NationStates

Des-Bal wrote:

The Lotophagi wrote:Speak for yourself, please. Feminists were some of the very first supporters of the LGTB rights movement, and were there right from the very beginning in formulating the movement and its self-conception. Contrast that with the MRA movement, which conspicuously ignores and sidelines gay or trans men and was founded pretty much solely with the heterosexual, cis-gendered male in mind.

What period?

Period? Well, the LGTB rights movement really took off after the Stonewall riots so we'll say starting in the 70's.

The Lotophagi wrote:Period? Well, the LGTB rights movement really took off after the Stonewall riots so we'll say starting in the 70's.

So that would be the period where political lesbianism (a belief system that necessitates sexuality to be the product of conscious choice), lesbian separatism, took off. It should also be noted that certain circles of feminism treated lesbianism as a serious threat to the movement and concentrated efforts were made to root out open lesbians. That's neglecting the body of literature on how fucking awful transsexuals are written by feminist scholars. Feminist attitudes towards gay rights were not so much colored by reluctance but by recalcitrance. Sure there was some movement but much of it had to do with the fact that issues involving lesbians necessarily involved women and incidental benefits were had by all under the lgbt umbrella. Feminism is and always has been focused on women's issues and if my language suggested it was impossible for some other group to accidentally derive benefit then I sincerely apologize.

Des-Bal wrote:So that would be the period where political lesbianism (a belief system that necessitates sexuality to be the product of conscious choice), lesbian separatism, took off. It should also be noted that certain circles of feminism treated lesbianism as a serious threat to the movement and concentrated efforts were made to root out open lesbians. That's neglecting the body of literature on how fucking awful transsexuals are written by feminist scholars. Feminist attitudes towards gay rights were not so much colored by reluctance but by recalcitrance. Sure there was some movement but much of it had to do with the fact that issues involving lesbians necessarily involved women and incidental benefits were had by all under the lgbt umbrella. Feminism is and always has been focused on women's issues and if my language suggested it was impossible for some other group to accidentally derive benefit then I sincerely apologize.

I'd like you to note in particular where I said 'feminists' rather than saying 'all feminists'. Yes, there were anti-LGTB feminists. Yes, there still are anti-LGTB feminists. But there were also, from the very beginning, feminists who were among the very first allies the LGTB movement ever had. And they stuck with the movement through the entirety of the rest of the 20th century and beyond.

And this is all again in contrast to the MRA movement, which emerged in a distinctly more LGTB-friendly period than the 70's and yet still actively sidelines non-cis/heterosexual male issues.

The Lotophagi wrote:
I'd like you to note in particular where I said 'feminists' rather than saying 'all feminists'. Yes, there were anti-LGTB feminists. Yes, there still are anti-LGTB feminists. But there were also, from the very beginning, feminists who were among the very first allies the LGTB movement ever had. And they stuck with the movement through the entirety of the rest of the 20th century and beyond.

And this is all again in contrast to the MRA movement, which emerged in a distinctly more LGTB-friendly period than the 70's and yet still actively sidelines non-cis/heterosexual male issues.

And I'd like to repeat that if there weren't women in the movement you just wouldn't have seen that.

I am not praising Men's Rights Advocacy as an alternative. You're looking at two bowls of shit and saying "this one is better" excluding the possibility that maybe you can eat something else.

Des-Bal wrote:And I'd like to repeat that if there weren't women in the movement you just wouldn't have seen that.

And yet they were there, fighting for things like the repeal of sodomy laws. Which is more than I can say for the MRAs.

Des-Bal wrote:I am not praising Men's Rights Advocacy as an alternative. You're looking at two bowls of shit and saying "this one is better" excluding the possibility that maybe you can eat something else.

Ah, and there's the rub. You said that the MRA movement was a 'counter' movement to feminism, implying that it was an egalitarian movement formed in reaction to feminism's lack thereof. And yet, as I just pointed out, the MRA movement is very much not interested in issues outside of the narrow wheelhouse of the heterosexual cis male.

The Lotophagi wrote:

Des-Bal wrote:What do you expect? The MRA movement is a direct response to the failures of feminism to approach equality in an egalitarian way. Focusing exclusively on women and discounting the idea that men can even have problems could only be expected to produce a counter movement and there is no reason to expect that counter movement to be kind.

Speak for yourself, please. Feminists were some of the very first supporters of the LGTB rights movement, and were there right from the very beginning in formulating the movement and its self-conception. Contrast that with the MRA movement, which conspicuously ignores and sidelines gay or trans men and was founded pretty much solely with the heterosexual, cis-gendered male in mind.

Source?
Not a feminist source. An MRA one that shows this.

Edgy Opinions wrote:

Des-Bal wrote:It sounds like you're saying you're hypersensitive and clinging to your narrative of victimization.

Ostroeuropa is a person who constantly gives attention to sentiments like misandry and gynocentrism.

I'm sure that if their intentions are honest - and they probably are -, they CAN listen to the way I feel about cissexism as well.

I wouldn't make that discourse to a person like you, of course. Luckily your opinion on trans politics matters much less.

I always have time to listen about cissexism. Though you know my abolitionist bent puts us at odds.

I really don't care if they make the same amount of money as me, more money into the household is always cool.

Kelinfort wrote:

The Emerald Dawn wrote:Why should a private corporation be forced to pay an average worker the same as a worker producing twice as much?

What works work in the same job and the same hours with such a disparity? How would this be applicable to white collar jobs?

Same hours and position=same pay. Promote the more productive worker to a different position with a higher salary.

I am a manager, you see. There is a very, very large disparity between a 'good', efficient manager, and a 'bad', inefficient one. There's much more places to fail as a manager than their is for someone working on an assembly line. I certainly don't want to be paid the same as another manager if he consistently shows he's a poor manager or I consistently show the opposite.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

The Lotophagi wrote:
Speak for yourself, please. Feminists were some of the very first supporters of the LGTB rights movement, and were there right from the very beginning in formulating the movement and its self-conception. Contrast that with the MRA movement, which conspicuously ignores and sidelines gay or trans men and was founded pretty much solely with the heterosexual, cis-gendered male in mind.

Source?
Not a feminist source. An MRA one that shows this.

Well, searching the Men's Rights subreddit for any number of queries related to the Leelah Alcorn case, for instance, shows zero results. That's a huge controversy involving someone who was assigned a male gender at birth and was driven to depression and suicide for not meeting the masculine gender norms imposed by her parents, and which passed utterly without notice in the community.

It's worth noting (to you decrying feminism and feminists), that some very prominent feminists have made great efforts toward men's issues. Karen DeCrow (former president of NOW), for instance, was one of the first ones to assert, in court, that men should have the same rights as women regarding parentage. She won the original case, although lost on appeal.

http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archi ... st/372742/

There's a lot of really fascinating information in that article - no matter what your personal opinions.

It's also worth noting that, while on the subject of inequality that discriminates against women the feminist movement is generally very united, on the subject of inequality that discriminates against men they range from attempting to fix, to blithely ignoring, to actively working against such equality.

It's not quite so simple to say "feminists ignore discrimination against men". When it comes to discrimination against men, the feminist movement is largely divided against itself. I do not find the feminist label to be sufficient to determine if a person is sexist or not, and if so, how much. It really varies. In my experience, limited as it is, I'm unable to determine if feminists are, on average, more sexist, less sexist, or about the same as the general population.

Too much conflicting data.

The Lotophagi wrote:
Ah, and there's the rub. You said that the MRA movement was a 'counter' movement to feminism, implying that it was an egalitarian movement formed in reaction to feminism's lack thereof

That absolutely does not imply that. The point was that the MRA movement is support of men in reaction to feminist's lack thereof.

Des-Bal wrote:

The Lotophagi wrote:
Ah, and there's the rub. You said that the MRA movement was a 'counter' movement to feminism, implying that it was an egalitarian movement formed in reaction to feminism's lack thereof

That absolutely does not imply that. The point was that the MRA movement is support of men in reaction to feminist's lack thereof.

Speaking as a man, I don't feel unsupported by 98% of what I see put forward as feminism, and the 2% that I don't feel supported by isn't really mainstream feminism and in many cases is rejected by most feminists as not feminist anyway.

The feminist platform as I read it supports me as a man, even if the actions or words of every single self-identified feminists don't always.

Eleanor Ritas wrote:
Speaking as a man, I don't feel unsupported by 98% of what I see put forward as feminism, and the 2% that I don't feel supported by isn't really mainstream feminism and in many cases is rejected by most feminists as not feminist anyway.

The feminist platform as I read it supports me as a man, even if the actions or words of every single self-identified feminists don't always.

It's not a few self-identified feminists, that is a frequently pursued cop out. Feminism is and always has been interested in the advancement of women and it's interest in male problems has always been somewhere between cursory and incidental. This is not a critique of tumblr feminists or even prominent authorities but the general momentum of the movement.

Eleanor Ritas wrote:

Des-Bal wrote:
That absolutely does not imply that. The point was that the MRA movement is support of men in reaction to feminist's lack thereof.

Speaking as a man, I don't feel unsupported by 98% of what I see put forward as feminism, and the 2% that I don't feel supported by isn't really mainstream feminism and in many cases is rejected by most feminists as not feminist anyway.

The feminist platform as I read it supports me as a man, even if the actions or words of every single self-identified feminists don't always.

Yeah, in the many feminist conferences I have attended I have never met a single attendee who didn't support men and I never had a single panel that didn't support men and women.

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:

Eleanor Ritas wrote:
Speaking as a man, I don't feel unsupported by 98% of what I see put forward as feminism, and the 2% that I don't feel supported by isn't really mainstream feminism and in many cases is rejected by most feminists as not feminist anyway.

The feminist platform as I read it supports me as a man, even if the actions or words of every single self-identified feminists don't always.

Yeah, in the many feminist conferences I have attended I have never met a single attendee who didn't support men and I never had a single panel that didn't support men and women.

Sadly, the majority of feminist conferences I have attended have treated me poorly.

Eleanor Ritas wrote:

Des-Bal wrote:
That absolutely does not imply that. The point was that the MRA movement is support of men in reaction to feminist's lack thereof.

Speaking as a man, I don't feel unsupported by 98% of what I see put forward as feminism, and the 2% that I don't feel supported by isn't really mainstream feminism and in many cases is rejected by most feminists as not feminist anyway.

The feminist platform as I read it supports me as a man, even if the actions or words of every single self-identified feminists don't always.

Ehh... I'd say its more 80/20 than 98/2, but there is a very powerful and successful feminist group, namely, the national organization of women, that is giving feminists a very bad name via their reactionary anti-feminist stance regarding domestic violence, parentage, child raising, and custody.

So that may color my perception a bit.

The Emerald Dawn wrote:

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:Yeah, in the many feminist conferences I have attended I have never met a single attendee who didn't support men and I never had a single panel that didn't support men and women.

Sadly, the majority of feminist conferences I have attended have treated me poorly.

You didn't put "Ike Turner" on your HI MY NAME IS: tag did you?

Eleanor Ritas wrote:

The Emerald Dawn wrote:Sadly, the majority of feminist conferences I have attended have treated me poorly.

You didn't put "Ike Turner" on your HI MY NAME IS: tag did you?

Nope. My name tag contained the accent mark, unlike most official paperwork. That's pretty much it.

Galloism wrote:

Eleanor Ritas wrote:
Speaking as a man, I don't feel unsupported by 98% of what I see put forward as feminism, and the 2% that I don't feel supported by isn't really mainstream feminism and in many cases is rejected by most feminists as not feminist anyway.

The feminist platform as I read it supports me as a man, even if the actions or words of every single self-identified feminists don't always.

Ehh... I'd say its more 80/20 than 98/2, but there is a very powerful and successful feminist group, namely, the national organization of women, that is giving feminists a very bad name via their reactionary anti-feminist stance regarding domestic violence, parentage, child raising, and custody.

So that may color my perception a bit.

You know, thinking about it, 80% is still pretty good for coherence among any set of concepts as complex and charged as feminism is. I don't know where the real number is, but 80% still leaves a really solid movement.

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:

Eleanor Ritas wrote:
Speaking as a man, I don't feel unsupported by 98% of what I see put forward as feminism, and the 2% that I don't feel supported by isn't really mainstream feminism and in many cases is rejected by most feminists as not feminist anyway.

The feminist platform as I read it supports me as a man, even if the actions or words of every single self-identified feminists don't always.

Yeah, in the many feminist conferences I have attended I have never met a single attendee who didn't support men and I never had a single panel that didn't support men and women.

When I was a boy, there was a comic strip call Bloom County about a rural white town, and a progressive teacher named Bobbi Harlow arrives and introduces feminism. The little girl tells her, "My pa says a feminist is a plucked hen".

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:

Eleanor Ritas wrote:
Speaking as a man, I don't feel unsupported by 98% of what I see put forward as feminism, and the 2% that I don't feel supported by isn't really mainstream feminism and in many cases is rejected by most feminists as not feminist anyway.

The feminist platform as I read it supports me as a man, even if the actions or words of every single self-identified feminists don't always.

Yeah, in the many feminist conferences I have attended I have never met a single attendee who didn't support men and I never had a single panel that didn't support men and women.

And this is one of the major problems when you try to name a movement with IRL vs Online elements, really.

On the internet there are many people who disagree and their tone is an undercurrent of a byproduct of feminist discourse. Namely the people who think they know what they're talking about but in reality they don't know what they are talking about.

As opposed to feminists IRL who are more pleasant to talk to and are less about making the internet their soapbox.

I have the distinctive impression that the internet's ability to retain anonymity is among the reasons this disconnect happens.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:Yeah, in the many feminist conferences I have attended I have never met a single attendee who didn't support men and I never had a single panel that didn't support men and women.

And this is one of the major problems when you try to name a movement with IRL vs Online elements, really.

On the internet there are many people who disagree and their tone is an undercurrent of a byproduct of feminist discourse. Namely the people who think they know what they're talking about but in reality they don't know what they are talking about.

As opposed to feminists IRL who are more pleasant to talk to and are less about making the internet their soapbox.

I have the distinctive impression that the internet's ability to retain anonymity is among the reasons this disconnect happens.

Some are pleasant to talk to.

Some are shrieking harridans who really need a minder.

So basically, they're human.

The Emerald Dawn wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
And this is one of the major problems when you try to name a movement with IRL vs Online elements, really.

On the internet there are many people who disagree and their tone is an undercurrent of a byproduct of feminist discourse. Namely the people who think they know what they're talking about but in reality they don't know what they are talking about.

As opposed to feminists IRL who are more pleasant to talk to and are less about making the internet their soapbox.

I have the distinctive impression that the internet's ability to retain anonymity is among the reasons this disconnect happens.

Some are pleasant to talk to.

Some are shrieking harridans who really need a minder.

So basically, they're human.

Maybe it's like the Rock Trolls that the Orcs kept on chains in Lord of the Rings, the feminists are breeding an unreasonable hyper-militant subfaction to hold on chains and release when final negotiations break down. After enough generations of breeding...

"Look, Senator, we've presented solid data and we have overwhelming public support. The next step is, you can put the bill through or else I'm going to let Tricia here off this steel restraint and she's going to castrate you and eat your balls while watching reruns of Ellen."

Eleanor Ritas wrote:

The Emerald Dawn wrote:Some are pleasant to talk to.

Some are shrieking harridans who really need a minder.

So basically, they're human.

Maybe it's like the Rock Trolls that the Orcs kept on chains in Lord of the Rings, the feminists are breeding an unreasonable hyper-militant subfaction to hold on chains and release when final negotiations break down. After enough generations of breeding...

"Look, Senator, we've presented solid data and we have overwhelming public support. The next step is, you can put the bill through or else I'm going to let Tricia here off this steel restraint and she's going to castrate you and eat your balls while watching reruns of Ellen."

Ellen's nowhere near hairy enough for a hypermisandrist femmetroll.

The Emerald Dawn wrote:

Eleanor Ritas wrote:
Maybe it's like the Rock Trolls that the Orcs kept on chains in Lord of the Rings, the feminists are breeding an unreasonable hyper-militant subfaction to hold on chains and release when final negotiations break down. After enough generations of breeding...

"Look, Senator, we've presented solid data and we have overwhelming public support. The next step is, you can put the bill through or else I'm going to let Tricia here off this steel restraint and she's going to castrate you and eat your balls while watching reruns of Ellen."

Ellen's nowhere near hairy enough for a hypermisandrist femmetroll.

We should do an NSG Mythical Bestiary, do it up like a D&D monster manual with stats and background and everything. Do we know anybody who can draw?

We could do the hypermisandrist femmetroll, the opulent spellcasting fat black welfare queen, The Were-Gay (it's a gay who tries to turn other people gay)

Stuff like that.