Is there a men's rights movement now afoot?

[Ostroeuropa]

Brief point Tahar, I think you need to prefix it with Gender so it's clear what issue you are taking a stand on. It's entirely possible for someone to be a gender egalitarian and a racist.
It's unlikely sure, but possible. So I think the distinction is necessary.

[Bottle]

No, I understood you were trying to be funny. But it's explained why your point doesn't apply. Whereas feminism really is a discriminatory term, Humanism isn't.

The only way "feminism" is discriminatory is if you think male people can't participate in something with the "fem" label. Which is kind of one of the major issues that feminism addresses, ironically. Women can participate in "MANkind" and "huMANism," but men can't participate in femininity or feminism. It's kind of like how a movie with 1 woman and 36 men* is considered a normal holiday block buster that will appeal to both men and women, but if a movie had 36 women and 1 man it would be automatically considered a chick flick.

Yes, the movement that focuses on advancing the social and political equality of the sexes has presumed to take part of its name from the very sex which has been historically marginalized. Why should that be inappropriate or unfair? Why should a simple factual reality be scrubbed away, just to make members of the non-marginalized group feel more welcome?

Anybody who can't get past the "fem" prefix is, frankly, not ready to be useful as an ally anyways, since they're still hung up on avoiding icky girl cooties. I'm happy to keep such posers out, frankly, since they tend to just waste time by whining that their feelings aren't getting enough attention.


*http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/31/the-hobbit-why-are-there-no-women-in-tolkiens-world/

[Ostroeuropa]

No, I understood you were trying to be funny. But it's explained why your point doesn't apply. Whereas feminism really is a discriminatory term, Humanism isn't.

The only way "feminism" is discriminatory is if you think male people can't participate in something with the "fem" label. Which is kind of one of the major issues that feminism addresses, ironically. Women can participate in "MANkind" and "huMANism," but men can't participate in femininity or feminism. It's kind of like how a movie with 1 woman and 36 men* is considered a normal holiday block buster that will appeal to both men and women, but if a movie had 36 women and 1 man it would be automatically considered a chick flick.

Yes, the movement that focuses on advancing the social and political equality of the sexes has presumed to take part of its name from the very sex which has been historically marginalized. Why should that be inappropriate or unfair? Why should a simple factual reality be scrubbed away, just to make members of the non-marginalized group feel more welcome?

Anybody who can't get past the "fem" prefix is, frankly, not ready to be useful as an ally anyways, since they're still hung up on avoiding icky girl cooties. I'm happy to keep such posers out, frankly, since they tend to just waste time by whining that their feelings aren't getting enough attention.


*http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/31/the-hobbit-why-are-there-no-women-in-tolkiens-world/

Under your definition, would the term Policeman be offensive?
After all, women can still do the job.
And if you can explain the difference, i'll listen. If the civil rights movement were called the Black Rights movement, i would have similar problems with it, would you? Apparently not.
To call it the black rights movement is to miss the entire point of the movement, or perhaps the implications of the points.
That there is no difference between black and white.
Just as there is no difference between females and males, and there is no feminine or masculine. That is why I prefer the terms gender egalitarian/equalist and/or gender abolitionist.

[Bottle]

*sigh*
all of us are humans.
Not all of us are female or feminine.
So it's a false equivalency.

That sound you hear is the point wizzing by waaaaaay over your head.

Edit: fucking femininjas

You inspired me to fashion a throwing star using a couple of tampons and a rubberband.

Ki-yah!

[Bottle]

The only way "feminism" is discriminatory is if you think male people can't participate in something with the "fem" label. Which is kind of one of the major issues that feminism addresses, ironically. Women can participate in "MANkind" and "huMANism," but men can't participate in femininity or feminism. It's kind of like how a movie with 1 woman and 36 men* is considered a normal holiday block buster that will appeal to both men and women, but if a movie had 36 women and 1 man it would be automatically considered a chick flick.

Yes, the movement that focuses on advancing the social and political equality of the sexes has presumed to take part of its name from the very sex which has been historically marginalized. Why should that be inappropriate or unfair? Why should a simple factual reality be scrubbed away, just to make members of the non-marginalized group feel more welcome?

Anybody who can't get past the "fem" prefix is, frankly, not ready to be useful as an ally anyways, since they're still hung up on avoiding icky girl cooties. I'm happy to keep such posers out, frankly, since they tend to just waste time by whining that their feelings aren't getting enough attention.


*http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/31/the-hobbit-why-are-there-no-women-in-tolkiens-world/

Under your definition, would the term Policeman be offensive?
After all, women can still do the job.

I dunno man, you're the one arguing that "feminism" is discriminatory, so apparently YOU think "policeman" is offensive.

Right?

[Ostroeuropa]

Under your definition, would the term Policeman be offensive?
After all, women can still do the job.

I dunno man, you're the one arguing that "feminism" is discriminatory, so apparently YOU think "policeman" is offensive.

Right?

Yes, I do. The term is police officer.
(Also i elaborated in an edit.)
And a lot of people have taken that line. Including most police forces/services.

[Tahar Joblis]

Brief point Tahar, I think you need to prefix it with Gender so it's clear what issue you are taking a stand on. It's entirely possible for someone to be a gender egalitarian and a racist.
It's unlikely sure, but possible. So I think the distinction is necessary.

If you want to make a point out of highlighting gender, then yes, "gender egalitarian" works.

But, frankly, I view myself as trying to be egalitarian, period. I think everyone should be treated as having equal inherent worth and dignity, regardless of their gender, sexuality, racial identity, class origins, national origins, ethnicity, et cetera. "Egalitarian" captures all of that.

[Neo Art]

That sound you hear is the point wizzing by waaaaaay over your head.

Edit: fucking femininjas

You inspired me to fashion a throwing star using a couple of tampons and a rubberband.

Ki-yah!

It's hard to remain stealthy when you're just bleeding all over the place and sobbing in the corner with a box of tissues and some chocolates.

[Galloism]

That sound you hear is the point wizzing by waaaaaay over your head.

Edit: fucking femininjas

You inspired me to fashion a throwing star using a couple of tampons and a rubberband.

Ki-yah!

You're a regular Macguyver Macgirlver.

[Tahar Joblis]

No, I understood you were trying to be funny. But it's explained why your point doesn't apply. Whereas feminism really is a discriminatory term, Humanism isn't.

The only way "feminism" is discriminatory is if you think male people can't participate in something with the "fem" label. Which is kind of one of the major issues that feminism addresses, ironically. Women can participate in "MANkind" and "huMANism," but men can't participate in femininity or feminism. It's kind of like how a movie with 1 woman and 36 men* is considered a normal holiday block buster that will appeal to both men and women, but if a movie had 36 women and 1 man it would be automatically considered a chick flick.

"Dearie, what's that?"
"Schoolgirl Spankfest VII, featuring thirty six comely young ladies and one stern headmaster."
"Damnit, another chick flick?"

Yes, the movement that focuses on advancing the social and political equality of the sexes has presumed to take part of its name from the very sex which has been historically marginalized. Why should that be inappropriate or unfair? Why should a simple factual reality be scrubbed away, just to make members of the non-marginalized group feel more welcome?

Anybody who can't get past the "fem" prefix is, frankly, not ready to be useful as an ally anyways, since they're still hung up on avoiding icky girl cooties. I'm happy to keep such posers out, frankly, since they tend to just waste time by whining that their feelings aren't getting enough attention.

Because men's feelings don't deserve attention. Those horrid men, wanting to have respect for their feelings! So terrible, Bottle, I don't know how you could ever cope!

See, when a woman complains, it's a pain that must be fixed. When a man complains, it's unmanly whining. Right?

[Ostroeuropa]

For another, opposite example, the term air hostess/stewardess is under pressure to be gender neutralized to become flight attendant.
A big problem for us to consider is the actor/actress divide, to which there may be no simple solution that isn't implicitly sexist. Creating a new term may not take off.

[Bottle]

To reply to your edit:

If the civil rights movement were called the Black Rights movement, i would have similar problems with it, would you? Apparently not.

Hell no, I would have no problem with a marginalized group naming their own fight whatever the fuck they want, even if it "excludes" me because I was lucky enough to not be born into their particular marginalized group. I already support plenty of organizations that have "Black" in their name.

Cause that's the thing about marginalized groups: they're already getting screwed over unfairly. I don't see any problem with them carving out spaces where their identity gets to enjoy some tiny little bit of primacy. Doesn't make me any less willing to support them.

To call it the black rights movement is to miss the entire point of the movement, or perhaps the implications of the points.
That there is no difference between black and white.

And this is where we completely and utterly disagree.

It's lovely to just pronounced that "there's no difference," like all those jackoffs who "don't see color." That's great for you, Mr. White Person whose experiences are considered the default and who doesn't LIVE with the reality that it absolutely fucking well is different to live as a black person in the world today.

For me, the "point" of the civil rights movement was, inherently and intrinsically, about the fact that black people were being disproportionately hurt. There would not have been any meaningful movement at all without confronting that fact. And one of the biggest obstacles that black people had to overcome was the number of Nice White People who weren't racist, they just didn't think it needed to be such a big deal. I mean really, we're all equal, can't we just be ok with that, golly? I don't see color, y'all, so problem solved.

Actual equality will never, ever be achieved until/unless the existence of inequality is fully recognized, openly discussed, and directly addressed.

Just as there is no difference between females and males, and there is no feminine or masculine. That is why I prefer the terms gender egalitarian/equalist and/or gender abolitionist.

See above. Yes, there fucking are differences, although 99.99999% of them are artificially created. Just because something is artificially created and socially shaped doesn't make it any less real. Men and women ARE different, profoundly, because our society MAKES THEM THAT WAY. Until/unless that is recognized, acknowledged, and attacked head-on, nothing will change.

If you have the luxury of thinking there is "no difference" between men and women in today's world, then that is the strongest possible example I can give you of your overwhelming, blinding privilege. And you know what? I envy the fuck out of you. I wish, more than just about anything in the world, that I could avoid "seeing gender." I wish, more than just about anything, that I could avoid having gendered differences imposed on me constantly, from every possible angle, every single day of my life. If I had your privilege, I'd want to avoid seeing all this shit too...and I know that because I felt precisely that way about my white privilege for the longest time. I was one of those "I don't see color" people. Until I finally got it through my head that the only fucking people who can "not see color" are the people who belong to the group that doesn't HAVE to see it.

[Ostroeuropa]

Advocating for the elimination of the artificial differences is the entire point.
You did not address the fact that by calling it a Black Rights movement or a Feminist movement is to create yet another artificial difference.
You spent the entirety of your post arguing against the differences which should not exist, which i agree with. You then totally failed to apply this to the titles of the groups involved.
The way to solve the unfair appropriation of privelege and authority is not to create enclaves within society with the priveleges reversed in some attempt to make it all balance out in the end. It is to eliminate the inequalities up front.
Intolerance and inequality is no way to fight intolerance and inequality, and the fact I have to explain this to feminists baffles me. The civil rights movement is called that precisely because THEY KNEW THIS.

[Torisakia]

No. What rights do males need?

Just kidding, but seriously, no.

[Ostroeuropa]

No. What rights do males need?

Just kidding, but seriously, no.

Great argument that doesn't address the question in the OP, or the discussion as it's currently going. Answering apples to the question "What time is it?" because you assume you know what someone is talking about and don't even listen is great.
It also betrays the fact that you didn't even consider the arguments and automatically dismissed them because it addressed men's rights, which is one of the problems he actually lists. Thankyou for providing evidence for the OP.

[Dyakovo]

There are still issues that need to be addressed. Though I feel they all fall under the umbrella of feminism, personally, since feminism is about equal rights and treatment for the sexes.

I raised this with a feminist once, she said no feminism only concerns about women and why would it or should it worry about any instances where men are at a disadvantage.

And, of course, she was hooked up to the feminist hivemind and was thus speaking for all feminists and not just voicing her personal opinion...

[Torisakia]

No. What rights do males need?

Just kidding, but seriously, no.

Great argument that doesn't address the question in the OP, or the discussion as it's currently going. Answering apples to the question "What time is it?" because you assume you know what someone is talking about and don't even listen is great.
It also betrays the fact that you didn't even consider the arguments and automatically dismissed them because it addressed men's rights, which is one of the problems he actually lists. Thankyou for providing evidence for the OP.

Half of all NSG arguments don't address the question in the OP. How is mine different?

Plus, I'm half-dyslexic. So I don't read very much.

[Ostroeuropa]

I raised this with a feminist once, she said no feminism only concerns about women and why would it or should it worry about any instances where men are at a disadvantage.

And, of course, she was hooked up to the feminist hivemind and was thus speaking for all feminists and not just voicing her personal opinion...

This is an example of another reason the change should be made.
It provides cover to sexists.

[Ostroeuropa]

Great argument that doesn't address the question in the OP, or the discussion as it's currently going. Answering apples to the question "What time is it?" because you assume you know what someone is talking about and don't even listen is great.
It also betrays the fact that you didn't even consider the arguments and automatically dismissed them because it addressed men's rights, which is one of the problems he actually lists. Thankyou for providing evidence for the OP.

Half of all NSG arguments don't address the question in the OP. How is mine different?

Plus, I'm half-dyslexic. So I don't read very much.

Yours isn't an argument. I was being sarcastic when I called it one. It was jut "No" which is an answer to a question that was never asked.
Sorry to call bullshit here, but what does half-dyslexic even mean.

[Torisakia]

Half of all NSG arguments don't address the question in the OP. How is mine different?

Plus, I'm half-dyslexic. So I don't read very much.

Yours isn't an argument. I was being sarcastic when I called it one. It was jut "No" which is an answer to a question that was never asked.
Sorry to call bullshit here, but what does half-dyslexic even mean.

It means I have dyslexia, but not the full-effect of it.

[Dyakovo]

Male elementary school teachers.
Pedophile panic.
Boys falling behind in the educational system; men falling behind in college and graduate school.
Sentencing bias as visible as the black-white bias.
Refusal to recognize male victims of domestic violence and rape, in particular when such happens at the hands of women.
Male disposability.
Treatment of men as success objects.
Demonization of male sexuality.
Persistent virgin-shaming of men.
New slut-shaming of men.
Male nurses.
Discrimination against men in custody disputes.
Gendered asymmetry in the assignment of parental rights and obligations.

Buy it in another two years, if you prefer to take that long. Where progress has been made on these issues, it has not been because of feminism; certainly not directly, and not in a fashion we can describe as non-controversial. E.g., Warren Farrell has done much to advance awareness of the success object problem; he is very clearly inspired by feminism. It is, however, rather difficult to describe his activity as activity by the feminist movement; and that is as close as the feminist movement gets to addressing issues of male disadvantage and female privilege.

well do not forget about insurance rates. Males, especially teenage males, cost more to insure than Females, why? it is assumed that merely because you are a teenage boy, you are going to be in more car accidents than a Teenage Girl based merely upon your gender.

It's based on the fact that teenage (and early 20s) boys actually do get into more accidents than girls the same age...

[Bottle]

I raised this with a feminist once, she said no feminism only concerns about women and why would it or should it worry about any instances where men are at a disadvantage.

And, of course, she was hooked up to the feminist hivemind and was thus speaking for all feminists and not just voicing her personal opinion...

We also are expected to assume that he understood her correctly, and that there was no further context to the exchange.

For instance, what if what she really said was that feminism is focused on women's issues because men hold disproportionate power already. Not really a controversial statement or an unreasonable position.

Or, for instance, what if what happened was that he approached a seasoned feminists and started asking What About The Menz??? and then got told to go play in traffic? Feminists have to put up with that constant derail refrain all the damn time and get sick of it. It's like if you walked up to a science blogger and raised the question of why there are still monkeys if evolution is true.

Of course, it's also possible he met someone who is feminist and also wrong on this subject. Not sure why that would be some kind of "gotcha," since we currently have at least half a dozen feminists in this very thread who are arguing precisely the opposite. What's the point of saying that you once met a feminist who said something different? I once met a guy who said that women are innately inferior to men in every way...does that mean I get to demand that all men offer me their personal apologies and spend their free time reassuring me that they totally don't believe that?

[Oppressorion]

It's based on the fact that teenage (and early 20s) boys actually do get into more accidents than girls the same age...

And then the EU went and banned it. If it had been simply because they were male, then I could understand, but males really do get in more accidents so I can't see how it is sexist when it is not based on irrational prejudices.

[Tahar Joblis]

well do not forget about insurance rates. Males, especially teenage males, cost more to insure than Females, why? it is assumed that merely because you are a teenage boy, you are going to be in more car accidents than a Teenage Girl based merely upon your gender.

It's based on the fact that teenage (and early 20s) boys actually do get into more accidents than girls the same age...

And do you know why women had to pay higher health insurance rates?

Because women consumed more health care dollars. Same story - if the industry isn't barred from setting different rates based on [X], they will differentiate people based on [X] in order to gain a competitive advantage through superior statistical analysis.

Doesn't matter if it's important to your well-being [health insurance in the US] or next to mandatory to get and hold a good job [vehicular insurance is required for a license in the US, which in turn is in most of the US the difference between having a job and not having a job], or if it's trivial. Let the insurance companies discriminate between black and white, male and female, et cetera, and they will because it makes them more money.

That doesn't mean that it's fair to offer different rates to people based on things they had absolutely no control over.

[Zimmer Twins]

I am a man who is ok with feminists. I think men have too much power as well but I think that women and men should just get the same amount of power already.