Greetings!! Is this your first visit? If so, please consider registering. It enables downloads and removal of adverts. Use the 'facebook connect' for quick access.
Register
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 70
  1. #1
    Lucia's Avatar
    Lucia is offline Established Member
    Member Since
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    29

    How to really solve the gender inequality problem

    (I couldn't think of anywhere else to put this topic, move if incorrect)

    Okay as a summary, mens rights = Masculism, women's rights = Feminism. I've looked on many websites, blogs and forums and see the same points coming up.

    Here is my goal in different communities, I am going to start on the opinions of feminist communities:

    • Masculism has caused many rape victims not be believed because of a few who lied about it
    • Masculism representatives can be sometimes just as bad and/or sexist as radical feminists
    • If Masculism succeeds it will do the same thing to us.
    • There is no need for Masculism because men get better rights than us.
    • Our society is Patriarchal and men want it to stay that way.
    • A lot of masculinity blame things on feminism that feminism had nothing to do with.


    So, from talking to some members on this forum, I have gathered a opinions here too.

    • Feminism can't be a valid way of achieving equality due to it being only supporting to the female race
    • Feminism ignores the rights of men, allowing them to be falsely accused of rape with no penalty to the victim.
    • Feminism is the cause of many laws against men.
    • There are no non-misandric women in feminism.
    • Our society is Matriarchal and women want it to stay that way.
    • The only way that it is possible for men to get their rights back is through getting rid of feminism


    Now, I can see true and false points in these. Here is my own opinion on the matter:

    Supporting only one form of gender rights probably would cause unbalance, something I cannot deny, whichever it would be feminism, or the newer masculism, it has repercussions and this causes one or another to place oneself in the victim spot. So feminism and masculism are simultaneously both victimizing and perpetrating one another, because of one-sided views, but neither want to address themselves as perpetrators.

    This causes inequality, to only address misandry or misogyny without addressing both, is possibly how this whole thing began. In reality, our society is sexist to both men and women, this is due to ignorance and fear. This is also due to how people treat labels, whenever I am in a community that supports feminism or masculism I always notice how they both paint each other with the same brush.

    One member stated on my introduction thread that support feminism even though I am an equalist is still sexist because of what some of the people in the movement are doing and have done. Now, in my personal perspective, both feminism and masculism have nothing wrong with them. They are simply movements, it is the people in the movements that control the effects of the movement on the world. If feminists and masculists merged and called themselves as anti-sexists (removing the radical sexist ones of course), or had united with each other as non-conflicting groups that genuinely want equality for both sexes, I believe none of this would happen. The radicals would be out on the ears and would be exposed because they wouldn't have genuine people supporting anti-sexism under their wing.

    Why? Well, I personally believe that many people understand the effects of oppression, from both sides, and can relate to one another through that. If we can discard things like "men are the problem" and "women are the problem" and say instead "inequality is the problem", things would be much better.

    Radical feminists would not be able to hold up their sexism if we could find a way to both both genders, and there would be less unequal laws towards genders because both misogyny and misandry would be highlighted through the support of gender equality groups.

  2. #2
    Nynrah Ghost's Avatar
    Nynrah Ghost is offline Established Member
    Member Since
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,594

    Re: How to really solve the gender inequality problem

    I see many invalid points in your post as well and to start off, your solution will not lead to equality.

    For starters, we are not to be compared with feminism as if MRA's are the male equivalents of feminists. The MRM is a REACTION to the feminist movement after it has become more and more obvious what the feminist movement has been doing.

    We see things as the are. When we state that men are being victimized (e.g. the draft, male genital mutilation, affirmative action, the way false accusations are dealt with and the lack of father's rights) we state facts. What feminists do, is making women victims regardless of the situation (Hilary Clinton managed to call women the greatest victims of war, because 'their men' die and they stay behind). They seek to claim victimhood as much as possible to justify their existance and paychecks. It is a difference of day and night.

    Do elaborate, what is the MRM actually perpetrating? It is a hollow claim without appropriate evidence.

    Basically, what you get wrong, is that you believe we are one-sided and are basically feminism's male equivalent. We seek to rectify the inequality towards men that feminists have been campaigning for in their misandrous pursuit and to bring parity to men's rights with women's rights. When that happens, our job is basically done unlike what feminists have done: creating more problems so they can 'solve' them and thus justifying their existance.

    What we do, is not cause for inequality as you seem to state. Infact, if the MRM's work is finished, women benefit as well and true equality will be much closer within reach. Take for instance in regard to rape, how feminist laws, policies and media basically allow for valse accusation with impunity and in the process, diminishing the credibility or genuine victims... Feminism - 'pro-women' - persecutes men including many innocent men and hurts women which the profess to 'fight for' as well. The MRM however, seeks for this issue to be adressed and that cases are investigated properly, the media can't tar brush over a suspect's name through anonimity untill conviction and for proven false accusers to be punished appropriatly instead of being given a wrist-slap. This would not rectify injustice toward men, but also towards women as well. It's just one example. I could also start about the dwindling marriage numbers, the regression of boy's/men's academic achievments and so on, which all also negatively affect women and is brought and kept in existance by yours truly: feminism.

    It is ironic, how the goals of the 'one-sided' MRM actually are more beneficial to the goal of true equality. You should get the point I am trying to convey by now. You can't compare us to feminism like you have been doing untill now. Our goals are fundamentally different. The focus is on men's rights, because those are severely lacking. Asking us to also campaign for women's rights at this time in whatever form (e.g. joining with feminists), is an absurd notion because that would diminish our voice where it is needed most; it would mean dimishing the effectiveness of our work. Women's rights already have many voices, men's rights don't.

    You say we brush feminism with tar. From your words, you seem to find this unfair. I argue however, that it is not unfair at all if you consider that the lion's share of the issues that are detrimental to men, are at least in part caused by feminism as a movement. It does not matter if not every single one of you is 'not like that'. What matters is that the havoc that is being wreaked, is being done so under the banner of feminism. The moderate feminist do not, as a sufficiently significant group, oppose the actions of feminism and those are just a few reasons why the moderates do not really matter.

    It is very simple. We judge feminism by it's actions and those actions are severely negative. If those who are 'not like that' are bothered so much by being associated with radical, man-hating female-supremacists, then where is that significant counter-voice? Feminist are very large in numbers, so it is not unreasonable to expect a significant counter-voice in such case. Also, why do you folks insist on sticking to a label which has come to stand symbol for bigotry? If you choose to call yourself feminist, then you should not be too surprised to be treated as such. Many people, men in particular, have been hurt enormously by feminism. Can you honestly expect of them to mind the sensitivities of the 'moderate feminists'? The way people, hurt or aware of the injustices feminisms causes, view the feminist movement is not that unfair at all, even to the moderate people. As individuals it might be slightly, but you must not forget that by defending feminism or branching feminism, you provide covers for radicals and people who support the radical actions of feminism because you paint feminism as something positive to a certain degree.

    A merged movement will also not work, but rather be detrimental. It has been elaborated upon in your intro thread. Many people can rightfully not get it over their hearts to join with the very people that have antagonized/are antagonizing them directly or indirectly and rightfully so. Also, when feminists get a say in men's matters, it is seen that our message gets twisted to befit feminist interests. If for instance an study is being done to find out the reason why men shy away from marriage, the conclusion would be that the laws are skewed in women's favor at men's detriment. If such a study would include a feminst's say in the matter, then the conclusion would be something like 'men are not manning up: peter pan syndrome'. Something like this has happened/is happening, but I can't recall the exact name of the project. It's something like 'the good men's project' or something like that. It is supported by feminists and it obvious by the typical feminist message that is being conveyed: it's men's fault as ussual.

    It is just like a ministry for men being created to 'adress men's issues' and telling men to suck it up and to take responsibility at every turn which goes hands in hand with the rest of the feminist-dominated politics.

    Ultimately, there is no need for a merge. A merge is detrimental whilst at the same time, the MRM's work will rectify many problems that will also be beneficial towards females as well and actually works towards and opens a road to a degree of equality where we can speak of treatment towards both sexes that can be considered as 'fair'.

    Do realise that this is not an attack for the sake of being hostile, but rather an attempt to provide understanding through limited elaboration (otherwise I'd still be typing much longer) and pointing out flaws in your reasoning. I kindly urge you to take some time and delve into this forum. Read the available material which includes, but is not limited to articles, studies and evidence and to look at other discussions as well, as to develop understanding of our points of view and the factual situation.
    Last edited by Nynrah Ghost; 7th-August-2011 at 10:57 PM.

  3. #3
    julie's Avatar
    julie is offline Established Member
    Member Since
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,094

    Re: How to really solve the gender inequality problem

    It's good to talk about this, but time consuming which costs at this time of the day, (for me) so I'll be brief.

    In reality, our society is sexist to both men and women, this is due to ignorance and fear.
    I agree with this state in so far as gender issues go but not for personal experiences.

    The MRM is a REACTION to the feminist movement after it has become more and more obvious what the feminist movement has been doing.
    I agree in so far many men may not have joined the MRM if it wasn't for their awareness and experiences but I disagree because the MRM took off at the same time as feminism in the 70's. Men who were a part of it and still a part of it say the reason it didn't take off well was because it was divided into those who supported feminism and those who were anti feminism.

    The gay movement also started off at the same time, yet that didn't take off because some men came out straight away wanting sex with boys.
    Ignorance is the Oppressor, Vigilance the Liberator.

  4. #4
    Lucia's Avatar
    Lucia is offline Established Member
    Member Since
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    29

    Re: How to really solve the gender inequality problem

    Quote Quote from Nynrah Ghost View Post
    I see many invalid points in your post as well and to start off, your solution will not lead to equality.

    For starters, we are not to be compared with feminism as if MRA's are the male equivalents of feminists. The MRM is a REACTION to the feminist movement after it has become more and more obvious what the feminist movement has been doing.
    MRM is a part of the masculist movement, as it's goal is to fight for the fights of men.

    Masculism - Men's Wiki

    As you believe anti-feminism is anti-male rights, your technique of fighting anti-male discrimination would be to tackle feminism.

    We see things as the are. When we state that men are being victimized (e.g. the draft, male genital mutilation, affirmative action, the way false accusations are dealt with and the lack of father's rights) we state facts. What feminists do, is making women victims regardless of the situation (Hilary Clinton managed to call women the greatest victims of war, because 'their men' die and they stay behind). They seek to claim victimhood as much as possible to justify their existance and paychecks. It is a difference of day and night.

    Do elaborate, what is the MRM actually perpetrating? It is a hollow claim without appropriate evidence.
    Please do remember that not all feminists support the same claims, just like MRMs don't all support the same claims.

    For example, some MRM are sexist and actually still have outdated views like "Nothing a women has said is original, she's just parroting what a man has said before her". I've met them, but I know they do not represent the whole supporters of the group. And then some will say things like "All feminists are sexist, or a majority of them are sexist", but none of them have gone and surveyed the whole world of feminists to say this is actually true. Now I don't deny this is or is not true, I am just pointing it out.

    Basically, what you get wrong, is that you believe we are one-sided and are basically feminism's male equivalent. We seek to rectify the inequality towards men that feminists have been campaigning for in their misandrous pursuit and to bring parity to men's rights with women's rights. When that happens, our job is basically done unlike what feminists have done: creating more problems so they can 'solve' them and thus justifying their existance.

    What we do, is not cause for inequality as you seem to state. Infact, if the MRM's work is finished, women benefit as well and true equality will be much closer within reach. Take for instance in regard to rape, how feminist laws, policies and media basically allow for valse accusation with impunity and in the process, diminishing the credibility or genuine victims... Feminism - 'pro-women' - persecutes men including many innocent men and hurts women which the profess to 'fight for' as well. The MRM however, seeks for this issue to be adressed and that cases are investigated properly, the media can't tar brush over a suspect's name through anonimity untill conviction and for proven false accusers to be punished appropriatly instead of being given a wrist-slap. This would not rectify injustice toward men, but also towards women as well. It's just one example. I could also start about the dwindling marriage numbers, the regression of boy's/men's academic achievments and so on, which all also negatively affect women and is brought and kept in existance by yours truly: feminism.
    That is not true, in order to have equality, there needs to be something that advocates the rights of men and women equal, and I'm not talking about two groups trying to overpower each other, I'm talking about perhaps one group doing it. So since many have told me feminism is not working for the female race, and it won't for the male race. How about we just support anti-sexism?

    It is ironic, how the goals of the 'one-sided' MRM actually are more beneficial to the goal of true equality. You should get the point I am trying to convey by now. You can't compare us to feminism like you have been doing untill now. Our goals are fundamentally different. The focus is on men's rights, because those are severely lacking. Asking us to also campaign for women's rights at this time in whatever form (e.g. joining with feminists), is an absurd notion because that would diminish our voice where it is needed most; it would mean dimishing the effectiveness of our work. Women's rights already have many voices, men's rights don't.
    I disagree, feminism started off as female rights and nothing else. It had no hatred towards men, and then next thing you know, it got more popular, then the 3rd wave feminists came with all their hate, and represented us, and the people who did truely support female rights got thrown to the greggs.

    Men's rights, will have a worse fate if it continues, because let's say if men's rights does successfully take over, and restores many of men's rights everywhere. But as a result of knocking down feminism and dumb law makers, women's rights yet again have been comprimised. But no women's rights people can speak because they are no longer taken seriously, and then another revolution of feminism happens. What will continue to happen then?

    You say we brush feminism with tar. From your words, you seem to find this unfair. I argue however, that it is not unfair at all if you consider that the lion's share of the issues that are detrimental to men, are at least in part caused by feminism as a movement. It does not matter if not every single one of you is 'not like that'. What matters is that the havoc that is being wreaked, is being done so under the banner of feminism. The moderate feminist do not, as a sufficiently significant group, oppose the actions of feminism and those are just a few reasons why the moderates do not really matter.

    It is very simple. We judge feminism by it's actions and those actions are severely negative. If those who are 'not like that' are bothered so much by being associated with radical, man-hating female-supremacists, then where is that significant counter-voice? Feminist are very large in numbers, so it is not unreasonable to expect a significant counter-voice in such case. Also, why do you folks insist on sticking to a label which has come to stand symbol for bigotry? If you choose to call yourself feminist, then you should not be too surprised to be treated as such. Many people, men in particular, have been hurt enormously by feminism. Can you honestly expect of them to mind the sensitivities of the 'moderate feminists'? The way people, hurt or aware of the injustices feminisms causes, view the feminist movement is not that unfair at all, even to the moderate people. As individuals it might be slightly, but you must not forget that by defending feminism or branching feminism, you provide covers for radicals and people who support the radical actions of feminism because you paint feminism as something positive to a certain degree.

    A merged movement will also not work, but rather be detrimental. It has been elaborated upon in your intro thread. Many people can rightfully not get it over their hearts to join with the very people that have antagonized/are antagonizing them directly or indirectly and rightfully so. Also, when feminists get a say in men's matters, it is seen that our message gets twisted to befit feminist interests. If for instance an study is being done to find out the reason why men shy away from marriage, the conclusion would be that the laws are skewed in women's favor at men's detriment. If such a study would include a feminst's say in the matter, then the conclusion would be something like 'men are not manning up: peter pan syndrome'. Something like this has happened/is happening, but I can't recall the exact name of the project. It's something like 'the good men's project' or something like that. It is supported by feminists and it obvious by the typical feminist message that is being conveyed: it's men's fault as ussual.
    Yes, I do agree now that feminism has a problem, but the reason it got that problem was due to one-sidedness, something you say is good for MRM. Now, if the moderates (who believe it or not, do not like radicals) were to leave feminism and join anti-sexism groups, would you support them?

    Ultimately, there is no need for a merge. A merge is detrimental whilst at the same time, the MRM's work will rectify many problems that will also be beneficial towards females as well and actually works towards and opens a road to a degree of equality where we can speak of treatment towards both sexes that can be considered as 'fair'.

    Do realise that this is not an attack for the sake of being hostile, but rather an attempt to provide understanding through limited elaboration (otherwise I'd still be typing much longer) and pointing out flaws in your reasoning. I kindly urge you to take some time and delve into this forum. Read the available material which includes, but is not limited to articles, studies and evidence and to look at other discussions as well, as to develop understanding of our points of view and factual situation.
    Why do you believe that anti-sexism group would be detrimental to the growth of anti-sexism on both sides? First of all, it would have more supporters, less ignorant people, and it would be more appealing to both sexes. Anti-sexism cannot be warped into anti-male, anti-female groups as the supporters would be both males and females, instead of being predominantly male or female. Also, people who are able to be radical would not join these groups but would rather join Feminism or Masculism instead, as they have already. Anti-sexism groups would focus on both male and female discrimination, while feminism and masculism would mostly focus on their own gender problems.
    Last edited by Lucia; 7th-August-2011 at 11:28 PM.

  5. #5
    julie's Avatar
    julie is offline Established Member
    Member Since
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,094

    Re: How to really solve the gender inequality problem

    Oh, I also want to add something I've learned about feminism. The 1970's feminism from information I've gathered was radical from the outset. Much of moderate women's work were 'arms of the lesbian political movement'.

    Other than my perception of gender movements, I have little to offer and will read to learn more.
    Ignorance is the Oppressor, Vigilance the Liberator.

  6. #6
    Lucia's Avatar
    Lucia is offline Established Member
    Member Since
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    29

    Re: How to really solve the gender inequality problem

    Quote Quote from julie View Post
    Oh, I also want to add something I've learned about feminism. The 1970's feminism from information I've gathered was radical from the outset. Much of moderate women's work were 'arms of the lesbian political movement'.

    Other than my perception of gender movements, I have little to offer and will read to learn more.
    Sure, well there was different waves of feminism.

    The history of the modern western feminist movements is divided into three "waves".[15][16] Each is described as dealing with different aspects of the same feminist issues. The first wave refers mainly to women's suffrage movements of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (mainly concerned with women's right to vote). The second wave refers to the ideas and actions associated with the women's liberation movement beginning in the 1960s (which campaigned for legal and social equality for women). The third wave refers to a continuation of, and a reaction to, the perceived failures of second-wave feminism, beginning in the 1990s.[17]
    Well, the first form of feminism started off with simple rights such as not being burned as witches, the right to vote, the right to education, ability to work, being recognized as a human rather than just their value for reproduction (infertile women were considered useless). etc.

    The second wave was a bit more controversial because it dealt with more issues like gender roles in family, sexism in the workplace. but was not radical or hateful.

    Third wave feminism was when feminism began to attract more women, some of these women were prejudiced and they began changing feminism as their numbers grew, so much it began to conflict with men's rights, the riot "grrrrl" band was a good example of this, it began to show reverse sexism as a form of empowerment. The third wave feminists are those who mostly believe in stuff like abortion, sexualization as empowerment etc. They will take words like "bitch", "slut" and "spinster" and use them as empowerment words in order to make the bitter women in their groups feel better, any women who objects to this apparently hates their own gender apparently.

    The second wave feminists do not agree with the third wave feminists, but the third wave feminists have more power since they spread their word through music and empowerment groups that say they "kick ass" and "get things done". So the second wave feminists are now called "not modern" and "outdated and "weak" and such.

    So I'm sure what you see here is more of a power struggle between the second wave and third wave feminists.
    Last edited by Lucia; 8th-August-2011 at 12:30 AM.

  7. #7
    Nynrah Ghost's Avatar
    Nynrah Ghost is offline Established Member
    Member Since
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,594

    Re: How to really solve the gender inequality problem

    Quote Quote from Lucia View Post
    MRM is a part of the masculist movement, as it's goal is to fight for the fights of men.

    Masculism - Men's Wiki
    Masculinism is not of relevance to this forum; the MRM is.

    As you believe anti-feminism is anti-male rights, your technique of fighting anti-male discrimination would be to tackle feminism.
    How do you fix something? By removing and countering it's causes. It is undeniable that feminism as a movement is responsible for many problems and they fight tooth and nail to prevent the situation being rectified. Not EVERYTHING is feminism's fault, but very much is.

    Please do remember that not all feminists support the same claims, just like MRMs don't all support the same claims.

    For example, some MRM are sexist and actually still have outdated views like "Nothing a women has said is original, she's just parroting what a man has said before her". I've met them, but I know they do not represent the whole supporters of the group. And then some will say things like "All feminists are sexist, or a majority of them are sexist", but none of them have gone and surveyed the whole world of feminists to say this is actually true. Now I don't deny this is or is not true, I am just pointing it out.
    None of this matters. What matters is the actions of a movement. The dominating consensus and actions within our movement and that which is of any (be it minor) influence, is not radical. The actions of feminism is outrageously radical. It does not matters if you and some others are nice people and call yourselves feminist or whether I or otheres would be radical as hell and call ourselves MRA's. Only what is brought into being counts. The underworld of all kind of branched feminists is of no significance when the radicals, the leaders and icons of feminism call the shots and are not being opposed.

    If you don't want to be looked down upon as a feminist, then you will either have to drop the label or you and others will have to do something to clear your name. You can't just expect to call yourself something like a feminist and be cuddled by us. It is in essence the same like expecting a yew to be very friendly to a moderate nazi who 'was not like them', but still chooses to associate with a label that is basically contamined.

    That is not true, in order to have equality, there needs to be something that advocates the rights of men and women equal, and I'm not talking about two groups trying to overpower each other, I'm talking about perhaps one group doing it. So since many have told me feminism is not working for the female race, and it won't for the male race. How about we just support anti-sexism?
    There doesn't have to be any group at all. People ought to use their common sense again for the first time in decades. It is utmost pathetic that we need one big fluffy movement to remind us of things that should come naturally as common sense.

    In order for us to be equal, we need parity. Women already have been granted many rights. Some excessive privileges will have to dissapear in order to create a fair balance. We can't start on even ground if men's are lacking behind massively. Their rights need to be tended to first. That is not saying whoms rights are more importnant, but a judgement of urgency and impact. Once we are on even footing (and feminism is undeniably a huge obstacle here), we can actually continue with our utopian wishes. Even then... if you'd be anti-sexism, you'd find yourself more bussy with men's rights because those are overwhelmingly lacking compared to women's rights (which are everything except lacking and nobody has ever succeeded to refute this point besides the joking 'women can't pee standing up' comment). That fact would lessen the benefit you would hope such a merger would create at this time.

    It is not I care about just on side of the coin, but I am being just practical here.

    I disagree, feminism started off as female rights and nothing else. It had no hatred towards men, and then next thing you know, it got more popular, then the 3rd wave feminists came with all their hate, and represented us, and the people who did truely support female rights got thrown to the greggs.
    The second wave already heralded the dawn of full-blown misandry from the feminist movement...

    Men's rights, will have a worse fate if it continues, because let's say if men's rights does successfully take over, and restores many of men's rights everywhere. But as a result of knocking down feminism and dumb law makers, women's rights yet again have been comprimised. But no women's rights people can speak because they are no longer taken seriously, and then another revolution of feminism happens. What will continue to happen then?
    It is concensus within the MRM that we must differentiate ourselves from the feminist movement by not considering women as enemies, but the ideology. In old days, we lived in ways that were most effecient and convenient at times. There has been opression, but not by men. It was opression by class; an elite class (including women) opressing the lower class. What feminism has done over the last decades, it swinging the pendulum completely to one side. Men (and to a certain degree, women) have been hurt and ruined by this. Many MRA's or people with common goals, also have had bad experiences with feminism's fruits. Generally speaking, they don't want to do to others, what feminists have done to them and within the communities AM associates with, we do not stand for radicals abusing our banner. The fear of the tables turning on women through radical MRA's in politics is not justified.

    Yes, I do agree now that feminism has a problem, but the reason it got that problem was due to one-sidedness, something you say is good for MRM. Now, if the moderates (who believe it or not, do not like radicals) were to leave feminism and join anti-sexism groups, would you support them?
    What I am saying is that we have a relatively small voice which we have to utilize as efficient as possible and considering the facts, we need our voice most for the sake of bringing men's rights on par with women's. To focus on women's issues (and I can't think of many...) would be a waste and since women's rights already has a huge lobby, I do not believe I am saying a word too much.

    As for your question, the likelihood would be larger, but it will come down to the actions of said group.

    Why do you believe that anti-sexism group would be detrimental to the growth of anti-sexism on both sides? First of all, it would have more supporters, less ignorant people, and it would be more appealing to both sexes. Anti-sexism cannot be warped into anti-male, anti-female groups as the supporters would be both males and females, instead of being predominantly male or female. Also, people who are able to be radical would not join these groups but would rather join Feminism or Masculism instead, as they have already. Anti-sexism groups would focus on both male and female discrimination, while feminism and masculism would mostly focus on their own gender problems.
    It's not so much the anti-sexism part. It is allowing feminists to pollute our voice in times where we need every bit of our relatively small voice. There already have already been occurences of where people spoke under our banner, yet propagated a message that was actually similar to that of a radical feminist and the polar opposite of what we stand for. Such hijacking is detrimental and such a risk is great. It seems to me that you don't see what threat that allowing this represents, but to many of us, who know of such happenings and the consequences, do see this and we do not take this lightly.

    Added after 15 minutes:

    Quote Quote from Lucia View Post
    Sure, well there was different waves of feminism.



    Well, the first form of feminism started off with simple rights such as not being burned as witches, the right to vote, the right to education, ability to work, being recognized as a human rather than just their value for reproduction (infertile women were considered useless). etc.

    The second wave was a bit more controversial because it dealt with more issues like gender roles in family, sexism in the workplace. but was not radical or hateful.

    Third wave feminism was when feminism began to attract more women, some of these women were prejudiced and they began changing feminism as their numbers grew, so much it began to conflict with men's rights, the riot "grrrrl" band was a good example of this, it began to show reverse sexism as a form of empowerment. The third wave feminists are those who mostly believe in stuff like abortion, sexualization as empowerment etc. They will take words like "bitch", "slut" and "spinster" and use them as empowerment words in order to make the bitter women in their groups feel better, any women who objects to this apparently hates their own gender apparently.

    The second wave feminists do not agree with the third wave feminists, but the third wave feminists have more power since they spread their word through music and empowerment groups that say they "kick ass" and "get things done". So the second wave feminists are now called "not modern" and "outdated and "weak" and such.

    So I'm sure what you see here is more of a power struggle between the second wave and third wave feminists.
    A few things I'd like to add:

    The second wave was already quite seething with misandry (with the likes of Dworkin and Daly) and it was also this wave that seriously started to implement legislation and policies that were detrimental to men.

    While I am at it, I'd also like to point out that feminists are quick to embolden their position by stating that the early feminists have achieved so many great things. In truth, feminism has achieved pretty much nothing. Many things (such as women entering the workplace etc.) were actually a result of technological advances and changing times. The sufragette movement was also a different entity from the feminist movement back then.

    And regarding the truth behind the right to vote I have an interresting read here:
    The Truth about Women getting the Vote

    Douglas' blog also contains some well-written entries which are relevant on the topic about associating with feminism and so on:
    Why many women think they are feminists -- and why they are wrong. - Blogs - antimisandry.comQualified feminsm. ("moderate feminism" "ifeminism" NAFALT "feminist but.." etc.) - Blogs - antimisandry.com
    Last edited by Nynrah Ghost; 8th-August-2011 at 12:46 AM. Reason: content auto merged

  8. #8
    Lucia's Avatar
    Lucia is offline Established Member
    Member Since
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    29

    Re: How to really solve the gender inequality problem

    Quote Quote from Nynrah Ghost View Post
    Masculinism is not of relevance to this forum; the MRM is.


    How do you fix something? By removing and countering it's causes. It is undeniable that feminism as a movement is responsible for many problems and they fight tooth and nail to prevent the situation being rectified. Not EVERYTHING is feminism's fault, but very much is.
    Apparently it deals with what people believe is the cause of their problems. I personally think that feminism's problems with men's rights was due to the fact it was supporting only one gender and what the media is promoting and ignoring.

    None of this matters. What matters is the actions of a movement. The dominating consensus and actions within our movement and that which is of any (be it minor) influence, is not radical. The actions of feminism is outrageously radical. It does not matters if you and some others are nice people and call yourselves feminist or whether I or otheres would be radical as hell and call ourselves MRA's. Only what is brought into being counts. The underworld of all kind of branched feminists is of no significance when the radicals, the leaders and icons of feminism call the shots and are not being opposed.

    If you don't want to be looked down upon as a feminist, then you will either have to drop the label or you and others will have to do something to clear your name. You can't just expect to call yourself something like a feminist and be cuddled by us. It is in essence the same like expecting a yew to be very friendly to a moderate nazi who 'was not like them', but still chooses to associate with a label that is basically contamined.
    As I said, the only way to fight feminism is to attack the radicals, because attacking feminism on it's own will not work. Feminism is the only political group that supports the rights of women (well apart from humanism and egalitarianism).

    Comparing feminism to a nazi movement is not the same, feminism is partially corrupted. Nazi movement was always corrupt and can't be restored because it's aim is corrupt. The difference is that I said I was a feminist and a masculist at the same time. Neither a feminist or a masculist can oppose that because I am not fighting against the rights of neither, so as someone said I am a gender equalist for a better word.

    There doesn't have to be any group at all. People ought to use their common sense again for the first time in decades. It is utmost pathetic that we need one big fluffy movement to remind us of things that should come naturally as common sense.
    This is Earth remember, people don't have common sense, they just think they do. It's kind of like the time when some slender women used to make fun of curvy women and then curvy women were oppressed so they banded together and pointed out that curvy women are beautiful, then the all slender women get made fun of, then the slender women banded up against the curvy women saying that slender women are beautiful and now slender women are back on top again and then the curvy women...

    In order for us to be equal, we need parity. Women already have been granted many rights. Some excessive privileges will have to dissapear in order to create a fair balance. We can't start on even ground if men's are lacking behind massively. Their rights need to be tended to first. That is not saying whoms rights are more importnant, but a judgement of urgency and impact. Once we are on even footing (and feminism is undeniably a huge obstacle here), we can actually continue with our utopian wishes. Even then... if you'd be anti-sexism, you'd find yourself more bussy with men's rights because those are overwhelmingly lacking compared to women's rights (which are everything except lacking and nobody has ever succeeded to refute this point besides the joking 'women can't pee standing up' comment). That fact would lessen the benefit you would hope such a merger would create at this time.

    It is not I care about just on side of the coin, but I am being just practical here.
    I don't think so, because many feminists support men's rights already:
    101/FAQs | No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz?

    So if you got them on your side, you would have more voices for your movement.
    The second wave already heralded the dawn of full-blown misandry from the feminist movement...
    The second wave was controversial, but not misandric, it had a few sexist assholes here and there, but they weren't the majority, the third wave was misandric because the amount of radicals overweighed the voices of the non-radicals.
    It is concensus within the MRM that we must differentiate ourselves from the feminist movement by not considering women as enemies, but the ideology. In old days, we lived in ways that were most effecient and convenient at times. There has been opression, but not by men. It was opression by class; an elite class (including women) opressing the lower class. What feminism has done over the last decades, it swinging the pendulum completely to one side. Men (and to a certain degree, women) have been hurt and ruined by this. Many MRA's or people with common goals, also have had bad experiences with feminism's fruits. Generally speaking, they don't want to do to others, what feminists have done to them and within the communities AM associates with, we do not stand for radicals abusing our banner. The fear of the tables turning on women through radical MRA's in politics is not justified.
    Yes, but then again genuine feminists have had bad fruits with MRAs too, do remember that women still get oppressed through this day and age through other factors still. It is important that you achieve equality rather than settle a grudge with blinded people who won't listen to you anyway. The best way is to form an alliance with people who are not radical and are fighting for the same thing.

    What I am saying is that we have a relatively small voice which we have to utilize as efficient as possible and considering the facts, we need our voice most for the sake of bringing men's rights on par with women's. To focus on women's issues (and I can't think of many...) would be a waste and since women's rights already has a huge lobby, I do not believe I am saying a word too much.

    As for your question, the likelihood would be larger, but it will come down to the actions of said group.


    It's not so much the anti-sexism part. It is allowing feminists to pollute our voice in times where we need every bit of our relatively small voice. There already have already been occurences of where people spoke under our banner, yet propagated a message that was actually similar to that of a radical feminist and the polar opposite of what we stand for. Such hijacking is detrimental and such a risk is great. It seems to me that you don't see what threat that allowing this represents, but to many of us, who know of such happenings and the consequences, do see this and we do not take this lightly.
    As I said, an anti-sexism group would not be possible for hijacking by sexist people, why? Because it will be done by both men and women who fight for the rights of men and women. People think it is not possible but sites like "No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz?" and their commentators prove otherwise. If you were to do it, many more people would join you because they won't run the risk of having their own rights revoked, and without those people, the radical feminists can't be "equality seekers" anymore.

    People are threatened by the anti-feminist group simply by it's name, many anti-feminists in the past were misogynic because they wanted male supremacy at the time (during the beginning of the feminist revolution). Now that the group is fighting for males rights, not a lot of people will see that because of its past and will fear it's members may have those views, similar to the prejudice many feminist members also receive.

  9. #9
    christianj's Avatar
    christianj is offline Moderator
    Member Since
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,145
    My Blog Entries:
    29

    Re: How to really solve the gender inequality problem

    I find incomprehensible to even suggest that MRM and feminists combine to make some third force. It's akin to suggesting that Jews and Nazis join hands and then saying that the radical feminists can just be ignored even though they would be SS of that same force. But that really does not matter as all will be worked out in the long run..

    Feminism is built on lies, distortions of the truth and mass exaggerations and all or most is and was aimed directly at men and boys plus women (mothers got a fair share of criticism as well), for no other reason than to elevate women at any cost and to increase female privilege to an unsustainable level.

    In order for feminism to make amends it would have to repeal all the sexist anti-male laws they have introduced, the sexism they have introduced into the education system which they designed to favour women only, they would have to repeal the blatant sexist anti-father attitude introduced into the family courts plus remove the VAWA legislation or rewrite it to include one half of the population..

    Can anyone see that happening. Not in a million years. So, feminism has to go. Will there be peace ?

    No peace, until feminism ceases to exist..

  10. #10
    Zuberi's Avatar
    Zuberi is offline Established Member
    Member Since
    Jul 2008
    Location
    You figure it out!!!
    Posts
    11,535

    Re: How to really solve the gender inequality problem

    The gender inequality problem can't be solved because equality is a communist myth. Nobody is innocent and nobody is equal. This thread is fruitless.
    Last edited by Zuberi; 8th-August-2011 at 06:00 PM.
    Greed is for amateurs.
    Knowledge without wisdom is a load of books on the back of an ass.
    Scorn and mockery towards men in need is one of the reasons feminism is dying as we speak!.

  11. #11
    Nynrah Ghost's Avatar
    Nynrah Ghost is offline Established Member
    Member Since
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,594

    Re: How to really solve the gender inequality problem

    I am already tired and sick of this apparantly futile discussion for seem to refuse to digest, research or think about anything...

    For the record, the reason why feminism fell into misandry is not just because it's one-sided, but because it ACTIVELY fights against men. If they just did some good things for women and let us be and do what is neccesary for men, then we wouldn't have a problem, but because feminism actively wagered a misandric campaign on men and fights tooth and nail to stop us in our tracks there is a problem.

    This is the problem that is at hand.
    Last edited by Nynrah Ghost; 8th-August-2011 at 06:00 PM.

  12. #12
    Yan Yan's Avatar
    Yan Yan is online now Silver Supporter
    Member Since
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Mindanao
    Posts
    4,290

    Re: How to really solve the gender inequality problem

    Quote Quote from Zuberi View Post
    The gender inequality can't be solve because equality is a communist myth. Nobody is innocent and nobody is equal. This thread is fruitless.
    That just about sums it up. This constant harping on "equal" and "equality" is pointless.
    Men and women are not the same whatever feminists say.

    The way so-called equality works in practice is that when women lag behind they are given extra benefits and privileges. When men get too far ahead they are dragged down - just to keep us all "equal".

    As Zuberi says, pure Communism.

    And of course the party leaders (feminists male and female) are more equal than others.
    Whatever I say, write, think, do or even imagine.... some woman somewhere made me do it.
    It's her responsibility and not mine.

  13. #13
    Marx's Avatar
    Marx is offline Administrator
    Member Since
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Midlands
    Posts
    21,632
    My Blog Entries:
    67

    Re: How to really solve the gender inequality problem

    Quote Quote from Yan Yan View Post
    The way so-called equality works in practice is that when women lag behind they are given extra benefits and privileges. When men get too far ahead they are dragged down - just to keep us all "equal".
    Yet it rarely, if ever, seems to work the other way around - so if men are behind we get credits and if women are ahead they get dragged. When we're confronted by these scenarios (men behind/women ahead) feminists tell us this is just proof of female superiority over men. That in of itself is misandry too.
    The most offensive thing you can do to a feminist is treat her with FULL equality.
    --Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.--


    Antimisandry now offers it's members personal sub-forums
    (click here to register yours)


    ►A Decade of Investment in YOUR Future. ►AntiMisandry.com

  14. #14
    chevalier's Avatar
    chevalier is offline Moderator
    Member Since
    Mar 2007
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    3,013

    Re: How to really solve the gender inequality problem

    Lucia I apreciate that you put so much time and effort into your original post. And it seems to that you are trying to come to grips with both Feminism and the MRM.

    And I can see that you have a true interest in fighting for equality.

    That being said you did get some things wrong.

    For starters one thing we do that I have yet to see a feminist do is when say a misogynist comes here and posts crap he gets dealt with.

    When I and others here see misogyny on say youtube or Yahoo answers we tend to let the person know that misogyny does not help the cause.

    I have yet to see a single feminist in my ten years in the MRM call out another feminist for being a misandrist.

    Feminism is a cancer that is harmful to men, children and women too are harmed by it.

    If you want to be the one feminist that calls out the misandrists within your movement then I will gladly support you in that. But I will never again support feminism.

    While I agree there are some misogynists within the MRM and we will never get rid of them completely, we do make an effort to correct them and weed them out if they will not change their attitudes towards women.

    As I have said I have yet to see a single feminist call out another feminist for misandry.
    Chevalier.
    "no greater love hath a man than to lay down his life for his brother."

  15. #15
    Marx's Avatar
    Marx is offline Administrator
    Member Since
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Midlands
    Posts
    21,632
    My Blog Entries:
    67

    Re: How to really solve the gender inequality problem

    Indeed, many misogynists have been asked to leave here (and have) while others have been banned... This is for things like stating to the effect of; "all women are out to hurt men, all women hate men, I don't care if a woman is hurt, etc. etc."

    Yet, on a feminist site (riotgrrl), I saw a feminist commentator say she wanted to see all male babies castrated at birth so only women could go on, and echoing Mary Dale's mentality, she suggested keeping a handful of men sexually functional for breeding purposes only.

    Not even ONE feminist called her out. If I can find that page again, I'll link it in.
    The most offensive thing you can do to a feminist is treat her with FULL equality.
    --Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.--


    Antimisandry now offers it's members personal sub-forums
    (click here to register yours)


    ►A Decade of Investment in YOUR Future. ►AntiMisandry.com


 
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

You may also enjoy reading the following threads, why not give them a try?

  1. fruit cakes solution to the gender problem!
    By Fruit_Cake in forum Fun & Humor
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 24th-October-2007, 08:02 PM
  2. Feminism canít solve all
    By Rebadow in forum Chit chat (MAIN)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 27th-May-2006, 05:41 PM

Posting Permissions

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

Donate to AntiMisandry

1e2 Forum