Feminism is about female oppression. So why would men claim they are anti-feminists. We want gender neutral laws and equal opportunities for everyone, not the rights of women taken away. Men want equality!
Take example, the common words used for feminism.
* Feminist, Feminism and hate meaning, misogyny, misogynist.
Now lets look at male equivalents.
* Masculist, Masculism and hate meaning, misandry, misandrist.
Guess which 4 words are not in most dictionaries. If you said masculist, masculism, misandry, misandrist you are correct. Most people don’t even know what these words are or their meaning. They never seen them in print.
How can a mens movement exist when the words to describe them are not even known, why it’s Double Plus UnGood.


More...

Feminism has become a hate movement... hence the 'anti' part that many folks want to latch onto. Personally, I'm anti hate - but i recognise everything you say as accurate.

An interesting post, I have heard it on the web that the opposite of feminism is patriarchy.. And indeed, that does seem to make sense..

I reject the whole concept of rights as understood by todays culture. And I poo-poo the idea of universal equality as a non-starter..

I would beg to differ regarding the idea that men want equality, maybe some men want this, because it sounds good, and more likely, because they think its a simple matter.. I would question how this is possible, since the genders have greatly differing features and therefore can never be made "equal".

A strong 6 ft man, is he equal to a weak 5ft man? If the 5ft man demands equality as his right, does that mean that he must always have the services of a 6ft man when he wants to lift a heavy object onto his SUV roofrack?

Does that not make the 6ft man less equal in that he has to support his brother as an enforced duty, thus losing out on his own needs?

That example does not even have the gender issue in it, I only made it to show how I find the idea of equality and rights to be absurd.. In any natural society, the two individuals would make deals, it would perhaps be that the smaller fellow would accept a servile role when needed in exchange for the extra strength when required.. At this point, the big fellow provides the service..

How are females oppressed?

I dont see that they are in any way oppressed, nor have ever they been on the whole.. No more so than men, or any other group of individuals who may have or are being targetted, scapegoated, or treated as a batch to be oppressed..

I cant see how gender neutral laws can be a reality when certain aspects of gender are specific to one or other gender..

The issues of reproductive politics are of course gender specific in many ways..

As are the issues of child birth/raising etc. biased in the feminine direction by nature..

As for taking the rights of women away..

Why do they need rights given to them in the first place?

Why does any group deserve rights?

What about natural rights, that need not entail a burdensome duty of others to provide?

What about our natural senses of duty?

It is not the right of a child to have two parents, or to be born..

A child has no rights by nature, but fortunately, the natural duties of parents provide for the childs needs fully in the main..

Others may feel a sense of duty too, by nature, to those fellow humans that we share the earth with..

Before demanding rights, its important to always ask..

"Who is expected to provide those rights?"

No doubt, if the right is not a natural right that can be claimed by he/she that demands it, then someone else must provide it..

Why should they?

Also, when cultures are based on rights and not duties, its is easy to see that rights clash..

Women may claim rights that clash with the claimed rights of men..

Using the childrens rights to trump the rights of parents means that a third party, the state?, must be brought in to declare the rights of children, who cannot speak of or understand rights, or duties..

When we give the state rights above our own rights, to decide the hierachy of rights, we create inequality..

We all become enslaved and oppressed..

And we fail to do our duties because we need not consider them unless they are dictated to us by the state metaparent. we become infantilised..

The state will judge us all, and decide our rights, and judge itself in persuance of its own declared duty..

The state is not a person, its not even a fixed group or fixed set of ideals..

But they employ persons, and they tell us our duties are simply to submit to the will of the state..

That, is why the quest for rights is the quest to be oppressed..

Maybe thats just libertarian duckspeak..

Much to ponder!!

I was wondering if anyone would get my reference.

But yes, all groups have fringe members, but I'd say on a whole, men want the classic argument "Equal Opportunities not Equal Outcomes"

As laws go. Men should get the same amount of paternity leave. Women should sign up for the draft.

Equality to do a job or equality to apply for the job is 2 different things. Thats why a skills test is needed, if a woman can carry a man on her shoulder, pass the test, then she should be able to have the job.

I don't hate women, I hate some people (women and men) and the laws that help them get away with murder.

Guess I'm more moderate than some.

I am not sure what it means though..We dont ever start equal and its the differences that get us selected??
Hmm! dont see why either are needed, for either gender.. Having said that, if a firm wants to give time off for childbirth, i have no doubt that women have a stronger case.. As for warfare, I think thats best kept voluntary!
I personally think its never really much of an issue, indeed, best person for the job... I think the free market sorts such matters out quite well!
No idea what moderate means.. I can only guess that extreme is anything that involves force.. Most things to do with the state do involve force.. So to my mind its hard to see how statism can ever be described as moderate..

Common sense is common sense, and I guess we were put on this planet to help each other!

Well what the hell are we supposed to do then Rob also has an argument that we are just spinning our fucking wheels all to no avail for men. I guess we should just give up because we are not going to win anyway there is no way to ensure that we are treated fairly our children have no rights to both parents and doing anything to get our kids access to both parents as Rob appears to beleive will not bebefit anyone. And now Drex my freind if I understand you properly then we are wasting our time trying to be treated in an equitable manner because of the obvious differences between the sexes. So what should we do Rob wants us to be underhanded and take on communist behavior and it would seem Drex you may think the whole fight is worth nothing. Am I wasting my time hoping and working to get men to come together and get them to work for men to be treated as more than slaves and atm machines?

Not at all, because by coming together, to do practical things, we can actually make a difference.. The easy answer, if anyone wants a one line summary, is to imagine what YOU as an idividual would do if you had the "old fashioned" presumed head of family in your marraige?
That is why we need just that.. And the issues of what is equitable, fair, or whatever would no doubt be decided effectively by the head of the family.. We just dont need a third party "state" agent or 12 telling us what to do..
Shared parenting is most effective within intact families for example, and its my view that if we want to start talking about the "rights" of children, then arseholes to a bunch of divorced/seperated folk setting the agenda, lets just say right, children have a right to both parents, they have a right for their parents to shut the fuck up, they have a right for their parents to live under the same roof, they have rights.. etc..

Thing is, the folk claiming the rights of kids are hiding behind them.. In order to get their own "rights"! Pretty weak ploy really!

Although it may seem only a detail point, and no doubt fucking annoying chev! it is important that we as men state the fucking obvious, we just know better than women as to how to allocate and delagate responsibilities! (and if we didnt, we are likely tp let them get on with it (hence the delagative aspect!))..

I would shift the emphasis off the "rights based" model, because men, basically, dont have any fucking rights, and thats normal in any society, we dont need them.. We are more likely to get our "rights" by taking the attitude that they are our "duties"..

We dont have "rights" as fathers, we have duties as fathers.. and we know our fucking duties..

I am of the opinion that we simply must move away from the language of the femininazi's because if we dont fight with our own made and desgined weapons, we are playing on their turf all the time..

Let them learn what we are doing and come to understand us, because they will need us!!

To be pedantic:

In modern English and European systems of jurisprudence and law, a right is the legal or moral entitlement to do or refrain from doing something or to obtain or refrain from obtaining an action, thing or recognition in civil society. Compare with duty, referring to behaviour that is expected or required of the citizen, and with privilege, referring to something that can be conferred and revoked.

Duty (from "due," that which is owing, O. Fr. deu, did, past participle of devoir; Lat. debere, debitum; cf. "debt") is a term loosely applied to any action (or course of action) which is regarded as morally incumbent, apart from personal likes and dislikes or any external compulsion. Such action must be viewed in relation to a principle, which may be abstract in the highest sense (e.g. obedience to the dictates of conscience) or based on local and personal relations. That a father and his children have mutual duties implies that there are moral laws regulating their relationship; that it is the duty of a servant to obey his master within certain limits is part of a definite contract, whereby he becomes a servant engaging to do certain things for a specified wage. Thus, it is held that it is not the duty of a servant to infringe a moral law even though his master should command it. For the nature of duty in the abstract, and the various criteria on which it has been based, see Ethics.

Many schools of thought have debated the idea of duty. While many assert mankind's duty on their own terms, some philosophers have absolutely rejected a sense of duty (such as the Taoists).

A privilege—etymologically "private law" or law relating to a specific individual—is a special right or immunity granted by a government to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. A privilege can be revoked in some cases. In modern democracies, a 'privilege' is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a 'right' is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all humanity from birth.

Natural rights are universal rights that are seen as inherent in the nature of people and not contingent on human actions or beliefs.

One theory of natural rights was developed from the theory of natural law during the Enlightenment in opposition to the divine right of kings, and provided a moral justification for liberalism.

The concept of a natural right can be contrasted with the concept of a legal right: A natural right is one that is claimed to exist even when it is not enforced by the government or society as a whole, while a legal right is a right specifically created by the government or society, for the benefit of its members. The question of which rights are natural and which are legal is an important one in philosophy and politics. Critics of the concept of natural rights argue that all humans rights are legal rights, while proponents of the concept of natural rights in countries such as the United States assert that founding documents like the American Declaration of Independence and social contracts like the Constitution of the United States make natural rights valid by implication.

The idea of human rights descended from that of natural rights; some recognize no difference between the two and regard both as labels for the same thing while others choose to keep the terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural rights.

[excerpts from wikipedia]

Interesting.. My major beef with rights is that every seems to talk about them constantly, we are supposed to have "human rights" enshrined in law..

But, and this is the key issue..

It seems that these rights are not actually accessible for most people!!

Looking at, say the convention of human rights, they are violated left right and centre! By the very state that is supposed to be upholding them!

The lawyers prime comcern with rights is their own right to take us for a ride!!

It makes sense to me that rights should be earned, for example by military service. Currently, if I'm lucky enough to be born in the right place, I could exercise rights that were earned by someone who came before me, at no cost or sacrifice to myself.

Of course, I could be unlucky enough to be born in a place where I cannot earn any rights, no matter what service I provide to society.

Rights or priveleges based on luck (locality, ancestry, gender) seem unjust. But nature is unfair, sometimes dramatically so. Maybe the best lawmakers are trying to compensate for bad luck (?)

Then, we must consider what the purpose of law is perhaps..

It seems to be to serve..

Itself!!