Page 4 of 6 [ 90 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

NobodyKnows
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 635

19 Dec 2014, 3:10 pm

AngelRho wrote:
alcockell wrote:
The way I see it as a male member of the general public is that if there are moderates and extremists - then the moderates need to LOUDLY call out the extremists in public in front of news cameras.

Otherwise a hapless Aspie bloke like me can easily think - "What -you want to exploit, enslave or kill me? Why? what have I ever done to you?". All the MOP has to go on are public statements from prominent Feminist Speakers like Jessica Valenti.

And how are they to know they don't speak for the entire political movement?

LKL put it very succinctly. I myself would go so far as to say that "feminism" is pretty much dead, and its would-be present-day equivalents, who really embody the SPIRIT of feminism, are more about cooperation between the sexes rather than taking a more militant stance. The public seems to equate "feminism" with that militant faction, a tiny minority, rather than "real feminists" who take a more moderate position. "Real feminists" are going to distance themselves from "feminism" as what the public associates with "feminism" becomes less what it's really all about. Feminists™ will become less and less respected. It would be like equating all of Christianity, the liberal groups along with conservative evangelicals, Catholics, and more/less liberal mainline groups, with Westboro Baptist.


If you have to re-brand yourselves rather than running on your record, that means that you did something really wrong. Could you (or other feminists) name some "real feminists" so that we can have an honest debate about whether they're really moderate?



NobodyKnows
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 635

19 Dec 2014, 4:01 pm

Since I keep hearing about how bad the patriarchy was, let's take a look at one of the most obtrusive, easy-to-stereotype men in history, George S. Patton:

Did he tell men to 'push down their feelings' (as Laci Green suggests)? Nope: "[E]very man is scared in his first battle. If he says he's not, he's a liar... The real hero is the man who fights even though he is scared."

Did he expect obsequiousness from subordinates? Nope: "One of the bravest men that I ever saw was a fellow on top of a telegraph pole in the midst of a furious fire fight in Tunisia. I stopped and asked what the hell he was doing up there at a time like that. He answered, 'Fixing the wire, Sir.' I asked, 'Isn't that a little unhealthy right about now?' He answered, 'Yes Sir, but the Goddamned wire has to be fixed.' I asked, 'Don't those planes strafing the road bother you?' And he answered, 'No, Sir, but you sure as hell do!' Now, there was a real man. A real soldier."

Did he look down on unglamorous jobs? Nope. He continued: " There was a man who devoted all he had to his duty, no matter how seemingly insignificant his duty might appear at the time, no matter how great the odds. And you should have seen those trucks on the road to Tunisia. Those drivers were magnificent. All day and all night they rolled over those son-of-a-bitching roads, never stopping, never faltering from their course, with shells bursting all around them all of the time. We got through on good old American guts. Many of those men drove for over forty consecutive hours. These men weren't combat men, but they were soldiers with a job to do. They did it, and in one hell of a way they did it. They were part of a team. Without team effort, without them, the fight would have been lost. All of the links in the chain pulled together and the chain became unbreakable."

Was Patton an anomaly? Nope:

Admiral Nimitz sponsored the restoration of Adm. Togo's flagship from the Battle of Tsushima, one of the most potent symbols of Japanese naval power. Talk about a magnanimous victor.

According to Mrs. Catherine Nimitz, he never wrote an autobiography because he didn't want to further critcize the officers that he'd been forced to relieve of command.

The patriarchs weren't nepotistic, either: Patton's son was killed in Vietnam. The son of the de facto commander at Midway was on a submarine engaged in the battle, and a quarter of submariners died. The son of the Commander in Chief of the Atlantic Fleet was killed in a crash on USS Hornet at Midway.

Was the war "started by old men?" Nope: The men in power ratified the Washington Naval Treaty and passed the Neutrality Act, two of the most forcefully pacifist legislative measures in US history.

Assuming that female leaders will be peaceful, wise and fair just shows that you've never read about Queen Elizabeth I, Empress Dowager Cixi, or Agrippina the Younger.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,603
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

19 Dec 2014, 4:36 pm

NobodyKnows wrote:
Since I keep hearing about how bad the patriarchy was, let's take a look at one of the most obtrusive, easy-to-stereotype men in history, George S. Patton:

Did he tell men to 'push down their feelings' (as Laci Green suggests)? Nope: "[E]very man is scared in his first battle. If he says he's not, he's a liar... The real hero is the man who fights even though he is scared."

Did he expect obsequiousness from subordinates? Nope: "One of the bravest men that I ever saw was a fellow on top of a telegraph pole in the midst of a furious fire fight in Tunisia. I stopped and asked what the hell he was doing up there at a time like that. He answered, 'Fixing the wire, Sir.' I asked, 'Isn't that a little unhealthy right about now?' He answered, 'Yes Sir, but the Goddamned wire has to be fixed.' I asked, 'Don't those planes strafing the road bother you?' And he answered, 'No, Sir, but you sure as hell do!' Now, there was a real man. A real soldier."

Did he look down on unglamorous jobs? Nope. He continued: " There was a man who devoted all he had to his duty, no matter how seemingly insignificant his duty might appear at the time, no matter how great the odds. And you should have seen those trucks on the road to Tunisia. Those drivers were magnificent. All day and all night they rolled over those son-of-a-bitching roads, never stopping, never faltering from their course, with shells bursting all around them all of the time. We got through on good old American guts. Many of those men drove for over forty consecutive hours. These men weren't combat men, but they were soldiers with a job to do. They did it, and in one hell of a way they did it. They were part of a team. Without team effort, without them, the fight would have been lost. All of the links in the chain pulled together and the chain became unbreakable."

Was Patton an anomaly? Nope:

Admiral Nimitz sponsored the restoration of Adm. Togo's flagship from the Battle of Tsushima, one of the most potent symbols of Japanese naval power. Talk about a magnanimous victor.

According to Mrs. Catherine Nimitz, he never wrote an autobiography because he didn't want to further critcize the officers that he'd been forced to relieve of command.

The patriarchs weren't nepotistic, either: Patton's son was killed in Vietnam. The son of the de facto commander at Midway was on a submarine engaged in the battle, and a quarter of submariners died. The son of the Commander in Chief of the Atlantic Fleet was killed in a crash on USS Hornet at Midway.

Was the war "started by old men?" Nope: The men in power ratified the Washington Naval Treaty and passed the Neutrality Act, two of the most forcefully pacifist legislative measures in US history.

Assuming that female leaders will be peaceful, wise and fair just shows that you've never read about Queen Elizabeth I, Empress Dowager Cixi, or Agrippina the Younger.


When did Laci Green mention George S. Patton in that video?

Talking about Patton though, did his acknowledgement of soldiers fear and emotions include the times when he slapped them for having shell shock and calling shell shocked soldiers cowards?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton_slapping_incidents



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

19 Dec 2014, 5:24 pm

Where did anyone claim that women are more peaceful? I admit that there's a branch of essentialist feminism that basically buys the gender stereotypes and says that 'feminine' values just need to be more accepted, but that's not the version of feminism that I buy into or argue for, nor the radical feminist branch that this thread is arguing against.



NobodyKnows
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 635

19 Dec 2014, 10:11 pm

Jono wrote:

When did Laci Green mention George S. Patton in that video?


Her accusation was directed at male culture as a whole. I gave an example of a high-ranking patriarch doing the exact opposite. Would you like more?

Quote:
Talking about Patton though, did his acknowledgement of soldiers fear and emotions include the times when he slapped them for having shell shock and calling shell shocked soldiers cowards?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton_slapping_incidents


Patton slapped two men in the middle of war that killed 50 million. (People were eaten by sharks, burned alive and buried under rubble to die of dehydration.) And when word got out, the very patriarchy* that you want people to be scared of (a) demanded that he apologize, and (b) threatened to fire him - in the middle of that globe-scorching war.

(*Members of Congress and General Eisenhower)

If you're suggesting that Patton was so out-of-line that we should look on him with condescension, then I suggest that the matriarchs get their own ship in order first. They still use prone restraints in special ed. programs. Those are (a) more painful and (b) infinitely more likely to cause injury than what Patton did. Some of those kids are trying to flee, not fight, and have such bad home environments that running away would be justified.

If a female teacher can say "We have RULES, dammit!" and kill a non-violent kid to avoid doing more paperwork, then a general in a war should be able to use the same argument.



mpe
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 26 Oct 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 379
Location: Exeter

19 Dec 2014, 11:13 pm

LKL wrote:
Where did anyone claim that women are more peaceful? I admit that there's a branch of essentialist feminism that basically buys the gender stereotypes and says that 'feminine' values just need to be more accepted, but that's not the version of feminism that I buy into or argue for, nor the radical feminist branch that this thread is arguing against.

How do you explain common feminist attitudes towards domestic violence?
Which is very much a "flagship issue" amongst so called "radical feminists".



cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

19 Dec 2014, 11:35 pm

i am a feminist happily married to a male feminist. when i was in med school, some of the men told the women in the class to go home and bear children. that is what i'm against and the type of guy i don't like. i had just as much right to be a doc as they did. i also have a right to equal pay for equal work. one doc called me a castrating female for sympathizing with a female patient who was depressed because her husband wouldn't let her pursue her passion for art. i think there is more feminist bashing than actual feminazis.



AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

20 Dec 2014, 2:59 am

Image :P


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


Dione
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 194
Location: A house in a galaxy far far away

20 Dec 2014, 3:26 am

I am a very strong feminist, and I love men. I understand men better than women, so consequently, most of my closest friends are cis straight males. I may not always agree with them, but life would be boring if we all agreed, right?

I try to avoid sexist terms toward my husband as well because I want to encourage him to be open about his feelings and to feel he can come to me to listen when he's upset the same way I can to him. We try to split our chores evenly and make as many financial decisions as possible together without steamrolling the other. For example, I do the laundry and am responsible for recycling while he takes out the trash and sprays herbicide and insecticide.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I try to judge people based on their compassion for others and kindness. If another person, be they male or female, is mean or bullies others, I won't give them any more time than I have to. For example, I've read most of The Feminine Mystique, which is considered one of the most important books of the time, and while I agree with Friedan that women should be encouraged to be more than just mothers and housewives, I find a lot of the things she had to say about the homosexual community to be abhorrent and immediately put down her book. As a result, I will not buy anything she has written.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

20 Dec 2014, 11:08 am

NobodyKnows wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
alcockell wrote:
The way I see it as a male member of the general public is that if there are moderates and extremists - then the moderates need to LOUDLY call out the extremists in public in front of news cameras.

Otherwise a hapless Aspie bloke like me can easily think - "What -you want to exploit, enslave or kill me? Why? what have I ever done to you?". All the MOP has to go on are public statements from prominent Feminist Speakers like Jessica Valenti.

And how are they to know they don't speak for the entire political movement?

LKL put it very succinctly. I myself would go so far as to say that "feminism" is pretty much dead, and its would-be present-day equivalents, who really embody the SPIRIT of feminism, are more about cooperation between the sexes rather than taking a more militant stance. The public seems to equate "feminism" with that militant faction, a tiny minority, rather than "real feminists" who take a more moderate position. "Real feminists" are going to distance themselves from "feminism" as what the public associates with "feminism" becomes less what it's really all about. Feminists™ will become less and less respected. It would be like equating all of Christianity, the liberal groups along with conservative evangelicals, Catholics, and more/less liberal mainline groups, with Westboro Baptist.


If you have to re-brand yourselves rather than running on your record, that means that you did something really wrong. Could you (or other feminists) name some "real feminists" so that we can have an honest debate about whether they're really moderate?

Well, that's just it. I don't think we CAN define what real feminism is or what real feminists are. It's not that anyone is rebranding themselves. It's more of a no-true-Scotsman approach. If you talk about the negative aspects of feminism or specific militant, foaming-at-the-mouth man-haters, a feminist is going to ask who these people are and where they hang out; and they'll deny, perhaps truthfully, ever meeting women like this. If you actually do drop famous names, they'll say they never heard of those women. Anyone who claims to follow feminism closely, if she's being honest, has to at least admit to a superficial awareness of these particular loudmouths. For me, a marginally good test for intellectual honesty is mentioning Valerie Solanas. If she claims she follows feminism closely and she's never heard of Valerie Solanas, she is either woefully ignorant or she is lying.

Now, here is where it gets tricky, because there is a third alternative: She doesn't consider Valerie Solanas a "true feminist." Because a true feminist would never write or say the kinds of things Valerie Solanas wrote and said. TRUE feminists are merely pro-women, not anti-men. So seething, rabid, man-hating, self-loathing ragers simply aren't feminists at all. As far as "true feminists" are concerned, people like her don't even exist.

Of course, for the contemporary feminist, one could just make the claim that Solanas is old news, so why is she even relevant? OK…fair enough. So we don't pay attention to loudmouths and maybe we only wake up when someone actually DOES something offensive. Fine. So…ever heard of Mireille Miller-Young? The porn professor? No? She's the one who attacked a female child for expressing her right to peaceful protest/free speech. So she doesn't just hate men…she hates other women and children, too (ironic, because she was pregnant at the time of the attack). However, the wagon circlers (the feminist wagon, not the Miller-Young wagon) will say a) She's not a "true feminist," b) she was pregnant and perhaps hormonal (not the best PC response, but whatever), or c) she's black and dealing with the "cultural legacy of slavery" (I didn't make this last one up, btw).

To summarize: If feminism is all about equality for women AS WELL AS men, people like Solanas, Miller-Young, and several more I'm just not taking the time to dredge up right now aren't even supposed to exist. Why do they exist? And are they even feminists? How do you define feminists/feminism?

If you go by the loudest messages being preached wrt feminists/feminism, feminism makes certain claims about equality for women in cooperation with men. But in practice, it's not that simple. It actually requires men to give up ambitious drive and put women on a pedestal without regard for actual merit. It's affirmative action. I'm all about fighting sexism in the workplace. I'm all about opening up opportunities for women IF those opportunities actually were denied women on the basis of their sex. Women DO still get fired for having babies, which in my opinion is one of the most appalling realities of our post-feminist working world. Things like that anger me, and I know it happens because I'm close to someone who lost not one but TWO jobs immediately after childbirth. So I'm not denying that feminists and even some man-haters have a point. What disturbs me the most is that what many of these are going for is the elevation of women at the EXPENSE of men, returning injustice for injustice.

And it is THIS that embodies the public face of feminism. It may not be accurate, but that is how it is perceived, and for a lot of people perception defines reality.

Post-feminism is going to either ignore the seethers or write them out of the "feminist" rubric. Post-feminists, which formerly might have been called 4th/5th/Xth-wave feminists, are going to reject the label entirely simply because this public face of feminism doesn't even remotely describe what they are--which are really moderate feminists who want to be consistent with the SPIRIT of feminism if not their actions.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

20 Dec 2014, 12:02 pm

cathylynn wrote:
i am a feminist happily married to a male feminist. when i was in med school, some of the men told the women in the class to go home and bear children. that is what i'm against and the type of guy i don't like. i had just as much right to be a doc as they did. i also have a right to equal pay for equal work. one doc called me a castrating female for sympathizing with a female patient who was depressed because her husband wouldn't let her pursue her passion for art. i think there is more feminist bashing than actual feminazis.

Just based on this post alone, I'd say you and I think a lot alike. I also appreciate your use of the word "feminazi." It very succinctly summarizes the type of, I dunno, überfeminist (?) I've spent paragraphs on of nothing more than adjectives. The term "feminazi" coming from me wouldn't be any different than if I'd said the "n-word," whereas had my skin color been significantly darker it would be expected to be a staple of everyday speech. I don't let it stop me, but I don't think that makes me anti-feminist.

I do hate that you had that experience. As a man, I have trouble understanding WHY men do that in the world we live in now. I don't agree with frivolous lawsuits, I don't agree with acting with complete disregard or lack of respect for others. I do think it has become too easy to play the "gender card," or whatever you want to call it. But what you described is blatant sexism and harassment. There is absolutely no call for that kind of intolerable behavior. As hard as you have to work, whether you're a man or a woman, to even get into med school, that should be grounds for dismissal.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

21 Dec 2014, 1:25 am

My auntie who did a doctorate in women's studies (see: feminist) is married.

She's scared when her husband is away fishing.

(I'm pretty sure she likes men.)



WelcomeToHolland
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 583

21 Dec 2014, 6:58 pm

cathylynn wrote:
i am a feminist happily married to a male feminist. when i was in med school, some of the men told the women in the class to go home and bear children. that is what i'm against and the type of guy i don't like. i had just as much right to be a doc as they did. i also have a right to equal pay for equal work. one doc called me a castrating female for sympathizing with a female patient who was depressed because her husband wouldn't let her pursue her passion for art. i think there is more feminist bashing than actual feminazis.


" i think there is more feminist bashing than actual feminazis." Yep.

I agree with this completely. I also studied a "male program" in university (in fact at the time, I was the only female in the program- but this was over 20 years ago) and I experienced much of the same. I don't hate men- I hate being treated poorly for no reason (by anyone).


_________________
Mum to two awesome kids on the spectrum (16 and 13 years old).


Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,603
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

26 Dec 2014, 2:59 pm

NobodyKnows wrote:
Jono wrote:

When did Laci Green mention George S. Patton in that video?


Her accusation was directed at male culture as a whole. I gave an example of a high-ranking patriarch doing the exact opposite. Would you like more?


Laci Green's point was that patriarchy is harmful to men as well as women, she's not bashing "male culture". I don't understand, why would you want to defend aspects of society that are bad and harmful instead of seeing society develop and improve?

NobodyKnows wrote:
Quote:
Talking about Patton though, did his acknowledgement of soldiers fear and emotions include the times when he slapped them for having shell shock and calling shell shocked soldiers cowards?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton_slapping_incidents


Patton slapped two men in the middle of war that killed 50 million. (People were eaten by sharks, burned alive and buried under rubble to die of dehydration.) And when word got out, the very patriarchy* that you want people to be scared of (a) demanded that he apologize, and (b) threatened to fire him - in the middle of that globe-scorching war.

(*Members of Congress and General Eisenhower)

If you're suggesting that Patton was so out-of-line that we should look on him with condescension, then I suggest that the matriarchs get their own ship in order first. They still use prone restraints in special ed. programs. Those are (a) more painful and (b) infinitely more likely to cause injury than what Patton did. Some of those kids are trying to flee, not fight, and have such bad home environments that running away would be justified.

If a female teacher can say "We have RULES, dammit!" and kill a non-violent kid to avoid doing more paperwork, then a general in a war should be able to use the same argument.


You've missed the point. I brought up those slapping incidents simply because you brought up general Patton as an example but my main point actually had nothing to do specifically with General Patton. If you look up the background reasons why those slapping incidents occurred, you'll find that it was because General Patton did not believe that shell shock (now recognised to be a form of post-traumatic stress disorder) was a real condition. If you dig deeper, you'll also find that this also comes from a background of the US military believing that symptoms of shell shock were indications of cowardice rather than a real condition and that General Patton was far from the first general to believe that such patients were malingerers. This idea that symptoms of shell shock were acts of cowardice and attempts to avoid combat duty can also be traced back to male gender stereotypes of men being brave and the stronger sex which actually proves Laci Greens point and that's why I brought it up.



AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

26 Dec 2014, 3:18 pm

Girl power?


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


Dione
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 194
Location: A house in a galaxy far far away

26 Dec 2014, 6:40 pm

AspieOtaku wrote:
Girl power?



No, this is not girl power. This is a person being wholly in the wrong. Girl power would be a woman telling the cheating boyfriend off for what he did and breaking it off with him with no violence. I would be just as disgusted if a man was caught beating a woman in a similar fashion.