Examples of How Feminism Helps Men.



Page 10 of 13 [ 183 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Page:

TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:00 pm
Posts: 2122

Tue Apr 24, 2012 6:33 pm

LKL wrote:
TM, I ask again: why are you even here?


Because I hope at one point or another you and your cohorts will post something I haven't heard 100.000 times before and present an argument that I cannot complete by myself.



techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:00 pm
Posts: 15680
Location: Eating over the sink.

Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:27 pm

Oh, the other good thing about feminism - I can be single in my 30's and the shaming over it as if I'm utterly failing to be an adult isn't what it would have been in the 60's or prior.



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:00 pm
Posts: 7593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:34 pm

TM wrote:
LKL wrote:
TM, I ask again: why are you even here?


Because I hope at one point or another you and your cohorts will post something I haven't heard 100.000 times before and present an argument that I cannot complete by myself.


They have posted things like that TM you just don't give a response to it.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:00 pm
Posts: 2122

Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:57 pm

Joker wrote:
TM wrote:
LKL wrote:
TM, I ask again: why are you even here?


Because I hope at one point or another you and your cohorts will post something I haven't heard 100.000 times before and present an argument that I cannot complete by myself.


They have posted things like that TM you just don't give a response to it.


No, they've posted things I've heard before and that does not interest me. If there was anything new being presented that isn't in a hundred or more books, on thousands of websites and has been said on TV and radio for years I wouldn't be growing bored.

I don't bother responding if I do not see anything to gain by having the discussion, I know what I'll reply, what they will reply with, how I will reply, and how they will respond ad nauseum because they are that predictable.

It's what happens when an ideology is discussed by its adherents you get the same talking points over and over again in a different wrapping. The whole thing covered with a nice bow of redefining the world so that it fits within the ideology. In essence, its a discussion where a number of hardly ever discussed premises are assumed to be factual despite the evidence being dubious at best.

For instance, if feminist organizations are pro gender equality and not pro-women, show me financial records of those organizations spending 50% of their resources (time, money effort etc) on male-centric issues.

Explain to me why the following organizations do not have 50% males in their leadership.

http://www.feminist.org/welcome/board.asp

http://www.now.org/officers/

http://www.lwv.org/content/leadership

http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site ... bout_board
http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site ... bout_staff

http://www.ywca.org/site/c.cuIRJ7NTKrLa ... _Board.htm

http://www.awhonn.org/awhonn/content.do ... rs.htm#BOD

http://www.cwfa.org/leadership.asp

I may just be a stupid, sexist bigot, but it seems weird to me that if feminism is pro-equality, in every respect for both genders, then they should practice what they preach and have 50% representation of both genders on their board and amongst their leadership. These are pretty much the biggest feminist organizations in the US.

http://www.soroptimistinternational.org ... -and-staff


I'm sure there is some kind of rationalization for it though.



hyperlexian
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:00 pm
Posts: 21997
Location: with bucephalus

Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:21 pm

you're right, they should have 50% male representation.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html


Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:00 pm
Posts: 12327
Location: Montréal

Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:36 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
you're right, they should have 50% male representation.


I don't see the relevance of that argument; should all civil rights movements involve a 50% representation of the faction that may be opposed to their goals in the spirit of "fairness"? Imagine if feminism had 50% men to begin with when the movement started. There were men involved at the time but they were those who were interested. Often they were also abolitionists. If there were a quota for membership I strongly suspect it would result in complete stasis. Not just of feminism but any equivalent movement. I think this line of argument is pure obfuscation


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:00 pm
Posts: 15680
Location: Eating over the sink.

Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:49 pm

I'll keep posting these as more come to me:
1) Being a sports buff is more accepted.
2) Being a big gamer, even first-person shooter or racing junkie, could just as easily be a turn on as a turn off.



hyperlexian
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:00 pm
Posts: 21997
Location: with bucephalus

Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:04 pm

Vigilans wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
you're right, they should have 50% male representation.


I don't see the relevance of that argument; should all civil rights movements involve a 50% representation of the faction that may be opposed to their goals in the spirit of "fairness"? Imagine if feminism had 50% men to begin with when the movement started. There were men involved at the time but they were those who were interested. Often they were also abolitionists. If there were a quota for membership I strongly suspect it would result in complete stasis. Not just of feminism but any equivalent movement. I think this line of argument is pure obfuscation

ok. i couldn't think of a reason why not


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html


TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:00 pm
Posts: 2122

Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:06 pm

Vigilans wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
you're right, they should have 50% male representation.


I don't see the relevance of that argument; should all civil rights movements involve a 50% representation of the faction that may be opposed to their goals in the spirit of "fairness"? Imagine if feminism had 50% men to begin with when the movement started. There were men involved at the time but they were those who were interested. Often they were also abolitionists. If there were a quota for membership I strongly suspect it would result in complete stasis. Not just of feminism but any equivalent movement. I think this line of argument is pure obfuscation


The quoted post is the rationalization of gender discrimination within the feminist movement. In essence it can be taken as "proof" that some of the people in this thread practice what they preach (Hyperlexican) whereas some rationalize away their own sexism as being "different" from that of others.

It would be interesting to see data on the gender equality of companies where women are majority share holders to see how they compare to companies in which men are majority share holders.

The whole reason I posted it was that I've been told that feminism isn't a pro-woman ideology, overly focused on women and that feminism is pro-gender equality. However, when what appears to be about 90% of board members and management of feminist organizations are women who spend their resources on pro-women efforts, then it cannot be claimed to be a movement or an ideology focused on gender equality.



MotherKnowsBest
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 7:00 pm
Posts: 1191

Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:12 pm

Can I wade in and give an example, even though I haven't read the preceeding pages to see if it's already been given?

In Sweden, feminist capital of the world, feminists campaigned for, and acheived, paternity leave for new dads equal to maternity leave for women. Both parents now get 6 months each.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:00 pm
Posts: 2122

Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:28 pm

MotherKnowsBest wrote:
Can I wade in and give an example, even though I haven't read the preceeding pages to see if it's already been given?

In Sweden, feminist capital of the world, feminists campaigned for, and acheived, paternity leave for new dads equal to maternity leave for women. Both parents now get 6 months each.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/world ... wanted=all

How can I put this, when you force someone to take parental leave or lose the economic benefits, you will get equality. Personally I'm for the "each couple has to decide what they want" model, rather than the "do as we politicians think or we snatch more money out of your pocketbook". This is not anti-feminist, it's anti-nanny-governments and authoritarian legislation.



CloudLayer
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:00 pm
Posts: 308

Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:30 pm

TM wrote:
MotherKnowsBest wrote:
Can I wade in and give an example, even though I haven't read the preceeding pages to see if it's already been given?

In Sweden, feminist capital of the world, feminists campaigned for, and acheived, paternity leave for new dads equal to maternity leave for women. Both parents now get 6 months each.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/world ... wanted=all

How can I put this, when you force someone to take parental leave or lose the economic benefits, you will get equality. Personally I'm for the "each couple has to decide what they want" model, rather than the "do as we politicians think or we snatch more money out of your pocketbook". This is not anti-feminist, it's anti-nanny-governments and authoritarian legislation.


Hello, I am back. No money is being snatched out of anyone's pocketbooks. Families are granted thirteen months of paid leave by the government with a new baby - thirteen months that people without babies do not get, and two of these are reserved exclusively for fathers. If they do not use them, no money is taken out of their pocketbooks, but they do not receive this benefit that is granted by the government to those families who choose to have babies. Nothing is being taken away from them; rather, limitations are being placed on a "perk." As the article says,

Quote:
“I always thought if we made it easier for women to work, families would eventually choose a more equal division of parental leave by themselves,” said Mr. Westerberg, 67. “But I gradually became convinced that there wasn’t all that much choice.”

Sweden, he said, faced a vicious circle. Women continued to take parental leave not just for tradition’s sake but because their pay was often lower, thus perpetuating pay differences. Companies, meanwhile, made clear to men that staying home with baby was not compatible with a career.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:00 pm
Posts: 2122

Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:47 pm

CloudLayer wrote:
TM wrote:
MotherKnowsBest wrote:
Can I wade in and give an example, even though I haven't read the preceeding pages to see if it's already been given?

In Sweden, feminist capital of the world, feminists campaigned for, and acheived, paternity leave for new dads equal to maternity leave for women. Both parents now get 6 months each.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/world ... wanted=all

How can I put this, when you force someone to take parental leave or lose the economic benefits, you will get equality. Personally I'm for the "each couple has to decide what they want" model, rather than the "do as we politicians think or we snatch more money out of your pocketbook". This is not anti-feminist, it's anti-nanny-governments and authoritarian legislation.


Hello, I am back. No money is being snatched out of anyone's pocketbooks. Families are granted thirteen months of paid leave by the government with a new baby - thirteen months that people without babies do not get, and two of these are reserved exclusively for fathers. If they do not use them, no money is taken out of their pocketbooks, but they do not receive this benefit that is granted by the government to those families who choose to have babies. Nothing is being taken away from them; rather, limitations are being placed on a "perk." As the article says,


Extra time off work with pay that are not transferable and that you lose if you do not use them how the government orders you to, is taking things away from people.

How many of those who do not use it would like it to be transferable to their partner? After all, its paid time off that is being taken away. You can phrase it how you like, but:

38 work weeks with 100% pay - 40 work weeks per year at 100% pay = - 2 work weeks with pay.



CloudLayer
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:00 pm
Posts: 308

Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:23 pm

TM wrote:
CloudLayer wrote:
TM wrote:
MotherKnowsBest wrote:
Can I wade in and give an example, even though I haven't read the preceeding pages to see if it's already been given?

In Sweden, feminist capital of the world, feminists campaigned for, and acheived, paternity leave for new dads equal to maternity leave for women. Both parents now get 6 months each.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/world ... wanted=all

How can I put this, when you force someone to take parental leave or lose the economic benefits, you will get equality. Personally I'm for the "each couple has to decide what they want" model, rather than the "do as we politicians think or we snatch more money out of your pocketbook". This is not anti-feminist, it's anti-nanny-governments and authoritarian legislation.


Hello, I am back. No money is being snatched out of anyone's pocketbooks. Families are granted thirteen months of paid leave by the government with a new baby - thirteen months that people without babies do not get, and two of these are reserved exclusively for fathers. If they do not use them, no money is taken out of their pocketbooks, but they do not receive this benefit that is granted by the government to those families who choose to have babies. Nothing is being taken away from them; rather, limitations are being placed on a "perk." As the article says,


Extra time off work with pay that are not transferable and that you lose if you do not use them how the government orders you to, is taking things away from people.

How many of those who do not use it would like it to be transferable to their partner? After all, its paid time off that is being taken away. You can phrase it how you like, but:

38 work weeks with 100% pay - 40 work weeks per year at 100% pay = - 2 work weeks with pay.


By the way the law actually reserves the two months for the "minority parent," which can be either male or female.

What is the 38 in this example though, and what is the 40?



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 7:00 pm
Posts: 8800

Thu Apr 26, 2012 7:58 am

Terlingua wrote:
Does anyone have any examples as to how feminism helps men? I am not looking for speculative or hypothetical answers, but actual real world examples of feminism helping the other sex. Thanks.


1. Hyphenated last names. Those will become intriguing when the next generation has four last names to hyphenate together.

2. Most brides' wedding vows no longer oblige them to "obey" their husbands. Men are no longer, by default, expected to lead and provide for a family. Now, the wife can have a career, and the husband can lead a more relaxed life, and play with his x-box all day.



Display posts from previous:  Sort by  


Page 10 of 13 [ 183 posts ] Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Page:




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Jump to: