Feminism and How I don't Care

[Schwabenreich]

My problem with feminism is simply that in Australia, I can not see how they are still oppressed, theres a few minor issues they may raise hell over but there not nearly as prominent as the ones that concern males who seem to choose to roll with the punches perhaps because the idea is battered into them that they're inherently the oppressors. It seems like it works like a seesaw, the more on one side and the less balanced it becomes. Of actual reasonable sounding femenists for equal rights their opinions are given far less attention then the crazies, so its easy to become a little biased against feminism.

In terms of social/civil rights sure they should hit a bar of equality but I rarely see any feminist movement, protest, demonstration for the rights of men in areas where they've fallen or been inadequate for some time, and instead almost entirely for women. Actually wait, I've never seen this happen. I've never seen them advocate a cause that wasn't inherently related to the betterment of their own sex, except perhaps when they give vocal support to one of the homosexual/lesbian/bi/whatever groups.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

My problem with feminism is simply that in Australia, I can not see how they are still oppressed, theres a few minor issues they may raise hell over but there not nearly as prominent as the ones that concern males who seem to choose to roll with the punches perhaps because the idea is battered into them that they're inherently the oppressors.

The means of oppression have become more subtle in the Western World. Take, for example, wages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_gender_gap
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 85,00.html

[Greater Phenia]

My problem with feminism is simply that in Australia, I can not see how they are still oppressed, theres a few minor issues they may raise hell over but there not nearly as prominent as the ones that concern males who seem to choose to roll with the punches perhaps because the idea is battered into them that they're inherently the oppressors.

Men "roll with the punches" whereas women are just complaining and not really oppressed or anything, is that it?

Have you looked at domestic violence figures for your country? Sexual assault and abuse? I guarantee you women are getting "punched" a lot more.

In terms of social/civil rights sure they should hit a bar of equality but I rarely see any feminist movement, protest, demonstration for the rights of men in areas where they've fallen or been inadequate for some time,

What areas are these? What rights do men not have?

and instead almost entirely for women. Actually wait, I've never seen this happen. I've never seen them advocate a cause that wasn't inherently related to the betterment of their own sex, except perhaps when they give vocal support to one of the homosexual/lesbian/bi/whatever groups.

So they're selfish and just trying to advance the agenda that betters their gender, is that it?

[Drakonaj]

Being an Libertarian demands equality all across the board, demands I see people by their traits, actions and worth rather than their gender. Shit like double standards, special rights and the idea humans are radically different solely based on gender serves only to undermine society and ultimately disunify us. Mainly as there are people in power who would rather see us divide ourselves than unite to fight back and I feel racism, sexism, classism and other sorts of discrimination serve only to empower those who seek to gain. So yes I could care less about the idea of feminism instead lets go egalitarianism eh?
"A house divided upon itself- and upon that foundation do our enemies build their hopes of subduing us."-Lincoln

The Libertarian party would've opposed Lincoln if they'd been contemporaries. That man used massive government influence to free people (and build the economy). I'm sure the Libertarians would've said to let the free market sort it out.

Racism, sexism, classism?, only empower those who seek to gain? Certainly they've never empowered those who are already in power?

Also, it's not special rights, it's laws saying that you have to treat other people exactly like you'd treat people like you; and then be held accountable to do it. Otherwise, people will just say, "I'm treating everybody the same." But still hire only the white guys. And it happens now.

Also, the idea is not that humans are radically different based solely on their gender, the problem is that people are treated radically different solely based on their gender, and feminism attempts to get everyone to treat one another the same.

As usual misconception on Libertarian. Libertarian as the USA knows it only comes from the last half century. The Libertarian I am(and its definition is 120 years older) "Since the 1890s the term "libertarianism" has often been used as a synonym for left wing anarchism or libertarian-socialism [17] and exclusively so until the 1950s in the United States"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#History

Now I should have added that as well, those with power and those seeking to gain it. Those who tend to treat people differently try to justify it by saying that said group is VERY different almost separate from people. Thats why there should be laws(or a well defined social construct) that says one should be treated on their traits and abilities.

[Schwabenreich]

My problem with feminism is simply that in Australia, I can not see how they are still oppressed, theres a few minor issues they may raise hell over but there not nearly as prominent as the ones that concern males who seem to choose to roll with the punches perhaps because the idea is battered into them that they're inherently the oppressors.

The means of oppression have become more subtle in the Western World. Take, for example, wages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_gender_gap
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 85,00.html

Ah I guess I might concede that, though I do not see my own country reflected in that either. I can't really relate a foreign country's situation to my own personal experience. Though, is this a reflection of the attitude of men frequently targetted in some more excessive speeches? For it to be the oppressors we'd have to be more responsible this then the females, are men more inherently oppressive in the matter of income wages and jobs then women or is their a social trend passed from mother to daughter, or through female social groups pulling down the work ethic? If the law doesn't descriminate, and even introduces quotas for women and enforces the same wages, what more are we to do? That both men and women should work and have an equal oppertunity in the work place is a chorus extensively reflected amongst males and every female I've met so I can't understand what more we've got to do and why men are still the oppressors in the situation. I don't think they'd be neglecting to hire women out of social bias since it seems contrary to the opinions expressed in free forums and both public and private areas. Though I thank you for pointing that out those sources to me, they're definately something for myself to consider.

Men "roll with the punches" whereas women are just complaining and not really oppressed or anything, is that it?
Have you looked at domestic violence figures for your country? Sexual assault and abuse? I guarantee you women are getting "punched" a lot more.

Well.. it sounds harsh when you say it like that. I've not looked up the figures in my country but I also know that amongst friends and amongst census results men have a more open attitude to violence amongst each other and if news reports are anything to go by tend to ignore women in their little drunken street brawls. I could also easily understand how niether would want to bring police into their own violent scuffles and thus, may not report it. The number one cause of violence seems to be drunken men from a cultural inclination towards alcohol among perhaps, other social things.

Edit: If men and women can act a certain way due to society and its influence or cultural bias, is it so far fetched that they might roll with the punches as a policy when confronted with issues targetting their sex out of respect for the outspoke idea that they are the oppressors and women are the oppressed? ? (this is a bit of a rewording of what I said before)

What areas are these? What rights do men not have?

As recurring trend in countries around the world is for men to recieve higher charges in court then Women, for the same crimes with the same background. Military conscription enforced upon men is more prevalent then conscription on both sexes and I've never heard of it being exclusively enforced upon women. Judges are more inclined to select women for custody of children then men which has and sometimes still is legally presented in law of countries. This has been brought up in the thread repeatedly and I don't necesarily think it should change but men recieve less credability in rape charges, I'd accept the innocent as natural casaulties in the system but its still a breach of equal rights. Theres more I dug up for the last discussion on this subject on this forum, I might hunt around again if you'd like.

So they're selfish and just trying to advance the agenda that betters their gender, is that it?

Not all, just the more vocal. Besides, I'm not saying being selfish is bad either, every individual has a responsibility to ambitiously pursue a betterment of their situation. In that way I kind of support it, but at the same time I think a lot of them sugarcoat it by saying 'equal rights' while exclusively persueing their own agenda.

Finally, i'd be lieing if I said I did not feel a bit confronted in your response, am I just imagining the hostility?

[Greater Phenia]

Not all, just the more vocal. Besides, I'm not saying being selfish is bad either, every individual has a responsibility to ambitiously pursue a betterment of their situation. In that way I kind of support it, but at the same time I think a lot of them sugarcoat it by saying 'equal rights' while exclusively persueing their own agenda.

I would say that's just your imagination combined with a stereotype of man-hating "feminazis."

Finally, i'd be lieing if I said I did not feel a bit confronted in your response, am I just imagining the hostility?

I'm not usually pleasant towards views I see as bigoted and hateful towards a race, religion, ethnicity, culture, gender, sexual preference or nationality. I don't mean to be overly hostile, but I would be lying if I didn't view such opinions as inherently hostile..

[Schwabenreich]

Not all, just the more vocal. Besides, I'm not saying being selfish is bad either, every individual has a responsibility to ambitiously pursue a betterment of their situation. In that way I kind of support it, but at the same time I think a lot of them sugarcoat it by saying 'equal rights' while exclusively persueing their own agenda.

I would say that's just your imagination combined with a stereotype of man-hating "feminazis."

Finally, i'd be lieing if I said I did not feel a bit confronted in your response, am I just imagining the hostility?

I'm not usually pleasant towards views I see as bigoted and hateful towards a race, religion, ethnicity, culture, gender, sexual preference or nationality. I don't mean to be overly hostile, but I would be lying if I didn't view such opinions as inherently hostile..

I personally say you're making a few jumps of logic that I can't follow and prematurely profiling me on insufficient grounds.

[Greater Phenia]

Not all, just the more vocal. Besides, I'm not saying being selfish is bad either, every individual has a responsibility to ambitiously pursue a betterment of their situation. In that way I kind of support it, but at the same time I think a lot of them sugarcoat it by saying 'equal rights' while exclusively persueing their own agenda.

I would say that's just your imagination combined with a stereotype of man-hating "feminazis."

Finally, i'd be lieing if I said I did not feel a bit confronted in your response, am I just imagining the hostility?

I'm not usually pleasant towards views I see as bigoted and hateful towards a race, religion, ethnicity, culture, gender, sexual preference or nationality. I don't mean to be overly hostile, but I would be lying if I didn't view such opinions as inherently hostile..

I personally say you're making a few jumps of logic that I can't follow and prematurely profiling me on insufficient grounds.

It's 3 am so I may not be clear. My mind is getting too tired for serious argument. I'll get back to you on this (and respond more thoroughly to your last post) later, alright?

[Manango]

Have you looked at domestic violence figures for your country? Sexual assault and abuse? I guarantee you women are getting "punched" a lot more.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... abuse.html

Not for men in their early 20's. If you are a woman and are getting abused, everyone and their dog comes to help you. If you are a man and are getting abused, you are a pathetic wuss with balls the size of tic tacs. It is the social bias that is vastly in favour of women.

Overall, 1 out of 4 women are at some point abused, but only 1 out of 6 men (the telegraph) but services are so biased towards women it is ridiculous. If you want to solve a problem, you can't just ignore that another side of it is happening.

The fact that men are bigger may have something to do with the excess numbers, but the fact that so many women are just as psycho as men indicates that this isn't a gender problem. It is a societal problem whose outcome is influenced by the fact that men tend to be more "masculine". To talk about sexism is just ridiculous.

What areas are these? What rights do men not have?

Ask Fathers for Justice.

[Schwabenreich]

I'm just going to hunt around a few sources to draw attention to things I think may be neglected in the light of ongoing movements.

http://www.californiamenscenters.org/wordpress/?p=10847
http://boyseducationaustralia.blogspot. ... st-in.html
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/2127/1/2127.pdf
http://www.worldcongress.org/wcf3_spkrs ... rancis.htm
http://antimisandry.com/discrimination- ... 15668.html
http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/descrim.htm
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199 ... ctims.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 1351.story
http://creativedestruction.wordpress.co ... sentences/

Not all of them are the best sources but they're some food for thought.

Edit: Also, some of these are bit old, expecially the one in regard to california which has undergone change.

Edit: and some of them seem to be dead...

[Schwabenreich]

Not all, just the more vocal. Besides, I'm not saying being selfish is bad either, every individual has a responsibility to ambitiously pursue a betterment of their situation. In that way I kind of support it, but at the same time I think a lot of them sugarcoat it by saying 'equal rights' while exclusively persueing their own agenda.

I would say that's just your imagination combined with a stereotype of man-hating "feminazis."

Finally, i'd be lieing if I said I did not feel a bit confronted in your response, am I just imagining the hostility?

I'm not usually pleasant towards views I see as bigoted and hateful towards a race, religion, ethnicity, culture, gender, sexual preference or nationality. I don't mean to be overly hostile, but I would be lying if I didn't view such opinions as inherently hostile..

I personally say you're making a few jumps of logic that I can't follow and prematurely profiling me on insufficient grounds.

It's 3 am so I may not be clear. My mind is getting too tired for serious argument. I'll get back to you on this (and respond more thoroughly to your last post) later, alright?

Alright, thats cool. I am sorry if I offended you, it was not my intention. I could have certainly worded my initial post better.

[Nulono]

My problem with feminism is simply that in Australia, I can not see how they are still oppressed, theres a few minor issues they may raise hell over but there not nearly as prominent as the ones that concern males who seem to choose to roll with the punches perhaps because the idea is battered into them that they're inherently the oppressors.

The means of oppression have become more subtle in the Western World. Take, for example, wages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_gender_gap
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 85,00.html

I'm not so sure about that. Something tells me women are more expensive employees, either for maternity leave or other things. If women were just as expensive as men, why would any business owner hire men?

[Bottle]

My problem with feminism is simply that in Australia, I can not see how they are still oppressed, theres a few minor issues they may raise hell over but there not nearly as prominent as the ones that concern males who seem to choose to roll with the punches perhaps because the idea is battered into them that they're inherently the oppressors.

The means of oppression have become more subtle in the Western World. Take, for example, wages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_gender_gap
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 85,00.html

I'm not so sure about that. Something tells me women are more expensive employees, either for maternity leave or other things. If women were just as expensive as men, why would any business owner hire men?

"Something tells you"? What? Show it to us.

[Schwabenreich]

My problem with feminism is simply that in Australia, I can not see how they are still oppressed, theres a few minor issues they may raise hell over but there not nearly as prominent as the ones that concern males who seem to choose to roll with the punches perhaps because the idea is battered into them that they're inherently the oppressors.

The means of oppression have become more subtle in the Western World. Take, for example, wages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_gender_gap
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 85,00.html

I'm not so sure about that. Something tells me women are more expensive employees, either for maternity leave or other things. If women were just as expensive as men, why would any business owner hire men?

"Something tells you"? What? Show it to us.

If they are granted maternity leave in the said country, wouldn't it be natural to assume their 'leave' is either subsidised by the government or out of the employer's pocket?

[Treznor]

My problem with feminism is simply that in Australia, I can not see how they are still oppressed, theres a few minor issues they may raise hell over but there not nearly as prominent as the ones that concern males who seem to choose to roll with the punches perhaps because the idea is battered into them that they're inherently the oppressors.

The means of oppression have become more subtle in the Western World. Take, for example, wages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_gender_gap
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 85,00.html

I'm not so sure about that. Something tells me women are more expensive employees, either for maternity leave or other things. If women were just as expensive as men, why would any business owner hire men?

"Something tells you"? What? Show it to us.

If they are granted maternity leave in the said country, wouldn't it be natural to assume their 'leave' is either subsidised by the government or out of the employer's pocket?

What makes you think paternity leave isn't also being demanded? Fathers are no less parents than mothers.

[Schwabenreich]

My problem with feminism is simply that in Australia, I can not see how they are still oppressed, theres a few minor issues they may raise hell over but there not nearly as prominent as the ones that concern males who seem to choose to roll with the punches perhaps because the idea is battered into them that they're inherently the oppressors.

The means of oppression have become more subtle in the Western World. Take, for example, wages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_gender_gap
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 85,00.html

I'm not so sure about that. Something tells me women are more expensive employees, either for maternity leave or other things. If women were just as expensive as men, why would any business owner hire men?

"Something tells you"? What? Show it to us.

If they are granted maternity leave in the said country, wouldn't it be natural to assume their 'leave' is either subsidised by the government or out of the employer's pocket?

What makes you think paternity leave isn't also being demanded? Fathers are no less parents than mothers.

Not saying it doesn't happen but paternity leave is definately less common and custody is normally given to the mother by defualt.

See how less frequent paternity leave is on a world scale? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_leave

[Gift-of-god]

Not saying it doesn't happen but paternity leave is definately less common and custody is normally given to the mother by defualt.

See how less frequent paternity leave is on a world scale? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_leave

That is why feminists are trying to get governments to extend parental benefits to both parents regardless of sex.

[Schwabenreich]

Not saying it doesn't happen but paternity leave is definately less common and custody is normally given to the mother by defualt.

See how less frequent paternity leave is on a world scale? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_leave

That is why feminists are trying to get governments to extend parental benefits to both parents regardless of sex.

As it should be.

[Treznor]

If they are granted maternity leave in the said country, wouldn't it be natural to assume their 'leave' is either subsidised by the government or out of the employer's pocket?

What makes you think paternity leave isn't also being demanded? Fathers are no less parents than mothers.

Not saying it doesn't happen but paternity leave is definately less common and custody is normally given to the mother by defualt.

See how less frequent paternity leave is on a world scale? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_leave

Yes. There's still sexism going on, one of the few cases where men are at the shorter end of the stick. As a feminist I support gender equality for both sides, which includes equal paternity leave to match maternity leave. Having a child is a huge deal, and fathers should be allowed to help shoulder the burden.

[Schwabenreich]

If they are granted maternity leave in the said country, wouldn't it be natural to assume their 'leave' is either subsidised by the government or out of the employer's pocket?

What makes you think paternity leave isn't also being demanded? Fathers are no less parents than mothers.

Not saying it doesn't happen but paternity leave is definately less common and custody is normally given to the mother by defualt.

See how less frequent paternity leave is on a world scale? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_leave

Yes. There's still sexism going on, one of the few cases where men are at the shorter end of the stick. As a feminist I support gender equality for both sides, which includes equal paternity leave to match maternity leave. Having a child is a huge deal, and fathers should be allowed to help shoulder the burden.

Does credit to your cause. I'm glad I'm in one of the few governments who has got its act together on parental leave. Though, if I recall that was a rather recent development for us.

[Central Slavia]

My problem with feminism is simply that in Australia, I can not see how they are still oppressed, theres a few minor issues they may raise hell over but there not nearly as prominent as the ones that concern males who seem to choose to roll with the punches perhaps because the idea is battered into them that they're inherently the oppressors.

The means of oppression have become more subtle in the Western World. Take, for example, wages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_gender_gap
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 85,00.html

I'm not so sure about that. Something tells me women are more expensive employees, either for maternity leave or other things. If women were just as expensive as men, why would any business owner hire men?

"Something tells you"? What? Show it to us.

To intersect - it was mentioned in Super Freakonomics - most income inequality in women and men comes from women working less hours, either due to maternity or not , and overall being less "aggressive workers"
Sadly one of my friends has the book borrowed, now for 5 months already , so i cannot retype it here

[Bottle]

My problem with feminism is simply that in Australia, I can not see how they are still oppressed, theres a few minor issues they may raise hell over but there not nearly as prominent as the ones that concern males who seem to choose to roll with the punches perhaps because the idea is battered into them that they're inherently the oppressors.

The means of oppression have become more subtle in the Western World. Take, for example, wages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_gender_gap
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 85,00.html

I'm not so sure about that. Something tells me women are more expensive employees, either for maternity leave or other things. If women were just as expensive as men, why would any business owner hire men?

"Something tells you"? What? Show it to us.

To intersect - it was mentioned in Super Freakonomics - most income inequality in women and men comes from women working less hours, either due to maternity or not , and overall being less "aggressive workers"
Sadly one of my friends has the book borrowed, now for 5 months already , so i cannot retype it here

Even if that unsupported assertion turned out to be true, I don't see how that would equate to women being "more expensive employees" or "just as expensive." You're saying women get paid LESS than men because they work fewer hours...how does paying women LESS mean that women cost the employer more? Particularly since women are more likely to work part-time than men, and are thus less likely to qualify for benefits, which are a tremendous source of expense for employers?

[Bottle]

Not saying it doesn't happen but paternity leave is definately less common and custody is normally given to the mother by defualt.

See how less frequent paternity leave is on a world scale? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_leave

That is why feminists are trying to get governments to extend parental benefits to both parents regardless of sex.

Feminists have, indeed, been the strongest driving force behind getting parental leave benefits for BOTH men and women.

Funny how feminists are blamed for not having yet won a fight...when they're often the only ones fighting it in the first place.

[Schwabenreich]

My problem with feminism is simply that in Australia, I can not see how they are still oppressed, theres a few minor issues they may raise hell over but there not nearly as prominent as the ones that concern males who seem to choose to roll with the punches perhaps because the idea is battered into them that they're inherently the oppressors.

The means of oppression have become more subtle in the Western World. Take, for example, wages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_gender_gap
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 85,00.html

I'm not so sure about that. Something tells me women are more expensive employees, either for maternity leave or other things. If women were just as expensive as men, why would any business owner hire men?

"Something tells you"? What? Show it to us.

To intersect - it was mentioned in Super Freakonomics - most income inequality in women and men comes from women working less hours, either due to maternity or not , and overall being less "aggressive workers"
Sadly one of my friends has the book borrowed, now for 5 months already , so i cannot retype it here

Even if that unsupported assertion turned out to be true, I don't see how that would equate to women being "more expensive employees" or "just as expensive." You're saying women get paid LESS than men because they work fewer hours...how does paying women LESS mean that women cost the employer more? Particularly since women are more likely to work part-time than men, and are thus less likely to qualify for benefits, which are a tremendous source of expense for employers?

Good question.

[Treznor]

To intersect - it was mentioned in Super Freakonomics - most income inequality in women and men comes from women working less hours, either due to maternity or not , and overall being less "aggressive workers"
Sadly one of my friends has the book borrowed, now for 5 months already , so i cannot retype it here

So working fewer hours, likely due to family obligations, translates to a justification for hiring at a lower wage and giving lower raises? Perception of being "less aggressive" means the quality of their work is automatically lower?

Congratulations, you're a chauvinist.