Why should I be a feminist?

Post Reply New Topic

I have no problem with people focusing exclusively on the rights of a specific subset of people, as long as their ideology is consistent with their stated goals. At the very least, Men's Rights Advocate (or Activist) is honest in its nomenclature.



And quite often no more than an afterthought. "No, but you see we're doing this for you too, because <convoluted mental gymnastics>".



Agreed.



But not with this. If your focus is gender equality, you should preference neither men nor women, but you should focus on issues relative to their merits. It would make little sense to split your focus on genital integrity in the US 50/50.



Some do, some don't. Many spoke with humour about how they were going to get "gay married" when legislation was being passed. For clarification, I make a distinction between communities and those who elect themselves as spokespersons for said communities.



Which just demonstrates how many sub-communities there are within the LGBT(etc) "community".



This is another reason why many view feminists as cultists. Myself included.



There's another more modern movement that has a similar naming issue.



Which renders feminism virtually redundant as an ideology in the Western world.



Rather than 'evil women who want to oppress men, I perceive feminists to be 'misguided people who wish to privilege women'. Whatever your perception of their motives, privileging women impacts on men.



Agreed.



On the one hand you're complaining that egalitarianism isn't specific enough regarding gender equality, whilst on the other hand you're about to agree we should be abandoning "us vs them". Egalitarianism covers all people, period. There's no arbitrary distinction on any basis, whether it be sex, sexuality, number of toes on your left foot, etc.

Your alternative, "Gender Equality Activist" seems to imply that you wish for equality of genders rather than of individuals. I'll stick to the perfectly viable egalitarianism, instead. But I do appreciate that your own motives are well-intended.



The real problem is with identifying who "us" and "them" are. All too often it's "who vs what now?".

Can't agree with these. Wanting a traditional gender role for yourself is not anti-feminist. Pushing a specific gender role onto other people is.

I also don't think mate choice is anti-feminist. You're entitled to be as fussy as you like.

Well, I obviously disagree with you on that.


Traditional gender role means man is the breadwinner, man is the leader and the "head" in everything. It is certainly anti-feminist.




These are pickiness examples based on deeply-rooted traditional gender roles thoughts.

It wouldn't be a problem if these are expectations of few women....but when you find those in a large portion of them, especially when they push those standards unto other women (daughters, female friends,.... promoting books such as "The rules" ) , then yeah, it is empowering traditional gender roles and weakening women as a whole.

It's anti-feminist to force a woman to accept answering to a man. It isn't anti-feminist to allow her to choose to be in a relationship where the man makes the money and the decisions.


I agree that pushing those standards onto women could perhaps be described as "toxic femininity", but not holding those standards for yourself.

That doesn't answer my question. I want to know which feminine traits you would describe as undesirable.



I disagree. Men are socialised to contain their aggressive tendencies (as are women) from a young age, or to redirect them towards more productive activities, because human nature is not a simple matter of "x bad, y good". Much as we are not hyper-aggressive beings, nor are we naturally non-violent pacifists.



Being aggressive in the sense of antisocial violence is unacceptable to the point of being criminalised. Despite knowing this, people still commit violent criminal acts towards other people, and are usually punished for doing so. Human aggression is a stimulus response that most of us have a degree of socialised control over. If men were socialised to be aggressive, they'd respond to such stimuli with physical aggression rather than channelling it into (e.g.) verbal aggression.

Socialisation has resulted in the widespread belief that violent aggression is unacceptable except in defence of self or others, that aggression should be redirected into constructive alternatives.



Are such opinions the result of femininity/masculinity or are they social perceptions of feminine and masculine roles informed by human behaviour? Are these traditional perceptions harmful to people, or did we arrive at them through thousands of years of unguided social experimentation?

Selecting those beliefs and opinions that you don't personally agree with and attaching them to an avatar called Patriarchy does not justify the demonisation of male behaviour by labelling it "toxic masculinity".

Further to that, aggression is often the result of mental health problems, such as depression. I take issue with the idea of stigmatising such behaviour as "toxic masculinity" when we should be treating those who are afflicted with compassion. I also wonder what implications the concept has for those on the spectrum who suffer from frequent meltdowns.



Our survival is predicated on the underlying roots of such behaviours, not on the modern display of such behaviours. Are bragging, bravado and other forms of showing-off the result of negative socialisation, or are they a by-product of positive socialisation? Why do you believe that such behaviour can be erased without fundamentally altering the physiology of men and boys?



Except I'm not making a moral judgement. I'm questioning the rationale behind the claims being made. The fact that evolution has rewarded and therefore selected for sexual aggression is a better explanation for its continued presence in human societies which have criminalised the resultant behaviour than "men are socialised to be aggressive".



I wouldn't. I would instead suggest that the direction in which our society has been collectively steered is hostile to a gradually decreasing degree of masculine expression. My solution would be to provide better access to activities that are commonly associated with the reduction in aggression leading to antisocial violence, such as martial arts and sports.

First, women and men are biologically different. Men aren't going to understand what it's like to actually be pregnant, for one. Second, society treats men and women differently, and thus they have different life experiences even beyond that.

I warned you, you have been reported for trolling.

While these are all things that some women do, I don't think anyone would consider most of these to actually be "feminine" behavior. Actually most of these I see more often from men then from women (especially the mocking people for gender defiance), and all of these are expectations created by men ( eg. the paying for the date thing, it's a way for men to show off). When have the behaviors are "expecting", you know there is a problem with your list. If you want actual "feminine" traits, you have to go for something more general, not extremely specific behaviors. The most classic example by feminists is submission, though that's generally a pro-social trait and is only toxic when it enables abuse.

You claim the original interview was taken off the web, yet you link to it on the web. Also, the article I linked to the original interview, and yes, she is clearly joking.

That's not how you spell "I'm tapping out".



The link is to an archived version of the article. The original page was taken down amidst the backlash and the article re-upped at a later date.



Doesn't seem even remotely plausible that she's joking to me, given the tone of the interview.

True that men will never understand what it's like to be pregnant but how has this created a conflict of interests detrimental to pregnant women? What have men as a whole done to pregnant women due to this lack of understanding?

You misunderstood me. It's not that it creates a conflict of interests, it's just that the men are ignorant. But there are certain men who may benefit from policies that are detrimental to pregnant women. Anyway, you're being overly specific, that was just an example. The point is in practice men have imposed oppressive policies on women for centuries, regardless of their reasoning.

I still don't understand you. How have certain men benefited from policies that are detrimental to pregnant women? Did they benefit intentionally or uninentionally? If that latter, that would lend credance to the idea that such matters should be determined on a case by case basis, with respect to the individual, rather than using broad sweeping policies.

Speaking more broadly, how are men imposing oppressive policies on women?

It doesn't matter who "created" this, but there are many women out there who expect it - surely some men do it to show off....that would be on the toxic masculinity list - but my post wasn't about that.




I am not supporter or fan of this guy, I don't even his name - I didn't check his other videos :but in *this* video, he's right.

The specific example of pregnancy is missing the point, as it's not about the direct relationship, it's about the long term divergence which is much more complex. But if you really want a specific example, there is lots of policies relating to maternity leave which pit pregnant women against typically male bosses.

If you don't understand how men have been oppressed women for centuries, you really need to do some reading on history. If you want a modern example, abortion laws are the typical case.

Can't any of you morons ever have a conversation without this "u reported LOL" nonsense?