Advertisement
by Conformal Veal Theory » Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:50 am
by Samuraikoku » Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:56 am
Conformal Veal Theory wrote:Well, if this guy is right in his thesis, we're lucky that we're allowed to do anything at all. If, as he argues, women are pretty much better at almost everything, then the fact that men are still employed in so many fields more than women really is a kind of affirmative action. If it were a meritocracy, apparently very few men would actually be working.
by Ifreann » Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:05 am
by Samuraikoku » Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:08 am
by Ethel mermania » Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:12 am
Tahar Joblis wrote:Choronzon wrote:I can. Yours just don't prove anything, and your concerns have already been addressed. Feminism seeks to destroy patriarchy.
And yet feminists persistently fail to work to advance the acknowledgement of rape or violence when the victims are male, especially when the perpetrators are female.
Feminist organizations had a major opportunity recently, too; they successfully got the FBI to change its definition of rape.
See, they felt the old definition was too narrow. "The carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will," said the FBI, was what rape was. This was very narrow; no anal, no oral, and rape was something a man did to a woman, penis-in-vagina required, force required. The new definition is:
"The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
This is nominally gender-neutral language - see, no "woman," and no archaic euphemism for penis-in-vagina sex. This means that now the FBI can count any sex act a man performs on a victim as rape. And yet, if a woman ties a man to a table, drugs him to the gills, and rides him at gunpoint, after he took out a restraining order on her and put into writing that he would not wish to have sex with her even if it meant being dipped in a pit of bees by a meat hook - just to make that perfectly clear no consent at all is present - it's still not rape by the FBI's new definition.
Rape is an act of penetration according to the new definition, hailed by feminist groups as a major victory. The estimated 1.3 million men annually "made to penetrate" someone don't count, because they weren't being penetrated. If "patriarchy" is defined as the system which commits sexist oppression on men, then as a plain cold matter of fact, feminist groups have not been working to destroy patriarchy; they've been working selectively to break little bits of it off.
Reference to the patriarchy is generally lazy thinking at best, and a paranoid conspiracy theory at worst. A great many things attributed to patriarchy have absolutely nothing to do with males being the leaders [patriarchs] of family/clan units - and a number of sexist problems have actually been generated or worsened by the actions of the feminist movement.
Take pedophile panic. Pedophile panic is a modern phenomenon, brought to us courtesy of a devil's alliance between MacKinnon, Dworkin, and the rest of the anti-sex feminists with social conservatives. It's targeted nearly exclusively at men, in spite of the fact that women abuse children more than men do; we're just less likely to class it as sexual, even if it's the exact same act, and it's much less likely to be reported or come to criminal charges. Pedophile panic is not a product of "the patriarchy," it's a product of vilifying men as predatory rape-monsters.
"It's the patriarchy!!!" is not an excuse for selectively failing to act when you don't see women benefiting from addressing a problem. It's not an excuse for ignoring the ways in which sexism harms men; the sorts of things that can be classed as male disadvantages or female privileges is a class of things which the feminist movement has not done anything to improve.
Oh, there are some areas that feminists have worked on - for example, paternity leave, seen as beneficial to women, since there's usually a woman involved somewhere when there's a baby. But then there are areas where feminists have been actively opposing equality, such as support for male victims of domestic violence, because they figure that doing so harms women [limited available funding]. Feminist groups act for women. It's what their donors are interested in, their volunteers are passionate about, et cetera.
by Exogenous Imperium » Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:18 am
Conformal Veal Theory wrote:http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/10/01/the-myth-of-male-decline/
Interesting discussion there. The article itself asserts that the idea that men are worse off now than they used to be is largely a myth. Any circumstances where they actually are worse off are explained solely by greater competition with women.
The comments section is even more interesting. There is a very heated discussion there about whether or not men are obsolete.
So what do you think? Are men really worse off compared to the 50's or is this a myth? On a related note, will improvements in reproductive technology make men obsolete, or is this a paranoid fantasy?
Interesting and strange stuff one can find on the internet.
Samuraikoku wrote:I don't consider myself better or worse off than anybody. This kind of things aren't a zero sum game.
Alowwvia wrote:Everything sucks for everybody and everything is terrible and everything always will be.
by Samuraikoku » Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:21 am
by Samuraikoku » Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:25 am
by Samuraikoku » Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:27 am
Raeyh wrote:With porn, it's not a depiction of sex, it's actual sex. They aren't pretending.
by Ethel mermania » Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:57 am
by Smartass alcoholics » Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:03 am
by Smartass alcoholics » Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:04 am
by AETEN II » Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:40 am
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
