Page 117 of 192 FirstFirst ... 1767107115116117118119127167 ... LastLast
Results 2,321 to 2,340 of 3831
  1. #2321
    Activated Node
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    Particularly those groups who are out to battle against the patriarchy - their primary goal is improving their own lot, which in many cases is perfectly fine.[emphasis mine]
    In the context of the thread I read "their primary goal is improving their own lot" as an extention of earlier people who attacked the very idea of anybody wanting equality (specifically, Mohorovic insulting and dismissing me). Then a red mist descended and I lost sight of the context (In italics above, so everyone can point at me and laugh). You are not Mohorovic, and I messed up. Sorry.

  2. #2322
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Zephro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,828
    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    I thought the goal of feminism was the establishment of equal rights for women? Which is fine, but doesn't inherently result in actual gender quality. Again, it'd be possible to subscribe to that belief and yet ignore inequality for males in (for example) custody rights in family courts. Not suggesting that feminist movements don't push for true equality for all, just that I was under the impression that the stated goal has always focused on women's rights.
    Well the tacit assumption is that if you have equal rights to men, then men have equal rights to women. Equal is a reflexive relation.

    Also it's a power struggle and you can't have equal power without actively removing power from the people who have it. Hence feminism tends to put emphasis on empowering women and "diminishing" men, usually white middle class straight men as they were the ones with the power. There isn't another way to achieve equality. People who are already disenfranchised and various other minority groups tend to have lots of overlap with feminist groups wanting to empower them. So the pride parade and feminist festivals here in London tend to have lots of overlap.

    There's obviously a whole lot of complication with that, normally around methods and what you describe as equal. But very few feminists are for women being more equal, they tend to go around promoting women in the arts or so on, but that's because they see them as under-represented and if they become equally represented most would say they'd stop.

    Though the fact that it's always art/music/politics and never engineering... that's a different matter. Actually it's one of the better critiques as to how feminism operates in practice, it often discriminates against women. As it so often is a white middle class female view of power and equality.

    Well it is a new wave of people if we want to even ascribe to the wave model of feminism. Simply because some of the old wave are in there doesn't mean it's not a new thing with a new modus operandi, a new core demographic, and a new set of issues tailored to it's generation and the changes already wrought, good and bad, on the past generation in terms of gender equality. Academic feminism isn't the end-all-be-all of what feminism is, though it is becoming more central to the label over time and that's part of what makes the wave distinct.
    That new wave of feminism about equality rather than purely legal rights came in the 80s (though you can see it in the 70s and 60s). Which is kind of what I was getting at, it's all been part and parcel of the same thing for basically the entirety of my life. Men's Right's Activists and people complaining you need a new label has probably only been the last 10 years or so.

    I don't see what a new label would do other than cause a purposeful rift with the work that has gone before. Which is the purpose of labels relating to identity, to separate one from the "other".
    Last edited by Zephro; 22-08-2013 at 10:48 AM.

  3. #2323
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gwathdring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    3,717
    That new wave of feminism about equality rather than purely legal rights came in the 80s (though you can see it in the 70s and 60s). Which is kind of what I was getting at, it's all been part and parcel of the same thing for basically the entirety of my life. Men's Right's Activists and people complaining you need a new label has probably only been the last 10 years or so.
    1) I don't really subscribe to the whole numbered wave model of feminism. It doesn't work as well as a simple, primarily generational torch-carrying model of social movements.

    2) The Men's Rights Movement is at least as old as the 80s.

    3) "I don't see what a new label would do other than cause a purposeful rift with the work that has gone before. Which is the purpose of labels relating to identity, to separate one from the "other". " ... was exactly my point in an earlier post. I'm not arguing for the creation of a new label. I'm observing that the existence of many branches of feminism that aren't related to just making things good for women is an artifact of movement survival tactics as much as it is about the evolution of thought within a core body of feminists. Other less popular equality movements that can find a corner of feminism to attach themselves to will do so becasue it gives them accessibility. I don't see this as either good or bad.
    I think of [the Internet] as a grisly raw steak laid out on a porcelain benchtop in the sun, covered in chocolate hazelnut sauce. In the background plays Stardustís Music Sounds Better With You. Thereís lots of fog. --tomeoftom

    You ruined his point by putting it in context thatís cheating -bull0

  4. #2324
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus soldant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    4,492
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey Cap View Post
    I messed up. Sorry.
    Apology accepted, all is forgiven and forgotten :)

    Quote Originally Posted by Zephro View Post
    Well the tacit assumption is that if you have equal rights to men, then men have equal rights to women. Equal is a reflexive relation.
    Yes, and I understand that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zephro View Post
    There isn't another way to achieve equality.
    Isn't that a bit like saying that everyone's equal when we're dead? Also that doesn't really seem to fit with the family court example I gave - in an instance where the court favours the mother (hence the female), where does feminism stand on that? You can't really advance women's rights if you're advocating for fathers to see their children more often, right?

    I focus on that because one of my colleagues is recently divorced and his wife is fighting for full custody of the children - children she never took an interest in until now. My friend is looking for 50/50 and she refuses to compromise, and it looks like the court will favour her. Both of them have a stable environment for the children, so one would think they were on equal footing. If feminism is about equal rights and achieves that though advancing females or stripping power from the white middle class straight male, then how does it help him (and hence achieve equality)?
    Nalano's Law - As an online gaming discussion regarding restrictions grows longer, the probability of a post likening the topic to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea approaches one.
    Soldant's Law - A person will happily suspend their moral values if they can express moral outrage by doing so.

  5. #2325
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Zephro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,828
    @gwarthding, I wasn't ascribing to the waves of feminism thing. However the discourse did change radically in the 80s. As they had equal rights pretty much nailed but things clearly weren't equal so a paradigm shift did happen. I don't think that men's rights movements have been around that long, though that's my gut instinct.

    @soldant, I would say almost universally that feminists I know would say parents should be equally favoured. Most of the people I know and spend time with would go on to say that women being given preferential rights is actually just the patriarchy. It assigns women the role of caregiver regardless of actual facts and demeans them as individuals. Though obviously I mostly hang around with professional people in cosmopolitan London, so there is massive bias in anything I say from experience.

    It's also an artefact of culture that pre-dates feminism becoming culturally significant enough to affect court decisions.

    Also on equality, being something of an unrepentant socialist tearing everyone down to a low level to make them equal seems fine by me.

  6. #2326
    Lesser Hivemind Node Winged Nazgul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    Apology accepted, all is forgiven and forgotten :)


    Yes, and I understand that.


    Isn't that a bit like saying that everyone's equal when we're dead? Also that doesn't really seem to fit with the family court example I gave - in an instance where the court favours the mother (hence the female), where does feminism stand on that? You can't really advance women's rights if you're advocating for fathers to see their children more often, right?

    I focus on that because one of my colleagues is recently divorced and his wife is fighting for full custody of the children - children she never took an interest in until now. My friend is looking for 50/50 and she refuses to compromise, and it looks like the court will favour her. Both of them have a stable environment for the children, so one would think they were on equal footing. If feminism is about equal rights and achieves that though advancing females or stripping power from the white middle class straight male, then how does it help him (and hence achieve equality)?
    I believe the current system is biased because of the Patriarch system believing that females are the best at making sammiches, raising children, etc. But what do i know? I'm just a divorced father of three children.

  7. #2327
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus soldant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    4,492
    Quote Originally Posted by Zephro View Post
    Most of the people I know and spend time with would go on to say that women being given preferential rights is actually just the patriarchy. It assigns women the role of caregiver regardless of actual facts and demeans them as individuals.
    I would agree with this, and I don't doubt that historically that has influenced decisions, but surely if the father is asking for 50/50 custody the courts would take that into consideration and permit it? Why have the court stacked against him if he wants equal custody?
    Nalano's Law - As an online gaming discussion regarding restrictions grows longer, the probability of a post likening the topic to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea approaches one.
    Soldant's Law - A person will happily suspend their moral values if they can express moral outrage by doing so.

  8. #2328
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Lambchops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    1,241
    The MRA thing bemuses me. There's a group of people who seem to want to just appear on tv/radio shows/forums/comments threads/reddit or whatever just generally being a bunch of eejits. Doubt they've achieved much for issues pertaining to men. Those that actually have are too busy tackling those issues, be it prostate cancer, suicide rates, custody rights or whatever.

    I'm willing to bet a substantial amount of money that the people who set up Movember aren't dicking around moaning about feminists or whatever, they're actually doing something useful. I do tend to be irked by the "why aren't you doing [x] to sort it then" type arguments during internet based discussions but I think in this case it's pretty valid; if you are that concerned about issues affecting men then I really think the stereotypical MRA lot are directing their boundless energy in entirely the wrong sort of places.

  9. #2329
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Zephro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,828
    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    I would agree with this, and I don't doubt that historically that has influenced decisions, but surely if the father is asking for 50/50 custody the courts would take that into consideration and permit it? Why have the court stacked against him if he wants equal custody?
    My instinct, at least in British history, is that when the laws were changed that way it was from the point of view of wife and children being basically property of the husband to being individuals with rights (theoretically anyway). So the court had to decide what was best for the children, and the mother/father's wishes don't really matter in that sense. So it fell on the still sexist assumption that women are just better with children. Basically some judges, white male rich and posh as they are, at some point just decided to judge against their own gender as they had a patronising view of women.

    It is a rather stupid system and I don't really think anyone is for it.

    The problem is that, at least as the ones on TV/Radio4 present themselves, MRA guys are opposed to feminism or see themselves as somehow incompatible with it. But issues like custody or prostate cancer are totally compatible with feminism and can even be seen as part of the same dialogue, going and setting yourself up as totally separate from it just seems churlish and suspect. Well that's my experience of it anyway.

    Then again I'm naturally suspicious of any women who choose to stay at home with children, no matter how free and genuine that choice is. It's an alien and weird concept to me. So it ends up going both ways.

  10. #2330
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Zephro View Post
    Then again I'm naturally suspicious of any women who choose to stay at home with children, no matter how free and genuine that choice is. It's an alien and weird concept to me.
    Now that's something to put in your sig!

  11. #2331
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Zephro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Mohorovicic View Post
    Now that's something to put in your sig!
    Way to miss the words "So it ends up going both ways" out of that quote. The words that make it a self aware statement of my own bias, rather than just having a go at people. Though i guess the subtlety would be lost on you.

  12. #2332
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,069
    It's my bias tha admitting you have a bias doesn't make it any less of a bias.

  13. #2333
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Zephro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Mohorovicic View Post
    It's my bias tha admitting you have a bias doesn't make it any less of a bias.
    Well if you can't tell the difference between natural bias and actually acting upon it then... oh actually we know you're a sodding idiot.

  14. #2334
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Nalano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NY f'n C
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    Fixed for accuracy.
    Mens Rights Activists, whether they accept the label or not, are men who believe that there is no great wrong with the status quo, and therefore by definition conclude that feminism is wrong and feminists are the enemy, for they are attempting to change the status quo.

    The few issues they actually flack for - custody rights, employment in traditionally female-dominated fields such as elementary school teaching and nursing, Soldant - are ironically due to the outmoded gender roles as inflicted on women as compared to determined by women.

    Of course, even this is giving them too much credit for they are ultimately trying to defend a privileged position: Zephro is correct in that they rightly recognize a threat to their power structure because in order for the genders to be equal, they will have to relinquish power. This mindset is obvious considering when the activists started showing up.
    Nalano H. Wildmoon
    Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
    Attorney at Lawl
    "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

  15. #2335
    Moderator QuantaCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    6,484
    also, isnt it mens rights advocates?
    - Tom De Roeck.

    verse publications

    "Quantacat's name is still recognised even if he watches on with detached eyes like Peter Molyneux over a cube in 3D space, staring at it with tears in his eyes, softly whispering... Someday they'll get it."

    "It's frankly embarrassing. The mods on here are woeful."

    "I wrinkled my nose at QC being a mod."

    "At least he has some personality."

  16. #2336
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Zephro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) is a group of techniques based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to image blood vessels. Magnetic resonance angiography is used to generate images of arteries (and less commonly veins) in order to evaluate them for stenosis (abnormal narrowing), occlusions, aneurysms (vessel wall dilatations, at risk of rupture) or other abnormalities. MRA is often used to evaluate the arteries of the neck and brain, the thoracic and abdominal aorta, the renal arteries, and the legs (the latter exam is often referred to as a "run-off").
    Quote Originally Posted by Urban Dictionary
    Acronym for a group called Men's Rights Activists. I.E. - A bunch of whiny pedantic morons that think there is some vast Illuminati feminist conspiracy while seemingly ignoring the fact that their own gender runs the majority of the world.
    That's what I got from a whole 10 seconds of googling.

    EDIT: OK I found the proper link and it does say advocate:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights Also they sound like right arseholes. They stand for laws and deny that there can be rape within marriage. Ahahahahahaha.
    Last edited by Zephro; 22-08-2013 at 06:09 PM.

  17. #2337
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Fumarole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,605
    Quote Originally Posted by ChippyTea View Post
    We dont exert pressure on Prada to make more high heals in male sizes because the vast majority of men just dont want to wear high heal shoes.
    I think John Walker could use some high heal shoes.
    The Medallion of the Imperial Psychopath, a Napoleon: Total War AAR
    For the Emperor!, a Total War: Shogun 2: Fall of the Samurai AAR

  18. #2338
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gwathdring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    3,717
    EDIT: OK I found the proper link and it does say advocate:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights Also they sound like right arseholes. They stand for laws and deny that there can be rape within marriage. Ahahahahahaha.
    The rape law advocacy branch tends to be a bit skeezy to me, but at least in the Wikipedia article you link to the claim is that marriage provides extenuating circumstances for false accusation due to the prevalence of divorce with wrong-doing statues. It's a terrible, hole filled argument in my estimation, when you stack everything up. But it is different from denying that rape within marriage is possible. It is an argument about the relative merits and social effects of the laws, not the existence of the proposed criminal activity.

    I don't think that men's rights movements have been around that long, though that's my gut instinct.
    Perhaps we're simply talking about different countires and thus getting confused. I realize most of my timing assumptions don't necessarily hold outside the US.

    One of the founding ideas was that women's rights movements had achieved equal rights legislation and were still pushing. There were sweeping changes in feminist thought that suggested the problem was everywhere and that it was insidious and that discrimination had to be fought in ways beyond just passing laws. At which point it becomes very natural to imagine men being reactionary, men looking at their own practical disadvantages and wondering why they don't get some attention too, and men just plain being fed-up with feminism.

    I can't think of a compelling reason to assume that happened later than the 1980s, especially with the resurgence of masculinity in the 80s and the whole clusterfuck with the ERA here in the US. Wikipedia says it started in the 70s, too, so take that as you will.
    Last edited by gwathdring; 22-08-2013 at 09:20 PM.
    I think of [the Internet] as a grisly raw steak laid out on a porcelain benchtop in the sun, covered in chocolate hazelnut sauce. In the background plays Stardustís Music Sounds Better With You. Thereís lots of fog. --tomeoftom

    You ruined his point by putting it in context thatís cheating -bull0

  19. #2339
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Zephro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,828
    OK bit drunk. Bear with me. ( 5 pints drunk as a measure)

    As far as my memory serves the only Men's Rights activist group that ever had traction in the UK is Fathers 4 Justice. Which can only be 10 years old or so, it was on the very specific reason of custody. However most of their activists on TV managed to stray massively outside of that and moan about feminism until everyone just sneered at them as morons. They still pop up occasionally but are largely ignored here. Though like UKIP or the BNP I'm sure they, or their mouthpieces, are just representatives of something less pleasant. (for context UKIP and the BNP aren't racist, they avoid racist language, but everybody knows they basically are. They've learnt the modern language of non-racism to avoid sounding bad, but they still believe it.)

    But the battle here is difference. As far as I understand in the US women are still fighting for their reproductive rights, which has happened here but was minor and utterly defeated, in the UK feminism tends to be more socialist. By that I mean inclusive of Queer thought, the LBGT movement etc. Because being British really boils down to hating the white posh public school boy wankers who run everything. So quite a lot of men are also in the same/overlapping movements by sheer hatred of the posh.

    Cultural context is everything in these debates though. Hence my point earlier about natural bias, I have to be constantly aware that the seething hatred I have for public school boys does sometimes cloud my ability to listen to cogent arguments. Luckily they always makes reactionary statements for their own privilege so it rarely comes up.

    All that aside I'm sure it did start in the 70s. But by the same logic feminism started in the 1830s. When it gained popular support and media coverage is more relevant.

  20. #2340
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Zephro View Post
    Cultural context is everything in these debates though. Hence my point earlier about natural bias, I have to be constantly aware that the seething hatred I have for public school boys does sometimes cloud my ability to listen to cogent arguments. Luckily they always makes reactionary statements for their own privilege so it rarely comes up.
    This is just my favourite paragraph. I mean in the thread.

    Probably also biased by precisely the same seething hatred.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •