I have a question for male feminists

Post Reply New Topic

We kinda covered that already. See my responses to marknis and jones. If he’s being consistent, he’s forced to admit that he himself is by nature is a misogynist. He cannot help that; HOWEVER, he CAN make a conscious effort to treat women well without imposing pressure or expectations.

Admittedly there is a certain amount of irony to that. But if a man stays consistent with feminist theory, he also has to admit that adopting the yoke of feminism means that he is willfully misappropriating the cause for his own benefit, whatever that benefit happens to be (romantic or sexual relationships, friendships, money, whatever).

Go back and read the comic I posted. Historic feminism has always foundationally been about equality. In actual practice, it’s about much more than equality. It’s a complex problem. How do we achieve our goals? What form of ethics do we accept? How do we deal with religion? Law and government? The commercial and corporate world? Academia? And because in every aspect of life, men have always had the initiative and strength advantages, women are DEPENDENT on men to achieve par with men. Therefore, women cannot achieve equality without achieving superiority. In practical terms, feminism is more about superiority over parity, which is all the more why male feminists cannot be viewed as positive. Rather than being good guys moving aside and letting women elevate themselves, they are merely co-opting the movement. Think about. If men collectively became active in elevating the status of women in the workforce, there wouldn’t even BE men in the workforce in the end. Men would, assuming they were allowed continuing existence, be entitled to a life of leisure, of raising kids and keeping house. Hard work, yes, time consuming, yes. But having actually BEEN a stay-at-home dad, I can say it is not mentally as high pressure as what I do in the classroom or on TV. By changing roles, men co-opting women’s roles and shifting women’s presence to the workforce and corporate world, the male feminist effectively relegates women to a service role no different than keeping her barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Male feminists may indeed mean well, but they ultimately harm the movement.

It doesn’t make sense to be a male feminist. Male feminism is incapable of internal consistency between theory and practice. You want to do what’s best by women? BE A MAN. LISTEN to what women have to say. ACT in ways that will mutually benefit both sexes. TUNE OUT the haters.

Oh, and just so we’re clear: I’m only representing ONE (1) strain of feminist thought and theory here. I do NOT believe that represents an entire movement. As Sam in the comic strip says, “Why would there be a whole movement behind something that obvious?” I don’t consider feminism to even be relevant. You won. We can be friends now. We can lay down arms, do an awkward around-the-shoulders hug, forgive each other, forget it ever happened, and enjoy life now.

And if you can’t do that and you’re going around being angry and knitting pink hats, all I have left to say is, “You need Jesus.”

First off, I admit nothing. From my perspective, Angel, we were in the middle of a pleasant debate when you declared victory in the middle of an incomprehensible rant. I guess you had just decided to hold back on ascribing c1, c2, and c3 to me. Since I'm a feminist, and have qualities a1, a2, ... , ak, and you believe that all feminists have qualities a1, a2, ... , ak, c1, c2, and c3, you believe the analogy holds. If you start calling me a c1, c2, c3, we're done talking nicely. I didn't see any reason to reply after you went off the rails.

The Doonesbury cartoon is good. Odd that she hasn't looked at the statistics which show we still need feminism to achieve equality, but it plays more humorously that way.

I’m not going back through all that again, and I’m not name-calling. All I expect from others is what I expect from myself: attack the idea, not the person.

Feminism is a broad spectrum of oft conflicting ideas and ideologies. Feminism is not just what I say it is or just what you say it is. There’s a lot going on there. But as to relevance of the movement to contemporary society, it really seems to be waning. Every now and then you’ll get some really angry, suburban, white women angry enough to knit pink hats and hit the streets. I feel that the destructive and negative forces have done more to hurt the cause than help it. Why is it the sane ones aren’t speaking up? I think it’s because the movement has run its course and will soon be replaced.

I wouldn't care if my values found a new name. Anyway, I'm a guy. What do I know about feminism?

lol

Well...same here. Something I notice about leftists and progressive special interests is how often and how quick they are to complain about how nobody understands them, or how their statements are always misinterpreted. Almost every single time I’ve mentioned something about feminism around another feminist, I’ve been accused of mansplaining or not knowing what feminism is really about. My first instinct is to call them out for obfuscation. But I keep it to myself because they either don’t want me to be right or they believe their limited scope represents the movement as a whole.

As if feminism has an exclusive hold on the idea of equal rights. lol. Please do some research on egalitarianism. Also maybe on some of the ridiculous laws coming about that are clearly one sided, all to do with screwing men over in court, not only in the US but also dumpster fires like Australia or Sweden. Whoever this daughter in this comic is, is not a feminist just because feminists claim to have ideals that they have never practiced.

Exactly. This is a common feature of special interest groups. The fewer they are of a minority, the louder they are about their protected class and associated entitlement. In reality, the laws don’t protect them as much as they THINK they do or want them to, because protected classes necessarily infringe on the rights of others. Western majorities can’t call them out on it or hold government assemblies accountable because, unlike special interests, they are too consumed by their everyday lives. Think about it. If they’re out protesting, what are they NOT doing? And why do you think I have enough time in the day to make long posts on WP? They get support from SOMEWHERE, they don’t exist in a vacuum. We are led to believe that special interest attitudes are more pervasive and commonly shared than they actually are; yet another reason I question the relevancy of feminism. What you see with apparent one-sided laws that seem to favor women come in part as a response to that. It’s almost a knee-jerk reaction with politicians. What you DON’T see is how the laws often backfire or can be used to favor the other side. Women thinking their court victories are in the bag while they screw men over. I’ve heard the noise when that wall comes crashing down on them, and it is LOUD.

So, yeah, it’s a problem, but don’t feel too discouraged. Stay calm, happy, and optimistic. It’s not as out-of-control as “they” want you to think it is.

Here are a few more of my random thoughts if you feel like reading:

Boopsie is the ditz blonde of the comic whose attachment to feminism is practically nominal. She’s really just a crowd/trend-follower, and quite a naive one at that. She really came into her own after she married BD. BD, on the other hand, toes the conservative line without question. They seem mismatched, but their lock-step attitudes towards their respective movements simultaneously places them at odds with each other and yet is the very bond that makes them perfect for each other. I feel that BD was always more authentic than Boopsie, though her meekness is her most attractive trait. What they have in common the most is their unflinching devotion to their respective ideologies. I don’t know if this was Trudeau’s intention, but it makes the perfect analogy for bipartisanship—two disparate views in a harmonious marriage working for a common cause, the future of which no longer has battles to fight.

Sam is the daughter and represents the millennials. She’s the young moderate who both is a product of good parents and the usual spirit of teenage rebellion. Like most kids her age, she hasn’t figured out quite who she is or wants to be. BD and Boopsie had causes to back. Sam’s path is a bit more fluid. The comic illustrates the attitude that feminism has already won and there’s no cause to fight for. BD is slow to admit that. He wants to playfully rub it in Boopsie’s face that men won and Sam doesn’t stand for Boopsie’s cause. Boopsie proves the point that egalitarian goals have already been achieved. There’s no longer a NEED for a cause. Why would Sam’s generation continue to draw battle lines?

The screwing men over in court thing... that has to do with the prevailing attitude that young children benefit more from mother’s nurturing than from being raised by their father. But this has been abused in practice. Another reason I dislike divorce. If men would keep their noses clean and fight through the system to preserve marriage, I guarantee that practice would absolutely change. The trick is for a man to keep himself blameless, use delay tactics to draw out the proceedings, and catch the wife doing something stupid. I’ve SEEN IT HAPPEN. The problem is men allow themselves to be bullied and don’t fully understand what rights they actually have. Plus, lack of patience gets to them and their own screwups are what lead to the breakdown of the relationship in the first place.

You would think just “letting her go” is the answer for egalitarianism, but it’s not. BOTH sides have to be on the same page, and dissolutions rarely ever are. There’s almost always someone initiating proceedings. The expectation is that the final decree will favor her if she starts it. This also implies that he doesn’t want a divorce to begin with. So in this type of situation, egalitarianism is impossible. If she stays in the marriage or has to fight to leave it, it’s not fair to her. If he loses the love of his life, it’s not fair to him. It’s a wretched way to go. So I firmly believe if you MUST let someone out of marriage, make sure they don’t get away scot free. Make them pay for it, and make the cost high.

If I am to assume that it’s only right because she deserves happiness, then I must also assume he does as well. But if her happiness means denying him his, then the least you can do is grant him JUSTICE. Give her happiness and freedom at the cost of his own, but DO NOT deny him justice. Make her buy her freedom. And yes, everyone in this situation SHOULD do this. Not because you’re just in it for yourself, but to further the cause of justice. If you tacitly allow someone to harm you by not demanding your rights, it WILL happen to someone else. By standing up for your rights and winning, you encourage others to do the same. People, and I mean men AND women alike, will be forced to reconsider their lack of respect for the institution. THAT is how you get egalitarianism, not by choosing to lay down and die.

Chivalry always puts the woman first. Chivalry NEVER demanded a man figuratively or literally place his gonads in a pickle jar for the wife to lock under the kitchen sink to use solely at her discretion. Men are largely neutered in the West. They COULD choose otherwise, and I expect better from my SO. I’m grateful that my wife loves me more than that. I’ve been in the other kind of relationship before, and I absolutely WILL NOT stand for that kind of treatment.

If you’ve been a bad, bad boy and she leaves you, the NFD works in your favor because she has blackmail material and she’s just being nice when she doesn’t have to be. If you’ve done nothing wrong, assert your rights and protect them.

Your question is improperly asked. Offended? I'll say it myself: Not all men are like that!

Why is it so easy to accidentally bump a thread?

Can’t stand new age feminism or MRA. Ewwgghhh.