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

[Me Myself]

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.

Saying at "pathriarchy" is the roblem and the answer is "feminism" should be an obvious ethymlogical pointer of the propensities that this has to blame men first.

We agree this damages both genders, but this words being used obviously blame one more than the other

 

[dust1n]

Is obviusly talks as if men were the primary propagators of such a system.

Judges and law firms are mostly men.

Judicial Selection in the States - Diversity of the Bench

Gender in the Legal World |

Grasping at straaaaawwwwsss...

 

[Koldo]

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.

I may have misunderstood him, but from what i understood he is not saying that these problems sprung up from feminism, but rather that feminism doesn't take proper measures to directly solve them.

 

[Me Myself]

Judges and law firms are mostly men.

Judicial Selection in the States - Diversity of the Bench

Gender in the Legal World |

Who had mothers

I doubt judges are harsher on men than women, I believe ALMOST EVERYBODY is, and this is because of culture, which is conformed not by judges but by everyone, of every sex and gender.

 

[Me Myself]

I may have misunderstood him, but from what i understood he is not saying that these problems sprung up from feminism, but rather that feminism doesn't take proper measures to directly solve them.

Yes, thanks

 

[dust1n]

Who had mothers

I doubt judges are harsher on men than women, I believe ALMOST EVERYBODY is, and this is because of culture, which is conformed not by judges but by everyone, of every sex and gender.

It comes with the territory of thinking that women are naturally care givers and men are supporters but can't raise children. It's harsher on men because men in society are continuously deemed more hardened, more violent, emotionless... etc. That's what gender roles do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

In some cases. In others, women are treated more harshly:

The average prison sentence for men who kill their intimate partners is 2 to 6 years. Women who kill their partners are sentenced, on average, to 15 years.

Source: The Michigan Women's Justice & Clemency Project

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.

These are both examples of what I talked about in my previous post: we deal with gender roles that harm both men and women. If we get rid of the gender roles, we get rid of the problem... and feminism is already working on the gender roles.

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.

Maybe where you are. AFAIK, if you knocked a guy unconscious here, there would be a good chance you'd be charged even if you were hit first... though I suppose that the gender of the person you knocked out might play a role in how serious a crime you get charged with.

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

I don't disagree, but I don't think that advocating for "masculism" is the best way to address these issues.

 

[Me Myself]

It comes with the territory of thinking that women are naturally care givers and men are supporters but can't raise children. It's harsher on men because men in society are continuously deemed more hardened, more violent, emotionless... etc. That's what gender roles do.

Yes I agree to that.

Also, as someone who studies communicati, I am also aware of what it does when we say PATHRIARchy is to blame and FEMinism is the solution.

When as we see, the roles damage both sides.

I agree we must fight inequality of genders on cases that it affects women, but ww must also do so on cases that affect men. We cannot say one is inherently more important than other in all the areas.

A lot of peoe in jail come from homes with an absent father. We dont want absent fathers, and we dont want a system that lets this happen because of spite from the women, the same way we dont want a system were domestical violence happens because the man thinks himself okay to hit his woman just because he decided something is "her fault"

My problem is the inherent gender charge to the alleged solution.

 

[Me Myself]

In some cases. In others, women are treated more harshly:



Source: The Michigan Women's Justice & Clemency Project


These are both examples of what I talked about in my previous post: we deal with gender roles that harm both men and women. If we get rid of the gender roles, we get rid of the problem... and feminism is already working on the gender roles.


Maybe where you are. AFAIK, if you knocked a guy unconscious here, there would be a good chance you'd be charged even if you were hit first... though I suppose that the gender of the person you knocked out might play a role in how serious a crime you get charged with.


I don't disagree, but I don't think that advocating for "masculism" is the best way to address these issues.

Maybe, but honestly, having feminism without masculism feels like having a fiscal with no defense lawyer.

If feminism will stay, we absolutely need a counter movement who is not fast to point fingers on man cause because.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I didn't say that it was as important to them; I said that their work would help men, too.

The problems you describe flow from the idea that men are the tough, unemotional breadwinners and protectors while women are the frail, irrational homemakers and caregivers. These stereotypes harm women quite a bit by restricting their opportunities while also harming men in the ways you describe.

But here's the thing: if you get rid of those stereotypes to help give women opportunities, then you've still gotten rid of the stereotypes. It might not be the goal of feminism to get rid of those problems that men experience, but what they're trying to do, if successful, will get rid of them anyhow.

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

What "social programs" are you talking about? I can think of many, and the vast majority don't consider gender at all.

 

[Koldo]

Maybe, but honestly, having feminism without masculism feels like having a fiscal with no defense lawyer.

If feminism will stay, we absolutely need a counter movement who is not fast to point fingers on man cause because.

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!

'Counter movement' is not the term you are looking for.

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!

 

[dust1n]

Yes I agree to that.

Also, as someone who studies communicati, I am also aware of what it does when we say PATHRIARchy is to blame and FEMinism is the solution.

When as we see, the roles damage both sides.

I agree we must fight inequality of genders on cases that it affects women, but ww must also do so on cases that affect men. We cannot say one is inherently more important than other in all the areas.

A lot of peoe in jail come from homes with an absent father. We dont want absent fathers, and we dont want a system that lets this happen because of spite from the women, the same way we dont want a system were domestical violence happens because the man thinks himself okay to hit his woman just because he decided something is "her fault"

My problem is the inherent gender charge to the alleged solution.

Sorry that women were the first ones to explicitly write about issues such as gender roles, patriarchy, equality of the sexes, reproduction rights, thus the name 'feminism.' Perhaps if men would have gotten on the ball in this regards, all these terms would be associated with egalitarianism, or humanism, or whatever.

 

[Me Myself]

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!

'Counter movement' is not the term you are looking for.

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!

He, yeah sorry. I dont want to counter "equality of sexes" but I do want to counter "lets assume women are generally the victim and men are generally mostly to blame"

Which is never put on paper nor consciously thought, but if you keep associating men with dominance (like saying patriarchy....) and women with caring about everyone equally (like saying femenism) is there honestly no guess as to what the subconscious will do to the terms?

 

[Me Myself]

Sorry that women were the first ones to explicitly write about issues such as gender roles, patriarchy, equality of the sexes, reproduction rights, thus the name 'feminism.' Perhaps if men would have gotten on the ball in this regards, all the things would be associated with egalitarianism, or humanism, or whatever.

Then those women did a great job getting their rights (which is awesome ) and a terrible job grounding their movement to stay egualitarian by their concepts's names

Its normal that they didnt do it on purpose, they grew wi the same cultural bagage that they were trying to fight.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe, but honestly, having feminism without masculism feels like having a fiscal with no defense lawyer.

I don't know what this means.

If feminism will stay, we absolutely need a counter movement who is not fast to point fingers on man cause because.

"A counter-movement". So this is about anti-feminism.

 

[dawny0826]

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?

That's all I was saying. One COULD feel this way. You stated otherwise.

 

[dust1n]

Then those women did a great job getting their rights (which is awesome ) and a terrible job grounding their movement to stay egualitarian by their concepts

Its normal that they didnt do it on purpose, they grew wi the same cultural bagage that they were trying to fight.

WOW, what an incredibly strong statement from someone who has never read any feminist text.

 

[Me Myself]

I don't know what this means.


"A counter-movement". So this is about anti-feminism.

Not exactly. I am not against equal rights between women and men.

I am against many organizations trying to protect women from men with no organizati trying to protect men from women.

So counter movement was a silly way to put it I admit.

I meant to say prosecutors when I said "fiscals" sorry about that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not exactly. I am not against equal rights between women and men.

I am against many organizations trying to protect women from men with no organizati trying to protect men from women.

So counter movement was a silly way to put it I admit.

I meant to say prosecutors when I said "fiscals" sorry about that.

When you use analogies of prosecutors and defense lawyers, it sure sounds like "counter movement" is an appropriate description of what you're going for.

And the idea that you think that we need to "protect men from women"... I don't even know what to do with that. I don't think it's rational to think that we're in any danger of instituting a matriarchy that will disadvantage men the way that women have been disadvantaged in the past.

 

[idea]

I am female, and not a feminist. The feminists I've known seem to be women who are trying to be men - who do not embrace their feminine beauty. I have no interest in trying to become a man. I want to become more feminine.

I like and agree with this poem:
The world has enough women who are tough;
we need women who are tender.
There are enough women who are coarse;
we need women who are kind.
There are enough women who are rude;
we need women who are refined.
We have enough women of fame and fortune;
we need more women of faith.
We have enough greed;
we need more goodness.
We have enough vanity;
we need more virtue.
We have enough popularity;
we need more purity.