for inequality where women are favored and men are disenfranchised?

""Life" in this "society" being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of "society" being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex." - Solanas

:D Just kidding, SCUM manifesto is thought to be a very intense parody of patriarchal society. I don't know of any feminist text that explicitly thinks of man as less than woman.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Many people understand feminism as being defined as 'organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests'. So they feel the need to say they are also egalitarian.

There is a perceived notion that feminists don't "fight'' against men only conscription, for example. By the way, what was the last time that this happened?
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Many people understand feminism as being defined as 'organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests'. So they feel the need to say they are also egalitarian.

There is a perceived notion that feminists don't "fight'' against men only conscription, for example. By the way, what was the last time that this happened?

I think feminists in general would be more inclined to fight conscription for their sons than to fight to have their daughters conscripted as well.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
Last edited:

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
Again, I wholeheartedly disagree.

Can you describe how? Give some examples?

MIsandrist: One who hates men.

Feminist: One who advocates for social, economic, political, legal, etc. equality for women.

We have to assume that a feminist at minimum, wants to have equal rights to men.

Well, I could hate men with fury but still respect that men and women deserve equal rights and should not have the ability to impede upon the success and freedoms of the other.

I could consider myself a misandrist and still very much be a feminist. If anything, misandry can fuel feminism. How these two concepts correlate is contingent upon the indiviudal. I can understand the rationale behind self-labeling as both.
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The one that asks for equality.
So this one?

Two of the most prominent men's rights advocates, Warren Farrell and Jack Kammer, have been said to define "masculism" as "1. the belief that equality between the sexes requires the recognition and redress of prejudice and discrimination against men as well as women. 2. the movement organized around this belief."[1]
If so, then a few things pop out for me:

- it's not only about addressing inequality; it's about advocating for a specific method to address that inequality. It doesn't automatically follow that a person who favours equality must be a masculist by that definition.

- while I think that gender roles and the like can harm men as well as women, on the whole, I think that in general, the harm that happens to men applies to certain categories of men, not all men as a general category across the board. I think that if we're trying to address the harm experienced by these men, there are probably more relevant characteristics than just gender.

- it talks about a "movement". To me, this term suggests advocating for attention and resources to be devoted to this issue rather than others. I question whether masculism should be a priority relative to other issues.

- further on the idea of a "movement", the only self-described movement I've seen for masculism includes many things I see as negative. I worry that it seems to be about only paying lip-service to the idea of equality while defending gender roles I see as harmful.

Feminism today also has double connotation. Maybe wiki dosnt say it, but too many peoe I ve heard saying "i dont believe in feminism nor machismo". Today there are cnnotations of feminism being women>men
Who says this, exactly? I've never heard anyone actually acquainted with feminism say things like this.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
I think feminists in general would be more inclined to fight conscription for their sons than to fight to have their daughters conscripted as well.

I agree. :yes:
Fighting for equality on this front seems much more in line with what feminists have upheld than the other option(s).
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member

1) Any examples from feminism itself. Not a deviantArt account.
2) I checked to see about any Macphail house in Toronto in the early '80s, and I can't find any sources to back up her claims. Plus, I could only watch about 10 minutes of her story before I had a difficult time getting through a certain hostility toward lesbianism. What was her point?

And again, from feminism itself. Any published writings from feminist thinkers who legitimately can be thought of as forefront to any wave of feminism?
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
MIsandrist: One who hates men.

Feminist: One who advocates for social, economic, political, legal, etc. equality for women.

We have to assume that a feminist at minimum, wants to have equal rights to men.

Well, I could hate men with fury but still respect that men and women deserve equal rights and should not have the ability to impede upon the success and freedoms of the other.

I could consider myself a misandrist and still very much be a feminist. If anything, misandry can fuel feminism. How these two concepts correlate is contingent upon the indiviudal. I can understand the rationale behind self-labeling as both.

Sure, one could feel this way, but I haven't seen any examples from any feminist movement itself that fits into these descriptions. Are there any that I have missed?
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
So this one?


If so, then a few things pop out for me:

- it's not only about addressing inequality; it's about advocating for a specific method to address that inequality. It doesn't automatically follow that a person who favours equality must be a masculist by that definition.

- while I think that gender roles and the like can harm men as well as women, on the whole, I think that in general, the harm that happens to men applies to certain categories of men, not all men as a general category across the board. I think that if we're trying to address the harm experienced by these men, there are probably more relevant characteristics than just gender.

- it talks about a "movement". To me, this term suggests advocating for attention and resources to be devoted to this issue rather than others. I question whether masculism should be a priority relative to other issues.

- further on the idea of a "movement", the only self-described movement I've seen for masculism includes many things I see as negative. I worry that it seems to be about only paying lip-service to the idea of equality while defending gender roles I see as harmful.


Who says this, exactly? I've never heard anyone actually acquainted with feminism say things like this.

I hear it all the time. I ve met two people that say are feminists and they were quck to judge when pointing fingers at "men" . The male one speifically said "come one guys, we know they (women) are wiser than us and we should care for them and learn from them". Caring for other human beings and learning from them is good, but caring for and learning from WOMEN specifically as if wiser than men as a rule seems naive to me, and doesnt sound like equality but matriarchy.


Aout what you ay about masculism of paying lip service to equality while promoting unequal roles, thats exactly what happens with feminism too. Bth masculism and feminism are at hazard of this, by their own ethymology.

The way I see it, if you are one you gotta be both, because that would be equality. About what you say of specific ways in which they propose to achieve such equality I wonder which are ose that worry you. I think its good to analize prejudice and fight it when needed
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
MM, I ran into an article online a while back that I think does a good job of explaining the dynamics here. From what I've seen, masculism is a mix of a few things:

- a few legitimate concerns (discrimination in child custody awards and societal minimization of male victims of domestic abuse, for instance)... though I think that most of these would be dealt with if we address the underlying discrimination and get rid of the gender roles, and feminism, along with other campaigns for different aspects of social equality, is already working on these problems.

- a disturbing element of what your Wikipedia article also described: anti-feminism, and furthering the same gender roles that harm both men and women (though more women than men, on average).

- distress of the privileged.

On that last point, here's a snippet from the article I mentioned. I'd recommend reading the whole thing:

The Distress of the Privileged « The Weekly Sift

So I think it’s worthwhile to spend a minute or two looking at the world from George Parker’s point of view: He’s a good 1950s TV father. He never set out to be the bad guy. He never meant to stifle his wife’s humanity or enforce a dull conformity on his kids. Nobody ever asked him whether the world should be black-and-white; it just was.

George never demanded a privileged role, he just uncritically accepted the role society assigned him and played it to the best of his ability. And now suddenly that society isn’t working for the people he loves, and they’re blaming him.

It seems so unfair. He doesn’t want anybody to be unhappy. He just wants dinner.

But even as we accept the reality of George’s privileged-white-male distress, we need to hold on to the understanding that the less privileged citizens of Pleasantville are distressed in an entirely different way. (Margaret Atwood is supposed to have summed up the gender power-differential like this: “Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them.”)

George deserves compassion, but his until-recently-ideal housewife Betty Parker (and the other characters assigned subservient roles) deserves justice. George and Betty’s claims are not equivalent, and if we treat them the same way, we do Betty an injustice.
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I hear it all the time. I ve met two people that say are feminists and they were quck to judge when pointing fingers at "men" . The male one speifically said "come one guys, we know they (women) are wiser than us and we should care for them and learn from them". Caring for other human beings and learning from them is good, but caring for and learning from WOMEN specifically as if wiser than men as a rule seems naive to me, and doesnt sound like equality but matriarchy.
I don't know how to respond. I've never met anyone like this, and I can't talk to the person you describe myself.

Aout what you ay about masculism of paying lip service to equality while promoting unequal roles, thats exactly what happens with feminism too. Bth masculism and feminism are at hazard of this, by their own ethymology.
In my experience, this is much more of a problem for masculism than feminism, especially since, IMO, the movement of masculism was intended as a response to feminism, so I think it makes sense that it would attract anti-feminist elements.

The way I see it, if you are one you gotta be both, because that would be equality.
I have a different understanding. I favour equal rights for both men and women (and rich and poor, and all sorts of other ways to look at society), but I don't think that "masculism" is only about favouring equal rights for men.

About what you say of specific ways in which they propose to achieve such equality I wonder which are ose that worry you. I think its good to analize prejudice and fight it when needed
My worry is that "men" as a category already enjoy quite a bit of legal and social benefit. In general, I don't think that the goal of equality would be served by improving things for "men" as a category.

This doesn't mean that I don't think there are disadvantaged men in the world; far from it. However, I think the men who are disadvantaged are best reached in other ways. For instance, if we want to help poor men, it's best to work to eradicate poverty, not work to improve things for all men.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
This doesn't mean that I don't think there are disadvantaged men in the world; far from it. However, I think the men who are disadvantaged are best reached in other ways. For instance, if we want to help poor men, it's best to work to eradicate poverty, not work to improve things for all men.

But there are issues in which men have an inherent disadvantage to women. Women get released easily from jail time than men for example.

Domestical abuse cases of women against men are a lot less prone to be taken seriously by law.

Problems with children custody almost uniersally favor the mother and there is rarely an even exposure to both parents by the kids, case which generally favors the mother.

If a man hits me and I knock him unconscious, it will be okay. If a woman kicks my balls and I knock her unconscious it would not be okay.

There are most definetely issues in which sexism goes against men that should be properly cared for.
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
But there are issues in which men have an inherent disadvantage to women. Women get released easily from jail time than men for example.

Domestical abuse cases of women against men are a lot less prone to be taken seriously by law.

Problems with children custody almost uniersally favor the mother and there is rarely an even exposure to both parents by the kids, case which generally favors the mother.

If a man hits me and I knock him unconscious, it will be okay. If a woman kicks my balls and I knock her unconscious it would not be okay.

There are most definetely issues in which sexism goes against men that should be properly cared for.

All of these examples - ALL of them - are symptomatic of a patriarchal bias. They assume women are powerless and are naturally better caretakers, hence why those in power propagate the assumptions. These are excellent examples of how patriarchy hurts BOTH genders.

These are not issues that have suddenly sprung up from feminism, and feminism has not historically pushed to make sure any of of your examples persist.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
MM, I ran into an article online a while back that I think does a good job of explaining the dynamics here. From what I've seen, masculism is a mix of a few things:

- a few legitimate concerns (discrimination in child custody awards and societal minimization of male victims of domestic abuse, for instance)... though I think that most of these would be dealt with if we address the underlying discrimination and get rid of the gender roles, and feminism, along with other campaigns for different aspects of social equality, is already working on these problems.

- a disturbing element of what your Wikipedia article also described: anti-feminism, and furthering the same gender roles that harm both men and women (though more women than men, on average).

- distress of the privileged.

On that last point, here's a snippet from the article I mentioned. I'd recommend reading the whole thing:

The Distress of the Privileged « The Weekly Sift

Let me get this sraight. How often do you say feminist movements fight for equality when it comes to custody of children and validation of domestic violence when they are women hitting men?

I would ussually not expect a movement called "feminism" to tackle this issues directly at all. I would expect an humanitarian or egualitarian movement to do so. I do am asking you thugh, in case I can actually start expecting it and see it up to be AS IMPORTANT to them as the problems when women are the ones receiving domestic violence.

Also, werent most social programs aimed to women instead of men?
 
Top