User Tag List

Page 151 of 162 FirstFirst ... 51101141149150151152153161 ... LastLast
Results 1,501 to 1,510 of 1614

Thread: 3rd wave feminism

  1. #1501
    Alchemist of life Array Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    14,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anaximander View Post
    Question two is do we still need it in the first world? I think it is now more needed in places like the Congo and Saudi Arabia. It seems 3rd wave feminism's biggest causes are attacking trivial first world problems such as man spreading and mansplaining (two behaviors completely unrelated to and non dependent on gender), domestic violence (repeatedly shown to be reciprocal more often than not, and therefore not something uniquely affecting women), and echoing the wage gap (debunked too many times to count; the issue isn't the wage gap so much as it is the earnings gap).
    I define feminism as an ideology which holds that women should have the same rights and responsibilities within society as men. As such it is ageless and always necessary. How much work must be put in to achieve this state of affairs is what will vary. Countries like Congo and Saudi Arabia (and many others in those parts of the world) require much more work here than the first world, but we aren't done yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    I'm reading a disturbing book on the effect of social media on girl's perceptions of self. What do feminists think of social media's contribution to the objectification of young females and do they think it's a problem. For example:

    Excerpted from 'American Girls: Social Media and the Secret Lives of Teenagers' by Nancy Jo Sales

    Is it just me or is there a deafening silence from feminists on the damaging effects of social media? Is it because most of the social media platforms are run by leftists that they're given a pass and feminists are loathe to criticize their own? Or do they condone the sexualization of young girls?
    I won't presume to speak for all feminists. I consider myself one, by the definition I stated above. I do think social media exacerbate the worst of these problems, not only in girls and young women, but in everyone. It is a potent tool for sexual harassment, and just one more venue in which women have to learn to do much better at setting boundaries and sticking up for themselves. This situation persists partly because of money (FB after all is not a charity), and the mistaken impression that any connections between people are good and should be promoted.
    In science, when human behavior enters the equation, things go nonlinear. That's why Physics is easy and Sociology is hard. -- Neil deGrasse Tyson
    Likes Tellenbach, Lethe liked this post

  2. #1502
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    [...] I do think social media exacerbate the worst of these problems, not only in girls and young women, but in everyone. It is a potent tool for sexual harassment, and just one more venue in which women have to learn to do much better at setting boundaries and sticking up for themselves. [...]
    This is a tangential point, but girls aren't always the victim. Here's an article just from the last day or two about a new practice in the UK where girls engage in team cyberbullying, especially the cyberbullying of boys.

    The article notes that:

    [...] girls are almost twice as likely as boys to be both victims and perpetrators of cyberbullying, as boys tend to be more involved in physical bullying.

    Link: Girls gang up on boys in new cyberbullying craze called 'roasting', expert warns
    The article is short and doesn't provide a whole lot of detail, so I don't know how much weight to give it. But it's a reminder that girls aren't *solely* the victims of online abuse. They're also sometimes (and maybe even predominantly, in some particular on-line practices) the perpetrators.

    On-line anonymity is a great equalizer, and girls can misbehave just as much as boys, left to their own devices.

  3. #1503
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Gynocentrism has basically never been the order anywhere at any time, and I don't know that there is a sufficiently civil way for me to say what I think about that position. I have to consider any serious belief in gynocentrism legitimately delusional or profoundly ill-informed.
    Just wanted to address this last point. (And I didn't have any problem with the rest of your post.)

    Wikipedia has articles on both gynocentrism ("a dominant or exclusive focus on women in theory or practice; or to the advocacy of this") and androcentrism ("the practice, conscious or otherwise, of placing male human beings or a masculine point of view at the centre of one's world view and its culture and history").

    Gynocentrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Androcentrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The article on androcentrism is the much longer of the two since the history of Western civilization is predominantly an androcentric history.

    Nonetheless. As regards Gynocentrism, Wikipedia notes that:

    Gynocentric cultures have existed throughout human history with early human cultures placing primacy on female deities and the concerns of mothers and children. Only later did male-dominated cultures arise and spread throughout the globe.
    In the modern world:

    Feminist theorists later promoted the need for gynocentrism whereby women's views, needs, and desires are given primacy as the lens through which social issues are analyzed and addressed as a counter to male perspectives in academia and culture. Scholars Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson state that feminist calls for equality or even equity are often a subterfuge for gynocentrism.
    As for Androcentrism, on the other hand: The article on androcentrism points out, legitimately, that big areas of culture and industry remain male-dominated. For example, TV and film:

    The vast majority of films are written and directed by men. This may result in an androcentric bias, with most films (and film characters) being created from a male perspective. Of the top 250 grossing films in 2007, 82% had no female writers and only 6% had a female director. 70% of all film reviews published in the USA are written by men.
    And of course there are some industries where women just traditionally don't have a whole lot of interest: Heavy labor, military, STEM fields, etc.

    Going back to Gynocentrism: On the other hand, there's a growing body of opinion (probably disputed by many feminists) that courts and government are giving too much favor to women. From the Wikipedia article on gynocentrism:

    Young and Nathanson define gynocentrism as a worldview based on the implicit or explicit belief that the world revolves around women, a cultural theme that they claim has become 'de rigueur' behind the scenes in law courts and government bureaucracies, resulting in systemic discrimination against men. They further state that gynocentrism is a form of essentialism – as distinct from scholarship or political activity on behalf of women- to the extent that it focuses on the innate virtues of women and the innate vices of men.
    There's a growing body of study and literature that focus on similar "gynocentric" legal and bureaucratic issues and how they are changing society. Here's a video by a female Ph.D. who wrote the book "Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream—and Why It Matters." The video only lasts 3 1/2 minutes, so it's worth a quick view.



    Link: Six Reasons Why Men Are Avoiding Marriage, with Helen Smith, Ph.D. - YouTube

    Also, below is a link to an article by an academic who put out a standard liberal 4-minute video shaming young men as slackers and telling them to "man up and get married." But then his video ran into opposition from the MGTOW movement. At issue: The unfairness of marriage and its consquences (divorce) to men. So the academic responded by studying the MGTOW movement, and then he wrote the following article detailing his conclusions on MGTOW: He finds it misogynistic and woman-hating, but at the same time he seems to agree that "the divorce revolution" is a big part of the problem, and not necessarily the men. As I read it, he raises the possibility that men are the way they are due (in part) to gynocentric imbalances in the legal system.

    Link to article: The Divorce Revolution Has Bred An Army Of Woman Haters

    Anyway, to sum up: Simply denying the concept of gynocentrism seems a little blinkered. The concept is alive and well in some cultural areas of study, albeit ones that feminism perhaps doesn't want to consider as legitimate.

    ***************

    Bonus video: Here's a 15-minute video by that same female Ph.D that I mentioned earlier. Really quite good.



    Link: Dr. Helen Smith PhD — Men On Strike - YouTube
    Likes SpankyMcFly liked this post

  4. #1504
    He pronks, too! Array Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    12,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YUI View Post
    Just wanted to address this last point. (And I didn't have any problem with the rest of your post.)

    Wikipedia has articles on both gynocentrism ("a dominant or exclusive focus on women in theory or practice; or to the advocacy of this") and androcentrism ("the practice, conscious or otherwise, of placing male human beings or a masculine point of view at the centre of one's world view and its culture and history").

    Gynocentrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Androcentrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The article on androcentrism is the much longer of the two since the history of Western civilization is predominantly an androcentric history.

    Nonetheless. As regards Gynocentrism, Wikipedia notes that:



    In the modern world:



    As for Androcentrism, on the other hand: The article on androcentrism points out, legitimately, that big areas of culture and industry remain male-dominated. For example, TV and film:



    And of course there are some industries where women just traditionally don't have a whole lot of interest: Heavy labor, military, STEM fields, etc.

    Going back to Gynocentrism: On the other hand, there's a growing body of opinion (probably disputed by many feminists) that courts and government are giving too much favor to women. From the article on gynocentrism:



    There's a growing body of study and literature that focus on similar "gynocentric" legal and bureaucratic issues and how they are changing society. Here's a video by a female Ph.D. who wrote the book "Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream—and Why It Matters." The video only lasts 3 1/2 minutes, so it's worth a quick view.
    I don't really feel like dedicating a post to picking about wikipedia articles, so I'd prefer to keep this brief. The page on gynocentrism is quite problematic. Most of what's there just look like statements of opinion without substantiation, the sources are largely concentrated to a few thinkers, those thinkers themselves seem to be highly questionable (for example, Peter Wright seems to be a largely unknown author who explicitly refers to himself as a MGTOW in articles on A Voice For Men), and the page lacks any criticism of the application of the term gynocentrism, only having criticism of perceived gynocentrism in existence. The androcentrism article, for its part, is kind of sloppy and seems to lack citations altogether at some places where it should have them.

    For that reason, I'm not really going to respond to specific quotes from those articles. Let me just say this. Until I see something more substantial to the contrary, my own knowledge about the subject suggests that things which appear to be gynocentric largely concentrate in pre-agricultural society, maybe slipping slightly into early agriculture. The thing about that is, pre-agriculture society was generally fairly lacking in the kind of complex social hierarchy or material accumulation necessary to have either androcentrism or gynocentrism in the way that we think of it now. I don't want to give the impression that they were totally equal utopias, and cultures (with very rare exception) did tend to differentiate labor for men and women in some way, but power structures were kind of lacking.

    For everything after that, I think some clarification is needed on what would really count as androcentism or gynocentrism. I think it would be silly to consider, as is mention into the gynocentrism wiki article, that Mother's Day is somehow gynocentric in and of itself, because even if it were, so what? Is it in any greater gynocentric context? Does it have any serious impact on society around it that could be said to give a gynocentric color to the power structure of greater society? The point I'm making here is that even the most andocentric, downright misogynistic society is bound to have at least one thing that appears to be gynocentric in and of itself, in isolation.

    I'm only concerned with either something that appears to be, one the balance, a general tendency toward gynocentrism across what might be considered one society, OR an example of where gynocentric ideas dominate a particularly influential circle, like if gynocentrism was pervasive among physicians, or lawyers, or politicians, or educators, etc.. I don't know either to be true in any current society, and it sure as hell isn't common in antiquated civilization.

    The concept of whether or not women are interested in certain fields is opening up an entirely different can of worms. That's about causality rather than defining the result we have. That could be a huge conversation. Regarding it, I will only say that no sociologist should stop at accepting those tendencies as fait accompli, and they generally don't. We ask how girls might be socialized from any early age to be steered away from those fields, and we ask how women might be informally disincentivized from taking part. Indeed, when it comes to STEM, there is abundant reporting from women that the field seems unwelcoming or even hostile to them, so it is not hard to imagine why would would change their minds.

    I think the issue of motherhood may be the only thing here that could meet some of the standards I'm talking about. It is true that childrearing has traditionally been considered a woman's occupation, and childrearing is obviously very influential. By the definition of centering on women, it might even qualify as gynocentric. By the definition of being dominated, It gets a little murkier. I would argue that old, patriarchal societies actually upheld this woman focused view of childrearing, and to this day, that also comes with downsides for women. It is a responsibility they are saddled with by our androcentric whether they like it or not. Abortion bans, restricted access to birth control, job insecurity related to maternity or the expectation of maternity, highly uneven distribution of domestic labor that is particular pronounced in regards to childcare (the The Second Shift) could be taken as an non-exhaustive list of downsides to this apparently female centered institution. If it simultaneous comes with price and is strongly reinforced by the will of an outside party, it's questionable whether or not it's gynocentric, I think.

    Quote Originally Posted by YUI View Post
    First thing first, just my views on marriage. I don't really care about it declining. I think it's an obsolete institution, and I give no man or woman any shit for not marrying. Are men getting shit for that in general? Even the author of the video almost implies they don't when she says there is silence. No one cares.

    Anyhow, the quality of the arguments listed here vary, ummm... significantly.

    Reason 1: I'm not sure how new that whole thing about married men being goons in media is. I mean, how about Ralph Kramden and Fred Flinstone? And it's not necessarily the case that married women are depicted in a really positive light either. I call this iffy.

    Reason 2: This seems way more like a reason against marriage than something bad for men. After all, assuming these are heterosexual relationships, if cohabiting men are having more sex than married ones, presumably women are too, and this gives both men and women a reason to not get married. It doesn't address causality though. Do we actually know that people who cohabit experience a sudden drop in their sex lives when they get married, or is it
    actually just telling us something about the difference between people who maintain cohabitation and those who get married? If there is a drop, does it have a correlation with also having kids? (That is know to statistically drop rates of sex). Same idea goes for the happiness and confidence. This basically doesn't seem related to the topic.

    Reason 3: This is actually about men having a disadvantage, and I don't really have an argument against this. It is was I have always heard. If there is a more refined interpretation of evidence that says otherwise, I do not know of it. So, here's one I'll accept (falling under the childrearing and motherhood thing again, mostly)

    Reason 4: This seems really stupid. Do we know men are relegated to other spaces more than women? Do we know the spaces that men take up are taken up for reason that men don't actually want and that they'd prefer not to do? Is this even actually a thing at all? There aren't any statistics. This one comes across as based on one of those aforementioned stupid sitcoms.

    Reason 5: Large an continuation of reason 3. I will lump it in with that.

    Reason 6: This might be cause for declining marriage rates, but this hardly sounds like a bad thing for men. It largely sounds a like a good thing. I would go even further and say that it wouldn't surprise me if women aren't seeing these improvements at the same rate that men are, making this reason actually something where men are getting a better deal than women.

    So, the focus here should really just be Reason 3/5. That appears to be a real disadvantage for men, and if it is as much the case as I'm told, then it is something that should change. I would say, however, that any claim that this is the product of a gynocentric society at large, either new or old, would be incorrect. This is a vestigial element of rules and norms from a androcenric society.

    Quote Originally Posted by YUI View Post
    Also, below is a link to an article by an academic who put out a standard liberal PSA-style video telling men to "man up and get married." Then he ran into opposition from the MGTOW movement. At issue: The unfairness of marriage and its consquences (divorce) to men. The academic studied the MGTOW movement, and then he wrote the following article detailing his conclusions on MGTOW: He finds it misogynistic and woman-hating, but at the same time he seems to agree that "the divorce revolution" is the problem, and not necessarily the men. As I read it, he raises the possibility that men are the way they are due to gynocentric imbalances in the legal system.

    Link to article: The Divorce Revolution Has Bred An Army Of Woman Haters
    There's no reason for the divorce revolution to be a problem here, really.

    I think that, while there are some bad scenarios, most of these men are being extremely melodramatic, seriously over-estimating the odds of something terrible happening because of marriage. However, even if I took all of that to be accurate, there's a really simple solution; stay in a committed relationship without getting married. The author says at one point

    The outpouring of rage, pain, and despair my video triggered suggests that one unintended fruit of no-fault divorce, and the larger divorce revolution of which it was part, is that a large minority of men are increasingly ambivalent towards or openly hostile towards virtues like sacrifice, commitment, and love—not to mention women and the institution of matrimony.
    In all of that, the word matrimony is literally the only one that has to do with marriage. If frequent and one-sided divorces make you hostile to all of those things, you're a jack ass who can't add up two and two or figure your ass from a hole in the ground. Most likely, you are just making excuses for the fact that you were already the kind of dick who was going to be hostile to those things anyway.

    I suppose there may be an imbalance, but the world is not devoid of women who either don't want to get married or ambivalent about it. The rate is perhaps not growing as fast as with men (I don't know off the top of my head), but to my knowledge it is also growing with women at at least some rate. Like I said, marriage is obsolete, and I'm betting most of the benefits the author lists at the end don't intrinsically have to do with the effects caused by formal marriage (although they do indicate, as he admits, that it must means the claims of damage done are grossly exaggerated).

    And besides, how would we stop the divorce revolution anyway? Getting rid of no-fault divorce? That would be a lot worse than keeping it. That was a good change.

    But the real shot through the heart of this idea is that divorce rates peaked decades ago and have been declining since. All of this crap with MRAs and MGTOWs is a lot newer than the 1980s, so what's their excuse?

    Quote Originally Posted by YUI View Post
    Anyway, simply denying the concept of gynocentrism seems a little blinkered. The concept is alive and well in some cultural areas of study, albeit ones that feminism perhaps doesn't want to consider as legitimate.
    I stand by my position. I think there's at best something like trace amounts of gynocentrism in society. Negligible, trivial amounts. That's close enough, especially since I used the qualifier "basically", even if I admit that's a little fuzzy. There's nothing that validates Anixamander's statement about gynocentrism "continuing to be the order". That's kind of a weird phrase, but I'm pretty sure it means something to the effect of being the rule. And it is not now or has ever been the rule. It remains in its lifelong position of exception (very rare exception).

    And yes, I will say I've seen much credit given to these ideas by not just feminism, but gender and sexuality studies in general, or really any sociology I've studied. It's probably not a coincidence that MRAs and MGTOWs (which I know does not include all of this and presumably does not include you) are prone to be anti-academic and even downright anti-intellectual. I have no qualms about admitting that if either were the source for a piece on gender and sexuality, I would disregard it.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  5. #1505
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    533

    Default

    @Magic Poriferan

    Eh, you're doing a lot of nitpicking and shaming. I was just showing you that the issue of gynocentrism exists, not making the case itself. So picking apart a 3-minute video isn't a big accomplishment on your part. Try watching the 15-minute video that I added later at the very end of my previous post. That's a bit more in-depth and responds to some of the nitpicks that you introduced.

    And comments like this are just shaming on your part:

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    [..] If frequent and one-sided divorces make you hostile to all of those things, you're a jack ass who can't add up two and two or figure your ass from a hole in the ground. Most likely, you are just making excuses for the fact that you were already the kind of dick who was going to be hostile to those things anyway. [...]
    In that passage, you're just refusing to see a problem that others see pretty clearly. You would rather blame the victim.

    And divorce rates are dropping because marriage rates are dropping. Suggesting that falling divorce rates signal that the institution of marriage is healthy is mixing up cause and effect. If marriage is viewed as problematic and fewer people get married, then divorce rates fall too.
    Likes SpankyMcFly liked this post

  6. #1506
    Crude & outdated Array Anaximander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Enneagram
    9w8 sp
    Posts
    7,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    You depiction of what feminists are concerned with here is particularly conspicuous in its lack of mentioning anything about rape.
    That merits a separate discussion altogether, IMO. Before we can even discuss rape we'd probably get mired down in a debate about what rape culture is and whether it exists in the first world. I'm sure you saw what a clusterfuck the rape culture thread turned into, but if you want to go down that road again, I'm open to a discussion.

    As for the whole thing about feminists not caring about womens' issues in other places, that's basically made up. I don't where that comes from. In my experience, they do. You might hear an American woman talking about feminist issues here more often for exactly the same reason you hear people talking about road traffic and rent prices here more often that road traffic and rent prices in Myanmar. That's to be expected. But they do disregard, or reject, or fail to understand the subject.
    I didn't say they didn't care about third world women. In the section you quoted, I was suggesting not that they don't care but that it seems to be very faint on their radar. Fair enough though. Why spend their energy or time worrying about a different region? Now, in regard to the issue of rape culture, I would argue that those places actually have a rape culture whereas the first world, being a place where most people do not condone the action, does not. Sometime I have seen people make the argument we live in a rape culture because rape jokes are still made. The point missed is that people often use humor not to trivialize or condone actions deemed as bad or unjust but as a way to "break the ice" or cut through the discomfort that is caused by those topics. It can lead to a more productive and healthy discussion in some cases. If we were to look at every comedian who has made a rape joke, do you think the majority would be people who are rapists or condone rape?


    Gynocentrism has basically never been the order anywhere at any time, and I don't know that there is a sufficiently civil way for me to say what I think about that position. I have to consider any serious belief in gynocentrism legitimately delusional or profoundly ill-informed.
    You're going to need to support this. I think perhaps you are confusing the concept of gynocentrism with that of matriarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I define feminism as an ideology which holds that women should have the same rights and responsibilities within society as men. As such it is ageless and always necessary. How much work must be put in to achieve this state of affairs is what will vary. Countries like Congo and Saudi Arabia (and many others in those parts of the world) require much more work here than the first world, but we aren't done yet.
    AKA egalitarianism or equity feminism? I am fine with this. I've said before that it's traditionalist men and women who are more often the enemies of progress than feminists. Most feminists were on board with the ERA; it was traditionalists led by Phyllis Schlafly who wished to preserve a gynocentric system where women enjoyed certain exemptions and privileges.



    What happened since the early seventies though? When did it change from a movement focused primarily on achieving an egalitarian meritocracy and move toward perpetuating victim narratives and encouraging a bizarre neotenous abdication of personal responsibility and agency whilst discouraging open discussion with anyone sharing different views (AKA the growing culture of safe spaces that even women's rights champion Obama has recently criticized in regards to college kids becoming increasingly "coddled" and afraid of discussion or any real exchange of ideas; whether or not he contributed to that growing culture is a question for a separate debate)? When did it become increasingly about defining and seeking out toxic masculinity and attacking trivial behaviors/actions that are not isolated to one gender such as manspreading (while ignoring "purse spreading")? I realize these aren't the only causes, but is it not a bit disturbing when bad behaviors that are exhibited by members of either sex (therefore making them a human issue that transcends gender and sex) are targeted as actions specific to one gender and therefore regarded as instances of oppression or "toxic" displays of masculinity (or femininity)? Are those of you who identify as feminists at all troubled by that (and please don't just retort with the typical "Not all feminists...." response--it's weak and a convenient way to absolve oneself of the more toxic aspects/agendas of the movement whilst essentially ignoring and allowing them to continue)? When did feminists start becoming more like Phyllis Schlafly and concerned less with empowerment and equality than they did with protecting what they seem to regard as a perpetually victimized and helpless sex?

    I'm not trying to be snarky with that series of questions. I am asking for people with a good understanding of the history and the movement in its current state and form to help enlighten me on this. Unless you can deny that this is happening (which I'd be curious to hear why). It seems to be hurting the movement more than helping it, which will only drive more men and women away who may have otherwise embraced the movement in the spirit of egalitarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by typh0n
    Usually it's the far left or the far right criticizing the establishment, but I don't see why I couldn't be an "an anti-establishment centrist"

  7. #1507
    Crude & outdated Array Anaximander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Enneagram
    9w8 sp
    Posts
    7,085
    Quote Originally Posted by typh0n
    Usually it's the far left or the far right criticizing the establishment, but I don't see why I couldn't be an "an anti-establishment centrist"

  8. #1508
    78% me Array Eruca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    INxx
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    920

    Default

    What do the MRA/MGTOW types who frequent these sort of threads think of modern intersectional feminism, or what could be called 4th wave feminism? There is a popular term in the hipper young parts of the feminist internet, and that is "my feminism will be intersectional, or it will be bullshit." A page to help you become more familiar with IF: Intersectionality - Geek Feminism Wiki - Wikia

    On one side, an essential part of this new feminism is respecting the difficulties of oppressed groups by use of trigger warnings, careful use of language, such as ensuring language doesn't exclude others from discussion or assistance. Reactionaries hate this jazz because they see it as "political correctness".

    On the other hand, a recognition that oppression in society goes beyond women as a sex, so ambitiously expanding the circle of groups that can be supported in the face of, or ultimately liberated from, oppressive norms/institutions/communities etc, would seem to me to be an open door for men's inclusion, as most IF would agree society does limit the rolls and behaviors of men.

    Would you personally agree with the general direction of IF feminism, or would you consider them an enemy, as many MRAs seem to regard 3rd wave feminism (for some reason).

    *edit*

    Oh and magic P you can give your opinion too, you're a smart cookie. And keep it clipped you guys I'm not interested in exchanging page long broadsides.

  9. #1509
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eruca View Post
    What do the MRA/MGTOW types who frequent these sort of threads think of modern intersectional feminism, or what could be called 4th wave feminism? There is a popular term in the hipper young parts of the feminist internet, and that is "my feminism will be intersectional, or it will be bullshit." A page to help you become more familiar with IF: Intersectionality - Geek Feminism Wiki - Wikia

    On one side, an essential part of this new feminism is respecting the difficulties of oppressed groups by use of trigger warnings, careful use of language, such as ensuring language doesn't exclude others from discussion or assistance. Reactionaries hate this jazz because they see it as "political correctness".

    On the other hand, a recognition that oppression in society goes beyond women as a sex, so ambitiously expanding the circle of groups that can be supported in the face of, or ultimately liberated from, oppressive norms/institutions/communities etc, would seem to me to be an open door for men's inclusion, as most IF would agree society does limit the rolls and behaviors of men.

    Would you personally agree with the general direction of IF feminism, or would you consider them an enemy, as many MRAs seem to regard 3rd wave feminism (for some reason).

    *edit*

    Oh and magic P you can give your opinion too, you're a smart cookie. And keep it clipped you guys I'm not interested in exchanging page long broadsides.
    Short answer: Men have been taking broadsides from women for a long time, and many MRAs and MGTOWs are guys who have been through hostile divorces and legal fights with ex-wives. They're pretty jaded. As a general rule, they're not real interested in hearing much of anything at all from the feminist camp or from women in general.

    But if you really want to pursue it further, start with MRAs. I believe there are a few MRA groups who do work with women's groups. By comparison, I don't think you're going to get any satisfaction from MGTOWs. MGTOWs pretty much just don't want anything to do with women.

    In greater detail:

    Easy to predict the MGTOW reaction. They would say, "I couldn't give a fuck." They've disengaged. When someone cites an article about what feminists are currently doing, many MGTOWs will typically get outraged and see it as a new rip-off; but many others will simply say, "Who cares. Doesn't affect me one way or the other." A lot of them try to minimize their IRL dealings with women on principle. They're respectful when they *have* to deal with women, but they would prefer not to deal with women at all. They've disengaged and they're going their own way.

    MGTOW is a loose coalition of men with only one hard rule uniting them: They're not getting married again. Some still date women; many want nothing to do with women. Either way, they mostly just sit around and bitch about how they got ripped off by this or that woman. Frankly, there's a lot of rage there. A lot of them have been through the wringer. Any new feminist initiative that tells them to put a leash on their mouth and watch their speech for fear of hurting the feelings of some "snowflake" is going to meet with resistance from them.

    If you're not familiar with MGTOW, then go to MGTOW | Men Going Their Own Way and check out their message board forums. (Reddit also has an active MGTOW subforum.) But women aren't allowed to post or participate, and you'll see a lot of cussing and very crude putdowns of women. (Remember that article I linked in a previous message that characterized MGTOW as misogynistic and woman-hating.) Most MGTOWs have had their fill of women and just don't want to hear it anymore. They've disengaged and they couldn't give a shit.

    As for MRAs, it depends on the group. MRAs are usually organized around some principle or charter or idea for social/legal initiatives. They're more lawyerly and politer than MGTOW, and they try to put a nicer face on the men's movement. Some MRA groups are solely about supporting men and changing laws concerning divorce, paternity, etc. Those particular groups probably don't do much joint work with women. But some MRA groups may be more about cooperating with women and women's groups in joint efforts. The latter groups would be more what you're looking for.

    I think the biggest MRA group is Paul Elam's "A Voice for Men" (AVfM). I don't deal with it much. When I notice it at all, it's doing something like organizing conferences on men's rights. I don't think it does much with feminist/women's groups, though I could be wrong. You can poke around their website to get an idea on how friendly they might (or might not) be to feminist ideas.

    To conclude: I'm not an expert on this stuff. Others might be able to provide more detail, especially about the MRA groups. But if you really want to pursue it further, start with MRAs. I don't think you're going to get any satisfaction from MGTOWs.

  10. #1510
    Crude & outdated Array Anaximander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Enneagram
    9w8 sp
    Posts
    7,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YUI View Post
    Short answer: Men have been taking broadsides from women for a long time, and many MRAs and MGTOWs are guys who have been through hostile divorces and legal fights with ex-wives. They're pretty jaded. As a general rule, they're not real interested in hearing much of anything at all from the feminist camp or from women in general.

    But if you really want to pursue it further, start with MRAs. I believe there are a few MRA groups who do work with women's groups. By comparison, I don't think you're going to get any satisfaction from MGTOWs. MGTOWs pretty much just don't want anything to do with women.

    In greater detail:

    Easy to predict the MGTOW reaction. They would say, "I couldn't give a fuck." They've disengaged. When someone cites an article about what feminists are currently doing, many MGTOWs will typically get outraged and see it as a new rip-off; but many others will simply say, "Who cares. Doesn't affect me one way or the other." A lot of them try to minimize their IRL dealings with women on principle. They're respectful when they *have* to deal with women, but they would prefer not to deal with women at all. They've disengaged and they're going their own way.

    MGTOW is a loose coalition of individuals with only one rule uniting them: They're not getting married again. Some still date women; many want nothing to do with women. Either way, they mostly just sit around and bitch about how they got ripped off by this or that woman. Frankly, there's a lot of rage there. A lot of them have been through the wringer. Any new feminist initiative that tells them to put a leash on their mouth is going to meet with resistance from them.

    If you're not familiar with MGTOW, then go to MGTOW | Men Going Their Own Way and check out their message board forums. (Reddit also has an active MGTOW subforum.) But women aren't allowed to post or participate, and you'll see a lot of cussing and very crude putdowns of women. (Remember that article I linked in a previous message that characterized MGTOW as misogynistic and woman-hating.) Most MGTOWs have had their fill of women and just don't want to hear it anymore. They've disengaged and they couldn't give a shit.

    As for MRAs, it depends on the group. MRAs are usually organized around some principle or charter or idea for social/legal initiatives. They're more lawyerly and politer than MGTOW, and they try to put a nicer face on the men's movement. Some MRA groups are solely about supporting men and changing laws concerning divorce, paternity, etc. Those particular groups probably don't do much joint work with women. But some MRA groups may be more about cooperating with women and women's groups in joint efforts. The latter groups would be more what you're looking for.

    I think the biggest MRA group is Paul Elam's "A Voice for Men" (AVfM). I don't deal with it much. When I notice it at all, it's doing something like organizing conferences on men's rights. I don't think it does much with feminist/women's groups, though I could be wrong. You can poke around their website to get an idea on how friendly they might (or might not) be to feminist ideas.

    To conclude: I'm not an expert on this stuff. Others might be able to provide more detail, especially about the MRA groups. But if you really want to pursue it further, start with MRAs. I don't think you're going to get any satisfaction from MGTOWs.
    To answer @Eruca and reply to @YUI

    I would tend to take the MGTOW point of view and I feel the MRM (men's rights movement) will fail, as they have increasingly moved away from a centrist, egalitarian position (which I could've gotten on board with) toward a traditionally conservative agenda (that I will never support).

    The following video (first in a series of six) mostly echoes my own sentiments and feelings on why the MRAs will fail:



    I will not go as far as to cut off contact with women as many MGTOW have, but I find myself drifting more toward a "couldn't give a fuck, I'm disengaging" frame every day. I am married with no plans of divorce at this time, so I cannot, by definition, be a MGTOW, and I am not against having female friends and colleagues, but if my marriage should ever end, I can't honestly see any point in remarrying or going into another romantic relationship.

    I would also say, having followed several MGTOW content producers, that several have already moved past the "bitching about women" stage and are trying to focus specifically on helping men and discussing a fairly broad range of issues from politics to history to evolutionary psychology and so on. I'm of the mind that the MRM needs to follow suit and stop trying to position themselves as the anti-feminism if they wish to succeed and be taken seriously...that may even warrant them swallowing their pride on occasion and allying with feminists on issues where a genuinely egalitarian outcome is sought by both movements. Of course keep in mind that many MGTOW reject egalitarianism (whilst also rejecting traditionally conservative gender roles)--ultimately it depends on each individual MGTOW, as they have actively rejected attempts to make them more unified under any one ideology or agenda.
    Quote Originally Posted by typh0n
    Usually it's the far left or the far right criticizing the establishment, but I don't see why I couldn't be an "an anti-establishment centrist"
    Likes SpankyMcFly liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. A new INFJ *waves!*
    By moonlit_reveries in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-30-2008, 01:14 AM
  2. Feminism
    By GZA in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 02-29-2008, 07:31 PM
  3. The Ocean Waves: a NF introduction
    By music_educe in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-16-2007, 08:00 PM
  4. *waving*
    By Sandy in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-22-2007, 08:29 PM
  5. Hello :D *waves*
    By Indranizia in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 05-12-2007, 04:40 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •