User Tag List

First 1234513 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 263

  1. #21
    Senior Member Bamboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    XXFP
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    There are some people who take advantage of societal struggles and tensions for purely selfish ends.

    However, misogyny is a real thing, and the struggle against it is a legitimate one. Women are consistently devalued in societies across the planet purely on the basis of their gender (sex), without regard to any other factor. To combat this, individuals and groups have to negotiate with the oppressing group. If negotiation is refused (and so often it is the case, as a summary judgment is declared that "women should stay in the home - period" or "women are mentally weaker"), then protest and civil disobedience comes out of that. The purpose of civil disobedience is to create tension. Why? Because by creating tension, you push an issue into someone's face so that they cannot simply ignore it. This speeds the resolution of the issue, because so often, without tension, the group with more power won't be particularly motivated to do anything about it.

    Sometimes, this process doesn't work as planned. Sometimes, those who are in the oppressed group start to behave erratically and violently. Sometimes this violence is justified, however, there is a certain element of "getting caught up in the fray" that does occur in general.

    When this happens, sometimes people in the group start to campaign for certain rights, without realizing the responsibilities that come with them. This is a learning process you can observe everywhere, with any child, and it applies to adults as well. Other times, people get so caught campaigning for something that they don't fully process what every aspect of the campaign means. And as I started with, sometimes people capitalize on the struggle for profit via guilt and manipulation.

    Sometimes, we only see one aspect of a group campaigns. Perhaps this is what happened to you, @LevelZeroHero

    Could you give a specific example of what you saw? Feminism is a very broad topic with a variety of beliefs within it.
    Don't know how much it'll bend til it breaks.

  2. #22
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Pithily put, as ever.

    These incoherent rants are difficult to follow because they demonstrate a shocking failure of basic logic. Proving both that emotion always triumphs over logic (destroying it in the process) and that Ti doms do not have any particular gift in that direction (more often than not, the ranter is an ISTP male).

    Anyway...it was the 1872 that grabbed my attention. I found out recently (with some measure of disbelief) that Cambridge didn't admit women until 1972. 100 years to break down the first gate to the old boys' network. One hopes, by 2072, that we will have made some progress towards equal pay for equal work. Or indeed, equal work, period.
    Well said, Salomé.

    When I worked in England in the 60s, it was quite common women and men did the same work, put on the same hours (54 hours a week). For the same work, women received a pay that was a way less than half of the pay of men!
    Men were frequently promoted. The increase of salary was then considerable. Women were not promoted.

    You remember the study of the dna and of the double helix, in the 50s. There was a girl in the team. The team usually met in a pub, in Cambridge. The role of the girl was considerable.
    I knew only one girl who studied there, in the 60s. Her father was a member of the House of Lords.
    She had quarters in the city, outside of the campus.

  3. #23
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    I'm kind of surprised this thread even got to 3 pages. The OP was vague enough to allow you to frame the argument any way you want. He mentions the date "1872" and now we're talking about Cambridge DNA researchers in the 1960s. See what's happening here. This thread could end up being about anything.

  4. #24
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Everyone's the king or queen of their own lives. As it should be. That's not entitlement; that's simple agency.

  5. #25
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Oh my lawd, what da hell is this shit?
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  6. #26
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    Women are animals too
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  7. #27
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    In defense of equality, there are lots of men that would not should adult responsibility. Possibly more, really, but that may be observation bias since men are expected to be more... overt... about it. The main difference is that a man who is weak in this regard is viewed as weak, while a female is not (or to a much lesser degree). In some cases its cute, others it is vulnerable and to be protected, others to be taken care of... Part of me wishes to be able to say "woman up" to someone someday; the other part acknowledges that it is dismissive to either gender.

    (And as much I hate to say this because it can be a thread-destroying comment, modern day feminists - instead of equalists, so to speak - seem very comfortable with double standards that benefit them. It is very hard to have a dialogue about that, however.)
    Yes, men are viewed as weak or lazy if they aren't taking on the responsibility others expect, even if they have a very good reason for it. Can you give some examples of the kind of double standards you see "feminists" promoting?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eruca View Post
    It is, however, no surprise this is not the form the growing internet mens rights movement is taking. Who wants to fight for the right to do the lame jobs? To not be important? To not have high status? To be *gasp* feminine? Instead they lash out blindly at feminism and women's rights, basing it all on their vague (but true) feelings that they are getting a raw deal.
    There are many rights men should value enough to fight for. Many involve the 'work/family issues" routinely associated with women. These include the right to family leave; a flexible work schedule; good, affordable daycare; staying home with children when they are young, or dropping out of the workforce for other reasons. It also includes more personal "rights", like the right to relax in the car with a laptop/book/etc while she drives; to have her pay for dinner, etc.; to take her name when it's much better than his (or for any other reason); to get asked out by girls, and not always have the pressure of asking. (And I wonder if more men started doing those "lame" jobs, whether people would stop considering them so lame??)

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamboo View Post
    However, misogyny is a real thing, and the struggle against it is a legitimate one. Women are consistently devalued in societies across the planet purely on the basis of their gender (sex), without regard to any other factor. To combat this, individuals and groups have to negotiate with the oppressing group. If negotiation is refused (and so often it is the case, as a summary judgment is declared that "women should stay in the home - period" or "women are mentally weaker"), then protest and civil disobedience comes out of that. The purpose of civil disobedience is to create tension. Why? Because by creating tension, you push an issue into someone's face so that they cannot simply ignore it. This speeds the resolution of the issue, because so often, without tension, the group with more power won't be particularly motivated to do anything about it.
    A key difference is that men and women mingle far more extensively and intimately than any other oppressor/oppressed populations. It becomes a case of sleeping with the enemy, quite literally.

    Finally, a relevant link: http://onebillionrising.org/blog/ent...of-masculinity
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  8. #28
    Senior Member Bamboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    XXFP
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    A key difference is that men and women mingle far more extensively and intimately than any other oppressor/oppressed populations. It becomes a case of sleeping with the enemy, quite literally.
    I'd generally agree with this. However, I'd note that individual cases vary dramatically.

    Uh...well it was somewhat cleverly written, but he lost me after a point. He sounds more annoyed and pissed off than someone I really want to listen to, but beyond that I think the points he's making are tenuous.

    It's but I can't just rule it out because I think he's on a rant, so:

    - to singlehandedly attribute animal extinction, the desire to explore Mars (in favor of home), and to destroy other cultures to "Masculinity" is too broad to be taken with a 50 pound block of salt. There are many factors in play here.
    - "Within this patriarchy men’s masculinity defines itself by identifying others—any and all others—as inferior (which is why those stupid fucking scientists can ask “Are we all alone?” as they destroy the extraordinary life on this planet), and as being therefore violable, and then violating them."

    I would agree that the desire to see others in relative ranks of superiority and inferiority is driven by competition. I was once told that you can "opt out" of competition. But you cannot. All around us, people are better suited to tasks than other people and there are only so many resources. That is cruel, but that is all how it is. Now some people respond to this by creating classes of individuals and labeling them as inferior. This is unfair. This can be changed.

    I prefer to establish standards and then who meets them is "qualified" and who doesn't "isn't". People who don't aren't human garbage, they are still people and can serve other uses, but they aren't qualified for the position at hand. I can understand why he's upset because often people who are 'inferior' for a task are labeled as 'inferior' for everything and thus should be destroyed - but big surprise!, it's actually what what he advocates: "We must never forget that. There is a cult of masculinity, and there is a man box, and we can leave them. We can not only leave them. We can destroy them. We must. With all the world at stake, we must."

    Wow, this guy is really showing off his cooperative problem solving skills. But I don't blame him necessarily, he's actually proving a point about competition. If someone refuses to see outside their opinion but continues to attack you and there is no negotiation possible, than by default you are in a competitive state. This is a chest beating rallying call.

    But what is he really advocating? Don't listen to the other side, and destroy them. Well balanced.

    I would generally agree with the statement that cultures shouldn't support 'violation as validation'.

    However, I think a more balanced approach would attempt to reconcile the real needs of individuals and groups to be selective while recognizing that the outright rejection and subjugation of those "not selected" is both flawed, creates deep problems, and is really unnecessary.
    Don't know how much it'll bend til it breaks.

  9. #29
    78% me Eruca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    INxx
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    There are many rights men should value enough to fight for. Many involve the 'work/family issues" routinely associated with women. These include the right to family leave; a flexible work schedule; good, affordable daycare; staying home with children when they are young, or dropping out of the workforce for other reasons. It also includes more personal "rights", like the right to relax in the car with a laptop/book/etc while she drives; to have her pay for dinner, etc.; to take her name when it's much better than his (or for any other reason); to get asked out by girls, and not always have the pressure of asking. (And I wonder if more men started doing those "lame" jobs, whether people would stop considering them so lame??)
    Yes exactly. We are agreeing! When I referred to certain jobs as "lame" I was mimicking the attitudes of society (that MRA members are part of) to make my point, they arent my attitudes. Feminism was in many ways (this being one way of looking at it) about women claiming opportunities in traditionally masculine traits/jobs for themselves. A mens rights movement should be based on men claiming opportunities in traditionally feminine traits/jobs for themselves. I believe all the points you made above are covered by this one approach. The problem is, we as a society consider masculinity to be superior to femininity. This is why a woman in men's clothing is seen as sexy, daring or cool, while a man in woman's clothing is seen as perverse, embarrassing and demeaning. At this time the internet MRAs have not admitted to themselves what will make them equal, and set them free, is an embracement of their feminine sides. Because femininity is "lame".
    I hope I'm wrong, but I believe that he is a fraud, and I think despite all of his rhetoric about being a champion of the working class, it will turn out to be hollow -- Bernie Sanders on Trump

  10. #30
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    ^^That's because internet MRAs are pretty much entirely comprised of the type of dude that feels threatened by women, which is the basis of their anger. They are the passive manifestation of misogyny. That's why they have no theory...no real interest in gender other than as it provides them a vocabulary to express their hatred of women, which stems not from actual feelings of superiority but rather from inferiority.

    Personally, I find this form more pathetic than the regular old ass-slapping, "sweetheart" variety. But that's just me.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

Similar Threads

  1. Guns ARE equal rights.
    By SpankyMcFly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 294
    Last Post: 06-28-2016, 10:08 AM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-11-2013, 11:20 PM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-13-2011, 03:32 PM
  4. Catholic ban on women priests 'illegal under Harriet Harman equality bill'
    By Sniffles in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 126
    Last Post: 01-14-2010, 06:59 AM
  5. UK Lesbians Given Equal Birth Rights
    By 01011010 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-01-2009, 04:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO