Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Feminsm vs. Masculism

Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 4:56:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why is it that feminism is deemed a social equality movement, but masculism is sexist?
If I had 'black-ism' would that be socially acceptable? How about 'white-ism?' (Isn't that called white supremacy?)

What's wrong with humanitarianism? Or egalitarianism?
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 4:58:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Woman folk should all be locked in a giant prison camp. Only allowed out when we want sammiches or want to breed.
kfc
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 4:59:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/21/2012 4:56:11 PM, Axiom wrote:
Why is it that feminism is deemed a social equality movement, but masculism is sexist?
If I had 'black-ism' would that be socially acceptable? How about 'white-ism?' (Isn't that called white supremacy?)

What's wrong with humanitarianism? Or egalitarianism?

Well, firstly, people didn't reject humanitarianism in favor of feminism, they embraced what was available at the time to try and advance their liberty & lot.

Secondly, some, not all, but some "Men's Rights" groups are ridiculous. They're actually just fronts for woman-bashing.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 9:08:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/21/2012 4:56:11 PM, Axiom wrote:
Why is it that feminism is deemed a social equality movement, but masculism is sexist?
If I had 'black-ism' would that be socially acceptable? How about 'white-ism?' (Isn't that called white supremacy?)

What's wrong with humanitarianism? Or egalitarianism?

Yeah .. unfortunately a lot of men's groups are just woman bashing .. but luckily not all of us ;)
All you have to remember is the following:

Feminism is bullsh*t. Look into it historically, the first wave actually hated lesser women (the poor) and only the radicals support all women. A lot of these women were also pretty racist!
Each person looks as feminism differently: we're in third wave feminism, they have no 'set' issues to raise just women in general (could be about empowerment, fighting sexual assaults, even the suppression of men)
you can still believe in equality and NOT be a feminist (I am)
Thank you for voting!
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 9:20:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Feminism was a valid ideology.... under women got all the basic rights as men. Now, it is just a way for some select female radicals, who thankfully nobody respects, to oppress man in a sort of affirmative action sort of way.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 9:27:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/21/2012 9:20:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Feminism was a valid ideology.... until women got all the basic rights as men. Now, it is just a way for some select female radicals, who thankfully nobody respects, to oppress man in a sort of affirmative action sort of way.

Fix'd I think.

And this.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 9:58:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/21/2012 9:27:38 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 8/21/2012 9:20:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Feminism was a valid ideology.... until women got all the basic rights as men. Now, it is just a way for some select female radicals, who thankfully nobody respects, to oppress man in a sort of affirmative action sort of way.

Fix'd I think.

And this.

I bid you great transcendence in the afterlife, which consists of rotting in the ground, for fixing my word mistake. :)
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 11:12:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Both beliefs are retarded. There are inequalities on both sides of the gender wheel that need to be addressed, not just women or men exclusively.
turn down for h'what
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 12:07:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I never fail to be amazed by this 'double standard' argument.

What possesses some people to take social movements as existing outside of social context is far beyond me.

It takes as a given that the goals of promoting either group lead to equivalent policy outcomes. If women can't vote, then a movement aimed at "equality for women" versus a movement aimed at promoting voting "for men" will lead to voting enfranchisement on one hand and maintenance of the status quo on the other. Women's voting rights movement won't lead to men losing their right to vote. It would lower their relative advantage.

Likewise, groups aimed at helping minorities specifically are trying to lower the relative advantage of the majority. It is damn near moronic to say that the majority keeping a status quo should be equivocated with the minority seeking to change it.

If you'd like to maintain that we currently live in an environment such that there no longer is a difference in policy implications between "pro-feminism" and "pro-masculinist" then by all means, argue so (ex. because women can now vote, there is no need for further pro-women movement except to create dominance of women over men such that the pro-masculinist side now has the disadvantage).

However, to simply say that the existence of pro-women movements and not pro-male movements is somehow a double standard is like complaining that there is a double standard against group that want to keep blacks from voting and groups that want blacks to vote.

Social movements exist within social context. Taking them out of social context and then denouncing them as hypocrisy is malicious sophistry.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 12:29:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I heard a lot about feminism.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 2:41:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/21/2012 9:08:22 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 8/21/2012 4:56:11 PM, Axiom wrote:
Why is it that feminism is deemed a social equality movement, but masculism is sexist?
If I had 'black-ism' would that be socially acceptable? How about 'white-ism?' (Isn't that called white supremacy?)

What's wrong with humanitarianism? Or egalitarianism?

Yeah .. unfortunately a lot of men's groups are just woman bashing .. but luckily not all of us ;)
All you have to remember is the following:

Feminism is bullsh*t. Look into it historically, the first wave actually hated lesser women (the poor) and only the radicals support all women. A lot of these women were also pretty racist!
Each person looks as feminism differently: we're in third wave feminism, they have no 'set' issues to raise just women in general (could be about empowerment, fighting sexual assaults, even the suppression of men)
you can still believe in equality and NOT be a feminist (I am)

Democracy is bull-lie, look into it historically, the first wave hated lesser human-beings (women) and kept slaves. A lot of these democrats were also pretty xenophobic!

Each person looks at democracy differently: we're in liberal democracy wave democracy, they have no "set" issues to raise just democratic principles in general (could be about decentralization, human rights, even pretexts for military conquest).

You can still believe in people power and NOT be a democrat (I am).
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 3:09:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/21/2012 11:12:25 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
Both beliefs are retarded. There are inequalities on both sides of the gender wheel that need to be addressed, not just women or men exclusively.

+1 Best view, posted.
TheAsylum
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 3:23:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The problem with egalitarianism is that all people are not created equal. Some people are inherently superior mentally and/or physically. As it turns out, people with like-genetics tend to have like-performance.

Special interest groups form from the members' sense of inferiority or powerlessness. Men have dominated the world for basically all of human history, so women have felt inferior. As it turns out, women are inferior in many ways (physical strength for one, having to birth them babies doesn't help the ol' career either) and so even on an even playing field, women have worse performance.

Nobody wants to be inferior, so these groups lobby the state to forcefully even the scale in terms of performance (e.g. affirmative action), which inevitably results in the "in-control" group feeling like they're being taken advantage of and so counter-special interest groups are made.

This is why we are seeing the emergence of masculism and the re-emergence of white nationalism/ white supremacy.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 3:29:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 3:23:27 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
The problem with egalitarianism is that all people are not created equal. Some people are inherently superior mentally and/or physically. As it turns out, people with like-genetics tend to have like-performance.

Special interest groups form from the members' sense of inferiority or powerlessness. Men have dominated the world for basically all of human history, so women have felt inferior. As it turns out, women are inferior in many ways (physical strength for one, having to birth them babies doesn't help the ol' career either) and so even on an even playing field, women have worse performance.

Nobody wants to be inferior, so these groups lobby the state to forcefully even the scale in terms of performance (e.g. affirmative action), which inevitably results in the "in-control" group feeling like they're being taken advantage of and so counter-special interest groups are made.

This is why we are seeing the emergence of masculism and the re-emergence of white nationalism/ white supremacy.

You're not seriously suggesting that white people are superior to blacks? Or vice versa?
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 9:10:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 3:29:57 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/22/2012 3:23:27 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
The problem with egalitarianism is that all people are not created equal. Some people are inherently superior mentally and/or physically. As it turns out, people with like-genetics tend to have like-performance.

Special interest groups form from the members' sense of inferiority or powerlessness. Men have dominated the world for basically all of human history, so women have felt inferior. As it turns out, women are inferior in many ways (physical strength for one, having to birth them babies doesn't help the ol' career either) and so even on an even playing field, women have worse performance.

Nobody wants to be inferior, so these groups lobby the state to forcefully even the scale in terms of performance (e.g. affirmative action), which inevitably results in the "in-control" group feeling like they're being taken advantage of and so counter-special interest groups are made.

This is why we are seeing the emergence of masculism and the re-emergence of white nationalism/ white supremacy.

You're not seriously suggesting that white people are superior to blacks? Or vice versa?

Depends on how you measure "superiority". Whites out-perform blacks on IQ tests by 15-20 points on average, and I don't think anyone would deny the superior athletic proficiency of blacks, at least not when it comes to running.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 9:22:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 12:07:34 AM, Wnope wrote:
I never fail to be amazed by this 'double standard' argument.

What possesses some people to take social movements as existing outside of social context is far beyond me.

It takes as a given that the goals of promoting either group lead to equivalent policy outcomes. If women can't vote, then a movement aimed at "equality for women" versus a movement aimed at promoting voting "for men" will lead to voting enfranchisement on one hand and maintenance of the status quo on the other. Women's voting rights movement won't lead to men losing their right to vote. It would lower their relative advantage.

Likewise, groups aimed at helping minorities specifically are trying to lower the relative advantage of the majority. It is damn near moronic to say that the majority keeping a status quo should be equivocated with the minority seeking to change it.

If you'd like to maintain that we currently live in an environment such that there no longer is a difference in policy implications between "pro-feminism" and "pro-masculinist" then by all means, argue so (ex. because women can now vote, there is no need for further pro-women movement except to create dominance of women over men such that the pro-masculinist side now has the disadvantage).

However, to simply say that the existence of pro-women movements and not pro-male movements is somehow a double standard is like complaining that there is a double standard against group that want to keep blacks from voting and groups that want blacks to vote.

Social movements exist within social context. Taking them out of social context and then denouncing them as hypocrisy is malicious sophistry.

The incontrovertible truth, adroitly articulated. Well done!
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 9:31:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 9:10:58 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 8/22/2012 3:29:57 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/22/2012 3:23:27 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
The problem with egalitarianism is that all people are not created equal. Some people are inherently superior mentally and/or physically. As it turns out, people with like-genetics tend to have like-performance.

Special interest groups form from the members' sense of inferiority or powerlessness. Men have dominated the world for basically all of human history, so women have felt inferior. As it turns out, women are inferior in many ways (physical strength for one, having to birth them babies doesn't help the ol' career either) and so even on an even playing field, women have worse performance.

Nobody wants to be inferior, so these groups lobby the state to forcefully even the scale in terms of performance (e.g. affirmative action), which inevitably results in the "in-control" group feeling like they're being taken advantage of and so counter-special interest groups are made.

This is why we are seeing the emergence of masculism and the re-emergence of white nationalism/ white supremacy.

You're not seriously suggesting that white people are superior to blacks? Or vice versa?

Depends on how you measure "superiority". Whites out-perform blacks on IQ tests by 15-20 points on average, and I don't think anyone would deny the superior athletic proficiency of blacks, at least not when it comes to running.

By Jimmy, it's Timmy!
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 9:31:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 9:22:11 AM, Ren wrote:
At 8/22/2012 12:07:34 AM, Wnope wrote:
I never fail to be amazed by this 'double standard' argument.

What possesses some people to take social movements as existing outside of social context is far beyond me.

It takes as a given that the goals of promoting either group lead to equivalent policy outcomes. If women can't vote, then a movement aimed at "equality for women" versus a movement aimed at promoting voting "for men" will lead to voting enfranchisement on one hand and maintenance of the status quo on the other. Women's voting rights movement won't lead to men losing their right to vote. It would lower their relative advantage.

Likewise, groups aimed at helping minorities specifically are trying to lower the relative advantage of the majority. It is damn near moronic to say that the majority keeping a status quo should be equivocated with the minority seeking to change it.

If you'd like to maintain that we currently live in an environment such that there no longer is a difference in policy implications between "pro-feminism" and "pro-masculinist" then by all means, argue so (ex. because women can now vote, there is no need for further pro-women movement except to create dominance of women over men such that the pro-masculinist side now has the disadvantage).

However, to simply say that the existence of pro-women movements and not pro-male movements is somehow a double standard is like complaining that there is a double standard against group that want to keep blacks from voting and groups that want blacks to vote.

Social movements exist within social context. Taking them out of social context and then denouncing them as hypocrisy is malicious sophistry.

The incontrovertible truth, adroitly articulated. Well done!

Such is the logic of every affirmative action opinion handed down by the Supreme Court since the late 1960s.
Tsar of DDO
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 10:07:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 9:31:47 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/22/2012 9:22:11 AM, Ren wrote:
At 8/22/2012 12:07:34 AM, Wnope wrote:
I never fail to be amazed by this 'double standard' argument.

What possesses some people to take social movements as existing outside of social context is far beyond me.

It takes as a given that the goals of promoting either group lead to equivalent policy outcomes. If women can't vote, then a movement aimed at "equality for women" versus a movement aimed at promoting voting "for men" will lead to voting enfranchisement on one hand and maintenance of the status quo on the other. Women's voting rights movement won't lead to men losing their right to vote. It would lower their relative advantage.

Likewise, groups aimed at helping minorities specifically are trying to lower the relative advantage of the majority. It is damn near moronic to say that the majority keeping a status quo should be equivocated with the minority seeking to change it.

If you'd like to maintain that we currently live in an environment such that there no longer is a difference in policy implications between "pro-feminism" and "pro-masculinist" then by all means, argue so (ex. because women can now vote, there is no need for further pro-women movement except to create dominance of women over men such that the pro-masculinist side now has the disadvantage).

However, to simply say that the existence of pro-women movements and not pro-male movements is somehow a double standard is like complaining that there is a double standard against group that want to keep blacks from voting and groups that want blacks to vote.

Social movements exist within social context. Taking them out of social context and then denouncing them as hypocrisy is malicious sophistry.

The incontrovertible truth, adroitly articulated. Well done!

Such is the logic of every affirmative action opinion handed down by the Supreme Court since the late 1960s.

And nazis used the logic of natural selection to justify genocide. What's your point?
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 10:21:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 10:07:18 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/22/2012 9:31:47 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/22/2012 9:22:11 AM, Ren wrote:
At 8/22/2012 12:07:34 AM, Wnope wrote:
I never fail to be amazed by this 'double standard' argument.

What possesses some people to take social movements as existing outside of social context is far beyond me.

It takes as a given that the goals of promoting either group lead to equivalent policy outcomes. If women can't vote, then a movement aimed at "equality for women" versus a movement aimed at promoting voting "for men" will lead to voting enfranchisement on one hand and maintenance of the status quo on the other. Women's voting rights movement won't lead to men losing their right to vote. It would lower their relative advantage.

Likewise, groups aimed at helping minorities specifically are trying to lower the relative advantage of the majority. It is damn near moronic to say that the majority keeping a status quo should be equivocated with the minority seeking to change it.

If you'd like to maintain that we currently live in an environment such that there no longer is a difference in policy implications between "pro-feminism" and "pro-masculinist" then by all means, argue so (ex. because women can now vote, there is no need for further pro-women movement except to create dominance of women over men such that the pro-masculinist side now has the disadvantage).

However, to simply say that the existence of pro-women movements and not pro-male movements is somehow a double standard is like complaining that there is a double standard against group that want to keep blacks from voting and groups that want blacks to vote.

Social movements exist within social context. Taking them out of social context and then denouncing them as hypocrisy is malicious sophistry.

The incontrovertible truth, adroitly articulated. Well done!

Such is the logic of every affirmative action opinion handed down by the Supreme Court since the late 1960s.

And nazis used the logic of natural selection to justify genocide. What's your point?

That wasn't a slight at you. I agree with what you were saying, and so do the courts.
Tsar of DDO
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 10:49:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 10:21:05 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/22/2012 10:07:18 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/22/2012 9:31:47 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/22/2012 9:22:11 AM, Ren wrote:
At 8/22/2012 12:07:34 AM, Wnope wrote:
I never fail to be amazed by this 'double standard' argument.

What possesses some people to take social movements as existing outside of social context is far beyond me.

It takes as a given that the goals of promoting either group lead to equivalent policy outcomes. If women can't vote, then a movement aimed at "equality for women" versus a movement aimed at promoting voting "for men" will lead to voting enfranchisement on one hand and maintenance of the status quo on the other. Women's voting rights movement won't lead to men losing their right to vote. It would lower their relative advantage.

Likewise, groups aimed at helping minorities specifically are trying to lower the relative advantage of the majority. It is damn near moronic to say that the majority keeping a status quo should be equivocated with the minority seeking to change it.

If you'd like to maintain that we currently live in an environment such that there no longer is a difference in policy implications between "pro-feminism" and "pro-masculinist" then by all means, argue so (ex. because women can now vote, there is no need for further pro-women movement except to create dominance of women over men such that the pro-masculinist side now has the disadvantage).

However, to simply say that the existence of pro-women movements and not pro-male movements is somehow a double standard is like complaining that there is a double standard against group that want to keep blacks from voting and groups that want blacks to vote.

Social movements exist within social context. Taking them out of social context and then denouncing them as hypocrisy is malicious sophistry.

The incontrovertible truth, adroitly articulated. Well done!

Such is the logic of every affirmative action opinion handed down by the Supreme Court since the late 1960s.

And nazis used the logic of natural selection to justify genocide. What's your point?

That wasn't a slight at you. I agree with what you were saying, and so do the courts.

Ah, sorry, but you'd be surprised (or not) at how negative some people view affirmative action to inherently be.
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 11:15:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 10:49:50 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/22/2012 10:21:05 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/22/2012 10:07:18 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/22/2012 9:31:47 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/22/2012 9:22:11 AM, Ren wrote:
At 8/22/2012 12:07:34 AM, Wnope wrote:
I never fail to be amazed by this 'double standard' argument.

What possesses some people to take social movements as existing outside of social context is far beyond me.

It takes as a given that the goals of promoting either group lead to equivalent policy outcomes. If women can't vote, then a movement aimed at "equality for women" versus a movement aimed at promoting voting "for men" will lead to voting enfranchisement on one hand and maintenance of the status quo on the other. Women's voting rights movement won't lead to men losing their right to vote. It would lower their relative advantage.

Likewise, groups aimed at helping minorities specifically are trying to lower the relative advantage of the majority. It is damn near moronic to say that the majority keeping a status quo should be equivocated with the minority seeking to change it.

If you'd like to maintain that we currently live in an environment such that there no longer is a difference in policy implications between "pro-feminism" and "pro-masculinist" then by all means, argue so (ex. because women can now vote, there is no need for further pro-women movement except to create dominance of women over men such that the pro-masculinist side now has the disadvantage).

However, to simply say that the existence of pro-women movements and not pro-male movements is somehow a double standard is like complaining that there is a double standard against group that want to keep blacks from voting and groups that want blacks to vote.

Social movements exist within social context. Taking them out of social context and then denouncing them as hypocrisy is malicious sophistry.

The incontrovertible truth, adroitly articulated. Well done!

Such is the logic of every affirmative action opinion handed down by the Supreme Court since the late 1960s.

And nazis used the logic of natural selection to justify genocide. What's your point?

That wasn't a slight at you. I agree with what you were saying, and so do the courts.

Ah, sorry, but you'd be surprised (or not) at how negative some people view affirmative action to inherently be.

Principally because they don't understand the very real and substantive differences that exist between historically disenfranchised groups, or regard those differences as a societal problem meritorious of remedy. Moral issues aside (although I do think many compelling moral arguments exist for affirmative action), the outcomes affirmative action produce alone are, in my view, sufficiently compelling to justify the practice on that basis alone.
Tsar of DDO
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 12:59:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/21/2012 4:56:11 PM, Axiom wrote:
Why is it that feminism is deemed a social equality movement, but masculism is sexist?
If I had 'black-ism' would that be socially acceptable? How about 'white-ism?' (Isn't that called white supremacy?)

What's wrong with humanitarianism? Or egalitarianism?

The reason why society deems it that way (regardless of whether or not it is right) is because women and non-whites have been subservient throughout history. The idea of equality is relatively very new, and as with affirmative action, feminism is seen by some as a way to 'make up for' past injustices.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 1:32:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 12:07:34 AM, Wnope wrote:
I never fail to be amazed by this 'double standard' argument.

What possesses some people to take social movements as existing outside of social context is far beyond me.

It takes as a given that the goals of promoting either group lead to equivalent policy outcomes. If women can't vote, then a movement aimed at "equality for women" versus a movement aimed at promoting voting "for men" will lead to voting enfranchisement on one hand and maintenance of the status quo on the other. Women's voting rights movement won't lead to men losing their right to vote. It would lower their relative advantage.

Likewise, groups aimed at helping minorities specifically are trying to lower the relative advantage of the majority. It is damn near moronic to say that the majority keeping a status quo should be equivocated with the minority seeking to change it.

If you'd like to maintain that we currently live in an environment such that there no longer is a difference in policy implications between "pro-feminism" and "pro-masculinist" then by all means, argue so (ex. because women can now vote, there is no need for further pro-women movement except to create dominance of women over men such that the pro-masculinist side now has the disadvantage).

However, to simply say that the existence of pro-women movements and not pro-male movements is somehow a double standard is like complaining that there is a double standard against group that want to keep blacks from voting and groups that want blacks to vote.

Social movements exist within social context. Taking them out of social context and then denouncing them as hypocrisy is malicious sophistry.

My point is that if you accept feminism as supporting the rights of females for equality with males, then you also have to accept concepts like 'masculism.' For instance, during the time period of original feminism, there could've easily been movements for men saying that fifty percent of casualties in war should've been female. All this talk about 'basic human rights.' Isn't the right to 'life' a basic human right?

Any true supporter of equality would be an egalitarian, not a masculist or a feminist. Because you can't reach equality between two parties by only focusing on the problems of one side.

And this ridiculous notion that 'men's standards of rights are what feminists aspire too' paints the picture in obscurity. In the end, who got the seats in the life boats leaving the titanic? There is a double standard if you say that feminists have the right to advocate their specific unique interests, but masculists don't have that same right.

So the fact that you "never fail to be amazed,' speaks more to your beliefs than mine.

Humanitarians would want voting rights for women, not just feminists. In a society where NO ONE had voting rights, and feminism emerged it would advocate only for half of the opressed. And thus, masculism should be an acceptable movement to champion the other half.

Many current day laws favor women over men and promote inequality. (child-support, alimony, women serve 40 percent less jail time for identical crimes commited by men etc...) So, all I'm saying is that if you support feminists, you should support masculists as well. Or at least respect their right to speech. But instead, masculists are 'sexist' or 'msyoginist' or 'whiners and complainers.'
Be amazed by the double standard all you want. It exists.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 3:37:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So someone seeking voting rights for black Americans would not be a true egalitarian unless he simultaneously campaigned for increasing the amount of poor white voters so as to minimize the relative loss of white voting power?

I suppose Ghandi failed a test of egalitarianism since he did not address the social specificities which effected Brits negatively but not Indians in the colony?

You ONCE AGAIN take things out of context: MEN were pushing to keep women out of war. Women were first on the titanic because, like children, they were believed to be incapable of defending themselves. Alimony and child payment differentials were based on socioeconomic realities of the time when it came to employment and wages for men and women.

So yes, a double standard exists, just like when one group campaigns for blacks to gain a right to vote while the other campaigns only to increase the white votes.

It's called POLICY IMPLICATIONS.
inferno
Posts: 10,689
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 3:39:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 3:37:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
So someone seeking voting rights for black Americans would not be a true egalitarian unless he simultaneously campaigned for increasing the amount of poor white voters so as to minimize the relative loss of white voting power?

I suppose Ghandi failed a test of egalitarianism since he did not address the social specificities which effected Brits negatively but not Indians in the colony?

You ONCE AGAIN take things out of context: MEN were pushing to keep women out of war. Women were first on the titanic because, like children, they were believed to be incapable of defending themselves. Alimony and child payment differentials were based on socioeconomic realities of the time when it came to employment and wages for men and women.

So yes, a double standard exists, just like when one group campaigns for blacks to gain a right to vote while the other campaigns only to increase the white votes.

It's called POLICY IMPLICATIONS.

You have very much to learn about Blacks my friend.
You could never understand what it is to be a person of color let alone
a Woman.
yoda878
Posts: 902
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 3:40:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/21/2012 4:58:41 PM, Koopin wrote:
Woman folk should all be locked in a giant prison camp. Only allowed out when we want sammiches or want to breed.

Or maybe a bite to eat... lol sorry had to
Me
yoda878
Posts: 902
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 3:43:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Women will always have feminism, because men seem stronger.
Blacks will always have movement, because they are a minority.

Its human nature to do this.
Me