Author Topic: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!  (Read 63678 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Kaz

  • Ideological Gadfly
  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 685
  • "Dangerous Liaisons" by Rene Magritte
  • Respect: +154
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #60 on: June 08, 2014, 05:54:08 PM »
0
Seeing the link war that seems to have flared up,

This is what happens when you abuse the term "due dilligence" and make others responsible for proving your point.

I almost (but not quite!) regret posting my earlier reply, with which I was attempting - in a moment of heady euphoria - to draw attention to reasonable (or what seem to me to be reasonable) ground rules, and will make no further comment.

Nearly every reasonable person has been effectively silenced or ignored in this thread, which is a pity because I was interested in hearing more about other points of view.  Ironic, isn't it - how we give people space to have their say and they use that freedom to limit the freedom of others.

Unfortunately, this thread makes reasonable men's legitimate issues look unreasonable.  A very low quality thread.

edit: insert word ignored

« Last Edit: June 08, 2014, 06:11:57 PM by Kaz »
Just because you have left FDR, it doesn't mean that FDR has left you.

"Taking responsibility for something and self-blame are horses of two entirely different colors. The former is empowering; the latter is paralyzing." ~ John Rosemond, Ph.D

ZetaMan

  • The Master Debator and Cunning Linguist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • Respect: 0
    • Eclectic Vibrations Radio
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #61 on: June 08, 2014, 05:59:42 PM »
0
Whinge, whinge, whinge. That's all I've seen you do here, Kaz, and you come to tell us about low quality content.

Can we please get QuestEon to pop in and arbitrate? Maybe we'll just stay off all subjects that any one little nosepicker might find uncomfortable. Maybe then we'll have the tepid water some of us are used to.

c wat i did thar?
« Last Edit: June 08, 2014, 06:04:32 PM by ZetaMan »
"Suppose they had a gender war, and men showed up"
- Paul Elam

Omega

  • Banned
  • FDR Authority
  • *
  • Posts: 374
  • Respect: 0
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #62 on: June 08, 2014, 06:20:17 PM »
0
Feminism is about helping women, not about destroying another group. It even helps men, transgender, transsexual, queer, bi, lesbian, and gay people who are all affected by patriarchy. IMO, any MRA who sees the difference will understand that they actually share common ground with feminists in the quest for liberation, but only once they realize that we each have a common enemy, but that enemy is not in each other, rather it is in our hearts and minds and we can overcome it. Feminism is your scapegoat, it is not your root cause.
Dont you think it is very stupid to declare that our hearts are our enemies?
And why don't you stop using that meaningless word "partiarcy" and say what exactly you mean.

Talking about help, make up your mid what is most important help or equality:
If we have rape victim and suspect rapist we must treat them equally, helping one of the sides is injustice. when someone get more rights someone else loses them. you cant just give something out of nothing.
MRA do not fight for this mystical  "partiarcy". MRA fight for equality between men and women because now women have far more rights than men.
I guess you confuse MRA with traditionalists.

There is no common ground for everyone because we all have different interests and usually men have different interests than women.


« Last Edit: June 08, 2014, 06:34:51 PM by Omega »

Kaz

  • Ideological Gadfly
  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 685
  • "Dangerous Liaisons" by Rene Magritte
  • Respect: +154
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #63 on: June 08, 2014, 06:27:44 PM »
0
Whinge, whinge, whinge. That's all I've seen you do here, Kaz, and you come to tell us about low quality content.

Can we please get QuestEon to pop in and arbitrate? Maybe we'll just stay off all subjects that any one little nosepicker might find uncomfortable. Maybe then we'll have the tepid water some of us are used to.

c wat i did thar?

If you want to complain about my post or any other post, all you have to do is hit the "report to moderator" link at the bottom right of the post.

If you find this forum too tepid, instead of complaining about it, you could always find another more to your approval.  There is a whole internet out there, you know.

 



Just because you have left FDR, it doesn't mean that FDR has left you.

"Taking responsibility for something and self-blame are horses of two entirely different colors. The former is empowering; the latter is paralyzing." ~ John Rosemond, Ph.D

Argent

  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
  • Respect: +83
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #64 on: June 08, 2014, 06:41:34 PM »
0
I thought it might be interesting to take the text from the articles that have been posted on the past two pages, and turn them into word clouds. I know these articles are just what a handful of people chose to share, and aren't necessarily indicative of the general tone of the two movements, but it's still interesting to compare.

MRA word cloud:


Feminism word cloud:
« Last Edit: June 08, 2014, 06:47:11 PM by Argent »

Prodigal son

  • Guest
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #65 on: June 08, 2014, 06:59:44 PM »
0
That's beautiful Argent, thanks - I had no idea such things existed. I suppose they could be merged into a single combined "angry people" word cloud...

Kaz

  • Ideological Gadfly
  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 685
  • "Dangerous Liaisons" by Rene Magritte
  • Respect: +154
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #66 on: June 08, 2014, 07:08:51 PM »
0
That's beautiful Argent, thanks - I had no idea such things existed. I suppose they could be merged into a single combined "angry people" word cloud...

...lol

That was a very creative thing to do, thanks Argent.

Just because you have left FDR, it doesn't mean that FDR has left you.

"Taking responsibility for something and self-blame are horses of two entirely different colors. The former is empowering; the latter is paralyzing." ~ John Rosemond, Ph.D

Argent

  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
  • Respect: +83
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #67 on: June 08, 2014, 07:13:05 PM »
0
That's beautiful Argent, thanks - I had no idea such things existed. I suppose they could be merged into a single combined "angry people" word cloud...

Me neither until just now! I used wordle.net

Combo word cloud:

Lee Li

  • Libertarian Socialist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Respect: +2
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #68 on: June 08, 2014, 07:21:53 PM »
0
Quote
No. It doesn't.
We have the MRA because Feminism does not address male issues (from male perspectives and concerns). We wouldn't need the MRA if Feminism didn't go overboard while seeking parity of esteem for women (as well as other reasons).

Feminism is called Feminism because it seeks to restructure the world from the feminine perspective EXCLUSIVELY. This is the truth until it is adequately answered. And invoking the Tu Quoque fallacy does not answer the question.


I figured it should answer the question if we both have the same intentions. If we don't have the same intentions, that's important. Omega seems to think MRA is about dismantling women's cultural, economic, and legal victories for equality that have been achieved thus far (I'm spelling out what feminism is here so you see what I see). Which is a little...reactionary. So how about you? Do you agree with it?

Another way of asking. Do you as well believe that feminism is the enemy of the MRA movement?

I'm going to continue focusing on Zetaman's posts because I can appreciate he's not making wildly inaccurate interpretations of what I wrote. No offense to Omega, but I obviously didn't say 'our hearts' are the enemy (perhaps this is a language barrier).

Yes to feminism because the world for the past 5,000 years hasn't addressed women's oppression. Don't you agree that it's been a man's world for most of human history? Spousal rape wasn't even a thing until the early 90s. Birth control used to be illegal. Abortion and birth control are lobbied against by conservatives today still. The rest of the world outside of "developed nations" still operate under primitve sexist regimes, and the developed world still isn't quite done yet.

To address your other statements here: Are you saying that seeking equal status is bad when it goes beyond a certain point - that is, that there can be too much equal status? Secondly, what is meant by the "feminine persective", if gender is a social construct made to divide us into subordinate and dominant classes? Do you believe that there is an inherent and especially socially significant difference between genders? Why doesn't feminism adequately answer men's issues?

When there are men in the movement who have personally benefited and when feminists focus on how gender roles affect men as an important component of stopping the oppression...

Have you read this? http://feminspire.com/feminism-its-good-for-men-too/
« Last Edit: June 08, 2014, 07:31:12 PM by Lee Li »
Keep Calm And Disobey

ZetaMan

  • The Master Debator and Cunning Linguist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • Respect: 0
    • Eclectic Vibrations Radio
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #69 on: June 08, 2014, 08:29:10 PM »
0
Sorry Lee Li, I have this all-body convulsion that prevents me from reading any Feminist material. I liken this feeling to what people feel when I try to get them to read material arguing for white pride. I understand how maybe the images of gas chambers and marching Nazis can't be separated from white pride, because I can't seem to separate #killallmen and claims like "all men are rapists" from any other Feminist material. I simply won't read it.

Who told you that gender is a social construct? Gender dymorphism and the actions of estrogen and testosterone on the brain during and after gestation are solid facts of life. The claim that this has no effect on how one sees themselves and the world and what existential impulses one feels is a Positive Claim that requires evidence. That evidence does not exist. We also have Evolutionary Psychology which tells us that over time either gender has evolved and honed particular instincts and drives.
We all see the world a little differently - what's so difficult to understand that men will experience themselves and their lives differently? What's so difficult to understand that women could not possibly conceive of how a man even functions in his inner world?

No, I do not believe we've been living in a "man's world" for 5,000 years. What exactly makes you think that?
I believe the Abrahamic religious models brought with them a "man's world", but even then men were not on top because God and all his special club members were on top.
Before the plague of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam swept through our world we had a variety of social systems. Both men and woman could be masters and slaves. As an example, under Brehon Law (the Law of my Irish Ancestors) a woman was EQUAL UNDER THE LAW. Divorce was possible under this system, but was taken away from us with the formation of The Republic of Ireland which modeled it's legal system off of the British legal system, which was based on the Bible. It was only in 1996 that we regained the ability to initiate divorce.

As for the reference to marital rape, that's a subject that can be discussed and isn't completely black and white.
While it wasn't against the law for a husband to have sex with his wife regardless of her consent, it was perfectly lawful for that same woman to brutally assault her husband. The dynamics of marriage are complex. Beginning with the assumption that marriage was originally stacked in favour of the man will prevent one from seeing those complexities.

I do not believe that rights for women should be dismantled. Nor do I believe that Omega was saying that. Inasmuch as you claim he wildly misinterprets your posts, you're misinterpreting him and I'd like you to go back and read carefully over what he said.

I do not believe that one can have too much equality. That doesn't even make sense linguistically. Our concerns lie with the empowerment that women have been granted in several realms of society in order to make them equal, which has the fallout of harming men.
Please read the above 3 times, as I and others have said this in multiple ways and it just doesn't seem to be getting through.

Feminism IS the enemy of the MRA for the reasons that I pointed out that Feminism is exclusively for the benefit of women and comes with the assumption (which you've shared over and over in this thread) that we live in a Patriarchal society.

The non-existence of a Patriarchy has Feminists claiming that "Patriarchy oppresses men too" in order to escape having to let go of the claim. Surely by effect we do not live in a Patriarchy if men are oppressed by it.
Give a woman the same amount of power that a man has under your supposed Patriarchy, and she will stand equal chances of oppressing people of both genders. To claim that this could be any different would be to say that women have some kind of moral superiority which men do not.

Are you starting to see how the ideology of Feminism is destructive and contrary to equality? Or would you like to go on feigning ignorance of this blatant truth?
"Suppose they had a gender war, and men showed up"
- Paul Elam

Lee Li

  • Libertarian Socialist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Respect: +2
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #70 on: June 08, 2014, 08:31:57 PM »
0
I'm hoping these might be agreeable:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/09/not-a-feminist-move-on-men-women
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1vn3uy/what_if_we_all_called_ourselves_feminists_d/ceu6jui

All of that and what I said before is just to say: feminism and men's rights can share a common ground if their shared goal is equality for the genders. The fight for gender equality is not won until we have equality for each gender. Any imbalance is a failure. In which case, MRA and feminism would be closer allies than Marxism.

I was writing this before your above post, so I'll just post this and read what you wrote, then respond.
Keep Calm And Disobey

ZetaMan

  • The Master Debator and Cunning Linguist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • Respect: 0
    • Eclectic Vibrations Radio
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #71 on: June 08, 2014, 08:48:18 PM »
0
What has that Guardian article got to offer the conversation? And actually, what did those articles for Eternal Bias have to offer the discussion?
"Suppose they had a gender war, and men showed up"
- Paul Elam

Lee Li

  • Libertarian Socialist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Respect: +2
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #72 on: June 08, 2014, 08:54:44 PM »
0
The articles were not for eternal bias, but for everyone.

Alright, well I'm not going to try to convince you that gender and sex are different, or that it has been a man's world, but I can really appreciate that you agree that one cannot have too much equality (I also was going to say that it is linguistically/logically absurd).

I've never encountered a murderous feminist. But that would be just shitty. Misandry should not masquerade as feminism, but I acknowledge it as a theoretical possibility because people can have messed up ideas about justice. Some people think that means revenge. But a more pragmatic view would be restorative justice. It shouldn't mean 'getting back at men in equal measure' for their dominance. That would be flipping the dynamics, not bringing about equality.

Feminism has many strains; it's not like there is one party line. Some strains of feminism are simply horrible! I could tell you about one trend that is anti-transsexual...well, you get the idea.

I'm just glad to see an egalitarian MRA. I have some important disagreement with your analysis, but the goal is the same so that's good. Whatever one's particular focus, the world needs people with egalitarian mindsets.
Keep Calm And Disobey

ZetaMan

  • The Master Debator and Cunning Linguist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • Respect: 0
    • Eclectic Vibrations Radio
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #73 on: June 08, 2014, 09:05:58 PM »
0
Agreed.
But I will maintain my position that you're a walking contradiction as Feminism presupposes the dominance of men.

And I'd also like to point out that misandry masquerading as Feminism is not just theoretical, it's very very real and it's a lot more popular than you'd first imagine.

Your comment "I'm just glad to see an egalitarian MRA" says to me that you assume the movement as a whole and almost all the men and women in it are not "egalitarian". Is that an insult or are you really just that ignorant of the movement? Don't answer that, it shouldn't matter.

Please take the time, when you have it, to absorb the thoughts of educated and experienced people (e.g. Paul Elam, Dr. Warren Farrell, & Tara Palmatier) from the MRA perspective on gender parity.
"Suppose they had a gender war, and men showed up"
- Paul Elam

Argent

  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
  • Respect: +83
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #74 on: June 08, 2014, 09:20:23 PM »
0
About the equality/parity stuff, I wonder if MRA thinks about this:

In a theoretical world where we have done everything possible to give women every opportunity men have, men won't have every opportunity women have. Because if a woman wants a kid, she just needs to find some sperm. If a man wants a kid, there is a much more involved process to go through, involving find a mate and either staying with her, or fighting it out in court. (I'm generalizing--there are of course other, more difficult options.)

I could see this leading to an unresolvable resentment, and I don't know what to do about it. (Not that single-parent families are all that great, due to the time-consuming nature of parenting.)