Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Is it wrong to be a Masculinist

One_Anonymous_Voice
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 6:53:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So this is something people, more commonly those who identify as feminists, have a major problem with. In a society in which there is undeniable prejudice placed against both sexes, is it fair to fight for male rights, when female rights are only just being pulled out of the mud. But this, I believe, is where the problem starts.

Feminism has two major groups: those that believe it is about female rights, and those that believe it is about gender equality. This defining feature of feminism is where the problems arise. To fight purely for one gender's rights is, by its very nature, a sexist act. To claim that your gender's needs are more important than the other's, or to believe that your problems are greater or more prevalent than another's.

This is, I believe, where people begin having problems with movements such as masculinism, feminism, humanism, and equalitism. The people who disagree with these points are themselves not truly for equality. The first two movement examples, masculinism and feminism, are in all honesty one and the same. They are both for the same cause with the order of the words switched. For the sake of this topic, I will only touch on these two, though I understand the representation both humanism and equalitism have here.

For men and women to have equal rights.
For women and men to have equal rights.


There is no real discrepancy here, however you will hear arguments to the bitter end over which is right. Whether one movement is stepping on the toes of another, or the flat out sexism that comes with claiming that one movement is right and one movement is wrong. When in all honesty, both are right and should be searching for equality together. Not pitted against one another.

This is where the arguments usually come in. Either people say that the descriptions of the above are wrong, or that these specific descriptions exist for only a minority. I've heard feminists argue that feminism is equality for everyone, so talk of humanism and equalitism is disrespectful as it undermines it. If this is true, then why are we bashing masculinism when it exists for the same purpose? Just because the word masculine features, do we have to jump on the hate bandwagon? And is that itself not sexist?

Are feminists wrong to bash other movements, as they focus in a sexist manner on only the one gender. Or does feminism encompass everyone? In which case, why does masculinsm receive such a harsh wrap when it stands for exactly the same ideals. Or conversely, do you believe that by deeming yourself a masculinst, you are incapable of caring for more than just men, and become a chauvinistic bigot, zealously spouting sexist nonsense?

I'm interested as to what people have to say on this matter.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 8:55:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Feminism and Equal Rights for Men and Women
Part 1

At 11/23/2014 6:53:28 PM, One_Anonymous_Voice wrote:
One_Anonymous_Voice : So this is something people, more commonly those who identify as feminists, have a major problem with. In a society in which there is undeniable prejudice placed against both sexes, is it fair to fight for male rights, when female rights are only just being pulled out of the mud. But this, I believe, is where the problem starts.

The Fool: The first thing to be aware of is the difference between legal rights, and rights in general. Previously, women did not have much legal rights, but they were also not held as responsible before the law. So it's not so much that, they didn't have rights, or where oppressed, as opposed to having a different set of rules altogether.

They're still not held as equals before the law, men are much more likely to have higher sentencings, for the very same crime and that very bias, is perpetuated, by the way that feminism portrays men in society. So a feminist will fight for "same work same pay", while at the same time ignoring fighting for the "same crime same time".

In other words they fight and focus on change, to get rid of the inequalities, and thus fight for equality, only when the inequality at hand is perceived by feminist, to be disadvantageous to women, while ignoring inequalities which are disadvantageous to men, while advertently or inadvertently perpetuating, inequalities which are disadvantages to men.

In that right there is the heart of the problem.. That's the sneaky way in which feminism fights for equality, that is, its equality for men and women, when the inequality are in women's disadvantage. But not necessarily the other way around.

Thus they can preach that they "fight for equal rights for men and women", but they are omitting the fact that it's equal rights for men and women where the inequality is disadvantageous for women, not necessarily equality for men and women as a society.

That's the catch 22 on the definition of feminism.

That's why It's against violence against women, and not the violence against everybody..

That's why it equality through the empowerment of women, and not necessarily men.

E.g.
UN Women is the UN organization dedicated to gender equality and the empowerment of women. A global champion for women and girls, UN Women was established to accelerate progress on meeting their needs worldwide.

The Fool: There is no UN bureaucracy to even protect the rights of men and boys, while they are at the same time selling the propaganda that it's for men as well.

What they mean by its for men, is that it's for men to have to change themselves. It's for men to have to stop being evil. But not in any way advantageous for men.

Against The Ideologist

To feminist, it's for men because it's men's fault. Thus to accept he for she, is to accept that men are bad.

Get it!! https://www.youtube.com...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
One_Anonymous_Voice
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 9:05:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You make a fantastic point, sharing a lot of the points I have attempted to capitalise on here. However I noticed that you have mentioned that feminism is outright for the benefit of women, and the pseudo-disadvantage for men. (To paraphrase you)

This, I believe, is not true. You are focusing on the more extreme rationalisation of feminism. In which it stands for gender equality, through raising women up to men. Here is the primary problem between understanding these movements. There are those within that believe in equality through removing oppression of the oppressed. And there are those that believe in equality through removing oppression of everyone.

People view some oppression more greatly than others. The fact that paternity leave lasts for a maximum of 3 weeks in the UK, next to the staggering 9 months for maternity leave is glossed over by examples of fair pay and treatment, because they are now considered more shocking.

It is my opinion that the people establishing these beliefs are themselves extremists to their own cause. Even if they do no realise it. To fight for equality is to fight for all equality. That is the true meaning of feminism/masculinism/equalitism/humanism.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 9:54:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Feminism and Equal Rights for Men and Women
Part 2

Anonymous: You make a fantastic point, sharing a lot of the points I have attempted to capitalise on here. However I noticed that you have mentioned that feminism is outright for the benefit of women, and the pseudo-disadvantage for men. (To paraphrase you)

The Fool: I explained to you, the very approach with feminist takes, without mentioning nothing of radical aspects of feminism. I explained the Catch-22 of the definition of feminism that makes people believe that it's for men and women equally. When it isn't necessarily.

For example:

Try and explain where in the history of feminism, have feminist, on their own merit, put any blame on women as a sex, for anything, as they do with men.

Try and explain where in the history of feminism, have feminist, spent resources, on issues or concerns, or change policies, to eradicate inequalities which are disadvantageous to the majority of men and not women..

Try and explain where in history of feminism, feminist, have been concerned about men's issues, which have not been simply to avoid being perceived as hypocritical, or have been made obvious by MRA's and you'll see that going by actions, and not words, that is, going on what feminism is in the world, is at least by your own very standards, inherently sexist and extreme.

How many feminists have fought against Men being drafted into war?
How many feminists, have complained that 90% of the homeless is men?
How many feminist, have complained that, about the neglect of boys and education?

How many feminists have fought against, the fact that men are considered responsible for rape, when a man and woman has sex on their equally as drunk?

How many feminist have fought against the objectification of men, as simply a financial means, to be used and disposed of when they're no longer useful.

How many feminist, have fought or put resources against the stigmatization of men, created by feminism?

I'm not talking about feminist who now hear this very argument, and then integrate it into their plans, only because MRA's make a stink about it.

That's not the kind of advocacy we need. We need an advocacy, which takes our issues just as seriously as women's. Not as second rate, to be neglected until the next lifetime, or until Feminism as a movement who, historically, ideologically, actively, and emotionally are biased in favor of women's issues as opposed to men, feel like they're ready to deal with men's issues. Sorry, I can't go for that.

Anonymous: This, I believe, is not true. You are focusing on the more extreme rationalisation of feminism. In which it stands for gender equality, through raising women up to men.

The Fool: I'm sorry but 99% of all feminist literature, agrees with the very approach that you're considering extreme. Therefore, if what you say is true, then feminism as a movement is extreme. I can't help but think, that you only understand feminism through feminist propaganda.

Anonymous: Here is the primary problem between understanding these movements. There are those within that believe in equality through removing oppression of the oppressed. And there are those that believe in equality through removing oppression of everyone.

The Fool: Dude, I'm an active MRA who is well aware of the deconstruction of feminism, and its history.

Anonymous:: People view some oppression more greatly than others. The fact that paternity leave lasts for a maximum of 3 weeks in the UK, next to the staggering 9 months for maternity leave is glossed over by examples of fair pay and treatment, because they are now considered more shocking.

It is my opinion that the people establishing these beliefs are themselves extremists to their own cause. Even if they do no realise it. To fight for equality is to fight for all equality. That is the true meaning of feminism/masculinism/equalitism/humanism.

The Fool: The fact of the matter is that there are fundamental assumptions in Feminist Theory, which are just not compatible with moral egalitarianism.

A fundamental part of feminist theory is that society as a patriarchy, already constitutes men"s voices, and therefore men don't need or deserve an organized voice on their own issues. So to academic feminists, men Ought not even have a voice on their own issues.!!!

Only with the uprising of MRA groups has feminism begun to market itself for men and women, to prevent men from having their own voice on their own issues, outside of the dogma of feminist theory..

The purpose of that is to monopolize, and squash dissent on gender issues, That is feminist want feminism to be the only authority on gender issues. And the purpose is to avoid direct criticism to feminist theory in its approach itself, not necessarily for the greater good of humanity, as they preach. .And those aspects of feminist theory are not compatible with MRA's or the men's movement.

Against The Ideology

Until those aspects, are completely eradicated, (which we could never be sure of) it's best we go our own way.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
paininthenuts
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 11:51:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I used to belong to a club that had a men only bar. When they refurbished it they got rid of the the bar, I then left. I love women, to the point I own one of my own, but men need male company to keep us sane.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 1:35:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 11:51:26 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
I used to belong to a club that had a men only bar. When they refurbished it they got rid of the the bar, I then left. I love women, to the point I own one of my own, but men need male company to keep us sane.

You OWN a woman?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 1:51:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 1:35:10 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 11/24/2014 11:51:26 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
I used to belong to a club that had a men only bar. When they refurbished it they got rid of the the bar, I then left. I love women, to the point I own one of my own, but men need male company to keep us sane.

wsmunit7 : You OWN a woman?

The Fool: Dude, the guy is 57-year old. I believe that is just the way he speaks. It's not much different then saying I have a boyfriend. "To have" implies that one is in possession of something. We can be each others possessions, don't let Feminist rhetoric fool you otherwise.

Against The Ideologist

Only the brave.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 8:59:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
No, I think it's fine to be a masculinist in theory. I'd even go so far as saying it's kind of important. It's just that whenever I've ever come across someone who describes themselves in those terms, they've always been a nutcase. Not in a cute nutty way, but in a wtf way. It'd be good to meet some decent ones if they exist.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 12:00:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 8:59:01 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Garbanza : No, I think it's fine to be a masculinist in theory. I'd even go so far as saying it's kind of important. It's just that whenever I've ever come across someone who describes themselves in those terms, they've always been a nutcase. Not in a cute nutty way, but in a wtf way. It'd be good to meet some decent ones if they exist.

The Fool: Oh yeah, who is that?
<(89)

Against The Ideologist

Like the wind..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 10:23:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2014 12:00:59 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 11/24/2014 8:59:01 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Garbanza : No, I think it's fine to be a masculinist in theory. I'd even go so far as saying it's kind of important. It's just that whenever I've ever come across someone who describes themselves in those terms, they've always been a nutcase. Not in a cute nutty way, but in a wtf way. It'd be good to meet some decent ones if they exist.

The Fool: Oh yeah, who is that?
<(89)

Exactly. Who are they?

Against The Ideologist

Like the wind..

hehe
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 1:07:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2014 10:23:32 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/28/2014 12:00:59 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 11/24/2014 8:59:01 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Garbanza : No, I think it's fine to be a masculinist in theory. I'd even go so far as saying it's kind of important. It's just that whenever I've ever come across someone who describes themselves in those terms, they've always been a nutcase. Not in a cute nutty way, but in a wtf way. It'd be good to meet some decent ones if they exist.

The Fool: Oh yeah, who is that?
<(89)

Garbanza : Exactly. Who are they?

The Fool: Perhaps your one and only true love.
<(89)

Who knows who you speak about women?
<(8O)

I myself, have not even heard anybody describe themselves as "masculinists." It's actually a slanderous term to an MRA.

Against The Ideologist


And so on, and so forth.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL