Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The patriarchy is a system that says "males do this" and "females do that".

This system is abusive and agency-removing of both men and women.

Have you been called "whipped" before?

So why invoke a term that seeks to fix only one side of the equation?

The point of an equation is that one side equals the other. If you fix one side, you fix the other too.

Melissia wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
More of that arrogant "equalist" bullgak I see.

Attempting to look down on the feminist movement by calling yourself an "equalist" or "humanist" is pathetic and completely misses the point of both the humanist/equalist and feminist movements.

"Equalism" is an extremely marketable middle ground that still represents progress.

In my experience on this forum, terms like "Equalism" or "Humanism" are rarely used except in context of insulting feminism and calling feminists sexist against men (another thing the FAQ I linked to has a discussion on ).

In no other context are they ever used. In no other discussions do the terms EVER come up. Thus, that's all the terms are to me-- either troll terms or terms which are basically an attempt to hide the user's misogyny. They are not serious terms and and I am not yet convinced taht any one who advocates them on this forum honestly believes them.

1. Some so-called feminists are sexist against men. It is a not-uncommon belief for some, that the pendulum should swing the other way, rather than righting itself at center.
2. See underlined. By your own admission, then, the problem is partly you and your perceptions. I have no doubt you've experienced what you claim, however that is unfortunately not an excuse to dump your own baggage on everyone around you.
3. I honestly believe in equality (though I use the far-more-recognizable term of feminism -third wave specifically- because I am lazy and do not like having to explain the more uncommon term of equalism, which is ironicaly more aptly named yet less understood. And I challenge you to find an instance wherein I have demonstrated otherwise.

I think that sometimes you are not even aware of how your sweeping generalizations on this forum are detrimental to your case.

Kilkrazy wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The patriarchy is a system that says "males do this" and "females do that".

This system is abusive and agency-removing of both men and women.

Have you been called "whipped" before?

So why invoke a term that seeks to fix only one side of the equation?

The point of an equation is that one side equals the other. If you fix one side, you fix the other too.

That assumes the equation is already balanced.

Isn't humanism usually associated with atheism? Isn't about emphasizing the importance of humans over the divine and/or supernatural I don't see how that philosophy is at odds with feminism in fact I imagine they're often co-related as they are both concerned about human matters.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Funny how men in traditionally female fields like primary school teaching or nursing get paid more than the women in the same field.

And what about the bullying they face from their female colleagues and the stereotype of men working with young children?

More of that arrogant "equalist" bullgak I see.

Attempting to look down on the feminist movement by calling yourself an "equalist" or "humanist" is pathetic and completely misses the point of both the humanist/equalist and feminist movements.

As noted in the FAQ link above, there is nothing stopping someone from believing in both feminism and equalism. But we all have limited resources-- fiscal, temporal, physical, mental, emotional, etc, all are limited. It's up to each individual activist to choose who they wish to focus their resources.

So you admit, that be it of your own will or 'resources', that you choose to discriminate for and against certain groups?

bs. I don't look down on the feminist movement. The feminists I don't look down on take a progressive stance of "Look, we're not getting enough representation of women in politics. Lets put forth measures to try and improve that. While doing that, lets try and fix the stigma of male teachers in primary school/nursery teaching".

The feminists I DO look down on, are the ones who go with a "Lets do X, Y and Z" approach to fix womens issues, which will bring equality....until they realise men will then end up as the underprivileged gender due to issues not getting any focus.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Funny how men in traditionally female fields like primary school teaching or nursing get paid more than the women in the same field.

And what about the bullying they face from their female colleagues and the stereotype of men working with young children?

It doesn't seem to stop them from earning more than those female colleagues. Usually when you're discriminated against in a field I'd expect you to earn less, as your promotion opportunities would be limited, not earn more.

It could be that they are not bullied at all, but are actually privileged above the women.

Discrimination is more than just a matter of money. Its also psychological.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/glasgowandwestscotland/hi/people_and_places/arts_and_culture/newsid_8353000/8353589.stm

Its not great for men in childcare.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Discrimination is more than just a matter of money. Its also psychological.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/glasgowandwestscotland/hi/people_and_places/arts_and_culture/newsid_8353000/8353589.stm

Its not great for men in childcare at the moment.

Okay. So let's quote a few things from the article.

Most West of Scotland men still find the idea of working with children in nurseries beneath them.

Another factor preventing more men entering childcare is the low level of pay offered to staff which can be as little as just above the national minimum wage.

...findings from The Daycare Trust [say] that 84% of parents would be happy to leave their children with male carers.

Ross Adams, who has been a childcare worker for eight years and is now deputy manager of a Cheshire nursery, said he found the job challenging and enjoyable...

"I think the reason why more men aren't doing this kind of work is to do with social attitude and prejudice towards it...it's viewed as a female environment."

Oh hey, prejudice against a predominantly female job.

The only line in the article that suggests there's a problem with hostility against men in the field is an unsupported one from a politician, which goes against the entire rest of it.

And this:

A lack of information and advertising towards men has also kept nurseries a female dominated workplace despite the huge emotional rewards to be gained by helping children develop in their infant years.

Okay. So men almost universally don't want to do a job that's underpaid and underappreciated, and they aren't advertising towards them as a result. You know that's a feminist issue, right? If it was a job that was appreciated properly and childcare workers were treated properly (like, actually paid money) then more men would do it.

Meanwhile, in every female-dominated job other than that one, we know men are paid more on average than the women.

You know that's a feminist issue, right?

For some feminists yeah. The ones with goals that seek to help everyone.

Not the vindictive "But we have it worse!!!!" ones.

Okay. The fact is, women do get it worse. That's why there was a women's rights movement in the first place. Women still get it worse. I mean, I've just shown you how your own article points to men not doing a "women's job" because they'd rather do better paying jobs with better conditions. What do you think that means about the women doing it?

That doesn't mean the Patriarchy, or Kyriarchy, or whatever you want to call it doesn't screw over men, though. It does, and feminists realise that. Feminism is belief that men and women should be equal, not that women should be superior.

Feminism is belief that men and women should be equal, not that women should be superior.

Then it would get more support if it could get out actual proof of this in action and not just pseudo-intellectual blog posts.

To grab another explanation of it:
http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2007-02-22_527

Women get so few chances in which to share our stories with each other, to find out that we aren’t alone in our experiences, and to have venues in which to publicly tell our stories. The fact that women are beginning to organize and bring these things to their communities is nothing short of amazing.

If women can do this in the face of all the pressure from institutionalized sexism, then what’s stopping men from doing the same? Why is it women’s responsibility to make sure that men feel included by a presentation that, by its very name, is supposed to be about women reaching out to women?

And that’s the first expression of privilege: Privilege is feeling entitled to always be included, no matter what.

Or, to put it bluntly, men attempting to bring up men's issues in a feminism thread when they could instead talk about it in their own thread (and they never start new threads to talk about it) are effectively doing nothing more than egocentric behavior.

It's like if an Iraqi talked about how they had it rough and then an American decided that they should hijack the thread to talk about how rough it is not to be able to afford a third car and having to skimp on how many times they eat out a month-- then got mad every time the Iraqi pointed out how their life was objectively worse.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
So you admit, that be it of your own will or 'resources', that you choose to discriminate for and against certain groups?

No, I'm just not stupid enough to think that I can afford help everyone everywhere all the time.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
I don't look down on the feminist movement.

Don't be dishonest. You've insulted the feminist movement every chance you've had. You jumped in to this thread insulting the feminist movement. Every single other thread about feminism in the past, you've insulted feminism. Every single time. No exception.

This thread certainly isn't one.

No, I'm just not stupid enough to think that I can afford help everyone everywhere all the time.

A movement with no idealism is a movement with no soul.

Or, to put it bluntly, men attempting to bring up men's issues in a feminism thread when they could instead talk about it in their own thread (and they never start new threads to talk about it) are effectively doing nothing more than egocentric behavior.

Isn't that against what your links say? That feminism includes both genders. Men's issues would be relevant then.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
A movement with no idealism is a movement with no soul.

if you think feminism "has no soul" because it focuses on the plight of women, I'm going to put you back on my ignore list-- you obviously have nothing of value to add to any discussion on the topic.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Isn't that against what your links say? That feminism includes both genders. Men's issues would be relevant then.

No. this is a quote from one of the links I provided.

Not that I'm surprised to see that you didn't actually bother to read up on the movement you are trying so hard to put down even when someone was doing your goddamned research for you.

if you think feminism "has no soul" because it focuses on the plight of women, I'm going to put you back on my ignore list-- you obviously have nothing of value to add to any discussion on the topic.

No, I meant about how you had pessimistic views about the ability to help everyone.

A human being should want to help everyone.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
A human being should want to help everyone.

That comes with the implication that I don't want to help everyone, which is dishonest of you to suggest (but then again, diehonesty is about all you've ever shown).

I want to help everyone. That does NOT preclude me from wanting to talk about feminism during a feminist thread and you are, as usual, dishonest in suggesting otherwise.

I want to help everyone. I'm just not stupid enough to believe that I acn.

And thats my point entirely. It doesn't matter if its never achieved, but trying to do so rather than saying it is impossible, is a very good aspect of character.

You should not be trying to alienate people who would support you without the constant anti-male rhetoric your posting. It IS possible to achieve feminism ideals without it.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
And thats my point entirely.

No, it's not.

Attempting to claim that feminists are bad for focusing on womens' issues is little more than trolling.

Do you have philosophical disagreements with the concept of triage?

 Melissia wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
A human being should want to help everyone.

That comes with the implication that I don't want to help everyone, which is dishonest of you to suggest (but then again, diehonesty is about all you've ever shown).

I want to help everyone. That does NOT preclude me from wanting to talk about feminism during a feminist thread and you are, as usual, dishonest in suggesting otherwise.

I don't even know if wanting to help everyone is that admirable there are some groups that are too horrible for me to want to help (like Islamist extremists, racists, etc) unless by helping you mean introducing more liberal-minded ideas.

 Melissia wrote:
I'm aware that terms like patriarchy trigger negative reactions in certain people, so I personally try to avoid it. But since you asked:

Here's an article explaining the concept. Maybe you'll actually be honestly interested in the idea, but given this forum's record, I doubt it.

Thanks for the links Melissa. Just back from errands and a lot more yet to do, but I'll get a proper read at them later when there are fewer disturbances.

 Melissia wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
And thats my point entirely.

No, it's not.

Attempting to claim that feminists are bad for focusing on womens' issues is little more than trolling.

Feminism is a bit too complex to call it as a whole bad. Groups within it certainly could be called bad depending on their beliefs/philosophies. Its not trolling to disagree with a group.

Do you have philosophical disagreements with the concept of triage?

I have serious disagreements with any concept that inherently discriminates one individual over another. That is why I patiently await for the time of wide-scale applications of cybernetics, AI, trans-species/humanism and other technologies that will lead to a uniformity that lacks discrimination on any biological level.

I don't even know if wanting to help everyone is that admirable there are some groups that are too horrible for me to want to help (like Islamist extremists, racists, etc) unless by helping you mean introducing more liberal-minded ideas.

It would be difficult to be like that without being callous, no matter how evil the group.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
anti-male rhetoric

More dishonesty from Mr. Hyena.

Not that I'm surprised. You have long tried to claim that the feminist movement as a whole is sexist against men, because how DARE we have a discussion about problems that people other than men face.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
And thats my point entirely.

No, it's not.

Attempting to claim that feminists are bad for focusing on womens' issues is little more than trolling.

Feminism is a bit too complex to call it as a whole bad. Groups within it certainly could be called bad depending on their beliefs/philosophies. Its not trolling to disagree with a group.

Honestly if you break feminism to it's most basic form it's just wanting equal treatment among both genders/sexes, which is a fine goal imo. These stories about crazy feminists are just a small minority compared to the more moderate majority that makes up the movement just you don't

hear many stories about moderate feminists because they don't make for entertaining stories as the extremist minority. Just like there's stereotypes about liberals (pot smoking hippies) and conservatives (gun toting red-necks) but they only make a small fraction of their party's demographic

and won't be the main group influencing policy unlike the moderate majority.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
And thats my point entirely.

No, it's not.

Attempting to claim that feminists are bad for focusing on womens' issues is little more than trolling.

Feminism is a bit too complex to call it as a whole bad. Groups within it certainly could be called bad depending on their beliefs/philosophies. Its not trolling to disagree with a group.

Honestly if you break feminism to it's most basic form it's just wanting equal treatment among both genders/sexes, which is a fine goal imo. These stories about crazy feminists are just a small minority compared to the more moderate majority that makes up the movement just you don't

hear many stories about moderate feminists because they don't make for entertaining stories as the extremist minority. Just like there's stereotypes about liberals (pot smoking hippies) and conservatives (gun toting red-necks) but they only make a small fraction of their party's demographic

and won't be the main group influencing policy unlike the moderate majority.

This is how the movement should be advertised quite honestly. Compared to Melissia's explanations, this is much easier to get behind.

As noted in one of the articles I linked:

Simply put, the patriarchy is the system of power and privilege that puts rich, white, able-bodied, upper-class men at the top, and distributes crumbs of power, prestige, and privilege to other groups based on how well they uphold the goals and position of the dudes at the top.

That is what is being acted against-- there's no "anti-male rhetoric". Men are not being hated, rather, what's hated is the socio-economic power structure which puts limitations on political minorities.

The "anti-male rhetoric" is, to paraphrase an old saying, the hobgoblin of little minds.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
This is how the movement should be advertised quite honestly. Compared to Melissia's explanations, this is much easier to get behind.

You haven't read any of my explanations to begin with.

Men are not being hated, rather, what's hated is the socio-economic power structure which puts limitations on political minorities.

and thats honestly a worthy goal to move against, but it is the constant focus on the fact that they are male who are in charge, when noone of any gender, race, religion or sexuality; should have any control over anyone else.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
the constant focus on the fact that they are male who are in charge

Ahem:

 Melissia wrote:
The "anti-male rhetoric" is, to paraphrase an old saying, the hobgoblin of little minds.

That doesn't prove that its not anti-male rhetoric. It just makes a counter assertion, while also insulting anyone who holds the opposing viewpoint.

Well, what would demonstrate that it's not "anti-male rhetoric" is actually reading it.