Examples of How Feminism Helps Men.
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,183
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
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.
_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
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.
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.
you're right, they should have 50% male representation.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
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
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,183
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
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.
_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin
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:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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?
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.
50% representation of both genders leaves the possibility of an all-male or all-female board where half of them have a complementary gender identity. (50% men, 50% "women trapped in men's bodies")
Equal outcome advocates would not hire members of any group that met their assigned quota. Picture being told that you are not allowed to work somewhere because "we have enough of your kind". Oooh! Here's some drama: Imagine that you could not get a position because a tomboy got the last spot.
I might not worry much about disproportionate representation of people if there is a fair representation of diverse ideas. In other words, I would not be too bothered by non-diverse authority if they empathized with all socially viable ideas that were not their own.
Thing is, you would have to rotate power often, because that level of rationality does not tend to last too long.
On the other hand, there is a problem with equal representation based on sex, too. It would be harder for people who actually are of another sex or culture to conform to the ideologies of the ingroup since they were raised with unlike interests. That is, women should be included in the men's network because they identify things that men consistently do not. This helps the integrity of the whole, but it also assumes that looking different means thinking different.
_________________
"Sex, streams, friends accessing private members... Either I am just discovering unintentional innuendo or Stroustrup is a pervert."
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
GenZ More Likely Than Boomers To Believe Feminism Harmful |
01 Feb 2024, 5:48 pm |
Poor Things is a male take on feminism |
10 Apr 2024, 2:27 pm |
Neem and how it helps the stomach |
10 Feb 2024, 11:46 pm |