Post-equality

[Guest Raids]

BUT that *is* feminism.

Feminism is the belief that men and women should be treated equally regardless of sex and that this is not yet the case.

As such, feminism involves many pro-women stances that seek to elevate the status of women to that of men.

When and if those efforts go too far, we will cross and become sexist ourselves, only in favor of a greater status for women than men.

The author of that article appears to think that this time has come.

If this is true, then he should have no problem proving that women enjoy a better status than men, at present.

He cannot, and so argues that to the extent that women do not enjoy an equal status to men, it is by their own choice, and that, therefore, is seeking to force equality of sexes, we are crossing the line into anti-male sexism now even though it does not look that way when we look at the data.

Therefore, he's saying that women want to punish men because more women than men want to stay home and work part-time.

Weirdly, you'd think that we'd end up at a lot of the same solutions - better parental leave options for men, etc. - that I would ask for, only my goal is to give men more freedom to make a choice to stay at home or work part-time.

I do wholly agree that it is time to look at men and what they are doing and allowing them the freedom to make stereotypically "feminine" choices in order to move forward.

[LugaJetboyGirl]

Yes, I have noticed this as well, hence my comment about suddenly "feminism" is a dirty word and something people feel they need to distance themselves from most passionately. And I think it's strange. As if they do not know what feminism is, nor that it stands for, but are still willing to speak out against it, despite actually agreeing with many of its points.

This is not new, it is not 'suddenly'. A major tactic employed by the opponents of feminists agendas has been to turn the term 'feminist' into a bad word, while suggesting that feminists are not real women, that they are fundamentally flawed because they aren't the true submissive, mothering carers and givers that all women are by nature (a favorite topic of this Board, IIRC). This has been going on for a long time - Rush Limbaugh started using 'feminazi' in the early 90s. I was told throughout the 80s and 90s, when I was growing up, that being a feminist was a bad thing, not because everyone didn't want equality (yeah right), but because feminists were too loud, too in-your-face, too generally obnoxious. People would ask if I was a feminist and I would say 'no way!' (I was a tomboy my whole life and was cultured to think it was better to be boyish than girlish). So I think I lot of young girls and women today will deny being a feminist because it's used as an insult and because most people don't really understand what the term means.

Anyways, it gets my panties in a bunch when people say that we've reached the 'equality' stage and then quote statistics. There are so many social inequalities still going on that I am often afraid for the future of all women.

Post-equality my ass.

Feminists are now amongst the most obnoxious bigots

What a douche.

And no, ColderHands, you are not the only one to notice the irony of the Side-boob thread. But here I'll be an obnoxious bigot and say that I find the whole idea of the Side-boob thread to be fucking annoying and offensive and while it may contain the most insightful and egalitarian discussion of this post-equality Board, I refuse to even click on it once. I'm hoping that the thread also includes discussion on the most attractive angle to view testicles, but I guess I'll never know. (And now I wait for Yagathai to swoop in with some pithy gem :) )

[Yagathai]

I'm hoping that the thread also includes discussion on the most attractive angle to view testicles, but I guess I'll never know. (And now I wait for Yagathai to swoop in with some pithy gem :) )

I have nothing to contribute. There is no such angle.

[Ser Vlad]

BUT that *is* feminism.

Yes, but not yes.

In terms of practical consequences, a lot of feminist aims relate to equitable and desirable ends (I say a lot and not all because I'm personally a disbeliever in things like negotiation style based on gender, like Raidne pointed out).

Feminism is a movement focused on equality, but it's also an advocacy group for women's rights. Especially when you look at the early feminist movement, there had to have been a strong response to the established culture.

I think there are men and women (though this is a personal anecdote more than anything) that what to be part of the movement for equality independent of the advocacy.

Of course, I happen to think that men need their own advocacy group, to fight for things like more reasonable parental leave, more equitable custody laws and greater respect for stay-at-home dads, among other issues. A common objection people have raised about this (at least to me) has been that men do have an advocacy group, and that's the entrenched power structure. The issue with that - as I see it - is that this structure, while obviously bestowing many advantages on men, is nevertheless restrictive as a direct result of the way in which it advantages men. Like with parental leave, and the presumption that women ought to be the primary caregiver/caretaker for the home.

[TerraPrime]

I feel like this is a time warp. I've seen reactionary pieces like this against feminism as early as 1995, when I first started using the internet. There have always been groups that complain that feminists are against men, and they list the same list of symptoms as Raab used as proof, e.g., men die younger, work more hours, etc.

There's really nothing worth commenting on because the whole thing is just recycled anti-feminists angst. My only response to this article is to suggest to Raab to go re-read Iron John and join a drumming circle/Wildman group to get in touch with his inner masculinity, because, really, this is a problem in his psyche, not a social issue. That he feels emasculated by feminism is apparent, but that hardly makes it a social problem.

As a man who's quite proud of calling myself a feminist, it is quite frustrating to see that the voices that advocate for men's issues are often ones that are results of reactionary politics. They don't really have any agenda or any plan of attack save for setting feminism/feminists up as the antagonists. It is less of an advocacy for men and more of a fight against feminists. So trite, so tiresome, and so boring. Also, what a waste of bandwidth. There are any number of issues that men could use advocates on. For instance, domestic violence (both physical and emotional) against men is an important issue, and so is the parity in custody cases. Men should have advocates for these issues, and they should not be angry men more into lashing out at feminists than the actual cause.

[TerraPrime]

I'm hoping that the thread also includes discussion on the most attractive angle to view testicles, but I guess I'll never know. (And now I wait for Yagathai to swoop in with some pithy gem :) )

I have nothing to contribute. There is no such angle.

Yags is wrong, of course.

But I don't really want to derail Lyanna's perfectly fine and political thread with a dissertation on the beauty of the testicles (and its sac). That'd be rude. :)

[Guest Raids]

I find advocating for these things to still fall firmly within the feminist agenda, but it is what is needed now before women can, in fact, be equal.

But, I get the point here. When I say it like that, I'm only advocating for men's rights as a means to women's rights, whereas men might need their own advocacy group where rights for men are the only end.

An egalitarian movement, OTOH, would apparently seek to promote equal rights, and so never look at the advocacy of rights for one group without looking at the effects on others, but it says nothing about what theory of equality it aspires to - pushing men "down" to be level with women, bringing women "up" to be level with men, or, hopefully, disassociating traditionally masculine/feminine roles and behaviors from good/bad, male/female and promoting the maximum amount of real choice - free from explicit and implicit social expectations - for everyone involved.

Of course, as of yet, a significant portion of the population does not think that the tendency to make certain choices has the slightest thing to do with implicit social expectations. So have a ways to go. All of us.

[timmet]

Up next: How the negro is keeping the white man down in post-racial America. :rolleyes:

[Yagathai]

Yags is wrong, of course.

But I don't really want to derail Lyanna's perfectly fine and political thread with a dissertation on the beauty of the testicles (and its sac). That'd be rude. :)

I take exception to that, sir. I am a professional, whereas you are nothing more than an enthusiastic amateur.

[LugaJetboyGirl]

There's really nothing worth commenting on because the whole thing is just recycled anti-feminists angst. My only response to this article is to suggest to Raab to go re-read Iron John and join a drumming circle/Wildman group to get in touch with his inner masculinity, because, really, this is a problem in his psyche, not a social issue. That he feels emasculated by feminism is apparent, but that hardly makes it a social problem.

As a man who's quite proud of calling myself a feminist, it is quite frustrating to see that the voices that advocate for men's issues are often ones that are results of reactionary politics. They don't really have any agenda or any plan of attack save for setting feminism/feminists up as the antagonists. It is less of an advocacy for men and more of a fight against feminists. So trite, so tiresome, and so boring. Also, what a waste of bandwidth.

:wub:

[mormont]

I'm not sure, in a practical sense, that you can separate issues like custody for men from feminism. As I said above, the principal reasons men don't get custody are to do with patriarchy and women's economic and social disadvantage. For that matter, so are many of the reasons why men work longer, die younger, etc.

[Lyanna Stark]

I'm not sure, in a practical sense, that you can separate issues like custody for men from feminism. As I said above, the principal reasons men don't get custody are to do with patriarchy and women's economic and social disadvantage. For that matter, so are many of the reasons why men work longer, die younger, etc.

I completely agree, hence my bafflement at Mr Rabb's lashing out against feminists as the Big Bad Enemy.

:lol: @ TP. I think when it comes to thread drift, it would be a quite interesting one.

[LugaJetboyGirl]

I'm not sure, in a practical sense, that you can separate issues like custody for men from feminism. As I said above, the principal reasons men don't get custody are to do with patriarchy and women's economic and social disadvantage. For that matter, so are many of the reasons why men work longer, die younger, etc.

Yeah. I think a lot of people would say that feminism isn't about "equality for women" or "gender equality" but rather "subverting all gender norms and expectations." That's what feminism is in my mind - subversive - for both men and women. Acting like you can deal with gender inequality by talking about only one gender (women) is ridiculous.

[Lord O' Bones]

Feminists. Pffft. I'll take them seriously as soon as one mans up and punches me in the face.

Or smiles at me. Or touches my butt.

Fuck, this whole thing is so frustrating. I mean, just treat people as people, pay them what they're worth, and in your off time notice if they have pleasing parts that you may want to squeeze or rub?

Is that so fucking hard!?

[Guest Raids]

Luga - But that's a very modern perspective, and it washes over the history of the movement, which did originally seek - for many people - to empower women as women, not to erase gender identity. That has always been a greater or lesser part of second wave feminism, but even then it varies. As you can see by looking around at the current culture in our particular pink-painted post-feminist era.

Bones - I appreciate the sentiment, but it is harder than that.

[Lord O' Bones]

Bones - I appreciate the sentiment, but it is harder than that.

I know. That's what's so goddamned frustrating. I'll probably never completely understand because 1. I can't, not really and 2. I don't need to, not really. and that's maddening, if still less of an actual hardship as being female.

[TrackerNeil]

Feminists. Pffft. I'll take them seriously as soon as one mans up and punches me in the face.

Or smiles at me. Or touches my butt.

So once TP touches your butt, you will take him totally seriously.

[Lord O' Bones]

So once TP touches your butt, you will take him totally seriously.

If that ever happens :wub: , you're goddamned right.

[TerraPrime]

So once TP touches your butt, you will take him totally seriously.

That can be arranged.

A/S/L?

Although, dub might get jealous. You better clear with him first.

[Masonity]

That can be arranged.

A/S/L?

Although, dub might get jealous. You better clear with him first.

Pfft, not content with sexism, you seek to bring ageism and area-profiling into the mix? Shame on you!