Masculism

ultraviolet said:

okay! so why exactly couldn't there be a movement set for gender equality that aims to right inequalities between men and women as a whole? why couldn't feminists and masculinists or whatever just become one movement? nobody's saying that male issues aren't a big deal! feminism is already trying to accomplish those things! I don't see how two different movements aiming for pretty much the same thing - gender equality - is in any way better than one movement for everyone.



I agree, and this is why masculism pops up; feminism is used these days for a multitude of viewpoints that aren't necessarily about gender equality at all, and many women do use 'feminism' to tell people what they think men should do for women when that's not even what it's about. This is why I think that people should just start campaigning for equality rather than feminism; most people I know consider feminism to be the bra-burning feminism of the 60's or making women dominant over men. It's unfortunate, but if you want people to look past what you call yourself and start listening then I really think feminists are going to have to call themselves something different. :/

Click to expand...

I was trying to get at this point, but did not have the ability to remain coherent in the way I write. This is the gist of what I think has happened in the feminist movement. The 'original' flavor of feminism was about equality for all. However, the more radical elements took over and forced the issues more towards the female being superior. The original aim of feminism and the current aim of masculism are roughly the same. I want a dialogue to happen, and it is happening little by little. I also consider myself a feminist, but I see the damage to men that the radical feminists have done. This is why I have taken up the masculist banner.

Pwnemon said:

ITT: Lots of confusing statements in which everyone is stuck on the same page but still quibbling over how to word it.

We're all for gender equality in all areas, no? We all agree that hardly anything is free from discrimination, yes? THEN WHY ARE WE STILL ARGUING.

It seems the entire fight here is over the semantics of what to call the gender equality movement. The answer: who cares. Call it masculism, call it feminism, call it genderical equalism, call it whatever you want. It's all a united front anyways!


Fake Edit: I saw what Koori said about the education system and I just wanted to say one thing- Elementary school textbooks.

"Generic Boy Name and Generic girl name are trying to solve this problem. Generic Boy did ____ and got ____. Generic girl did ____ and got ____. Who was correct?" I could skip their work, never do the problem, say generic boy got it wrong, and be correct 100% of the time. And I'm no expert, but I think that this may have a subconscious effect on the whole "girls are better in school and boys should peddle illegal drugs" mentality. >:L

Click to expand...

Pwnemon, the first part of your post was erudite, the second part was much less so. You missed the point I was making.

Comma Police said:

I actually fully agree with all of this.

We all agree on the actual points of both gender equalism movements, so why are we having a vocab battle here?

Click to expand...

I'm thankful we seem to have come to a consensus. It's a relief that people have done so much research on the issue.

Time Psyduck said:

Unfortunately it isn't. "Feminism" covers a wide range of things, from just 'Why should women not have basic human rights just because they're women?' (such as not being allowed to go to school in some places) through 'men and women should be paid the same for the same work', right through to the crazy end where they think all men only ever think about having sex with all women they lay eyes on, or that women should rule men.

With some feminists focussing entirely on women's rights and issues (which is fair enough), Masculism appears as counterpart for male issues. However that in turn gets mixed up with and/or overlaps the extreme misogynists, who see women as heartless/subhuman/evil.

Naturally, those on the edges tend to see those on the other edge as being anti-them. People in the middle usually see both ends as either crazy or unpleasant. I think just about everyone here is close enough to the middle that we mostly agree on everything, but it doesn't apply generally.

Gender equality explains the basic ideas best, but other people likely have their own reason for using whatever term they use.

Click to expand...

How right this is. The movements are very similar to religions, there will be radical fundamentalists in them who want things to be their way or the highway. The ones who aren't fundamentalists are reasonable and can be tolerant of other religions.

opaltiger said:

No. I'm sorry, that simply isn't true. First of all I have never actually encountered someone like that last group, but even if they existed, they wouldn't be feminists. Calling yourself a feminist isn't enough.

Click to expand...

Just because you haven't met one doesn't mean that they don't exist. They may not be what you consider 'feminist', but they consider themselves 'feminist'.

The second part was basically a rant, lol. pay it no mind.

While I'm here, I'd also like to reclaim the word 'radical'. It means nothing else than 'from the root'; as a radical feminist I want to address feminist issues at the root, e.g. at society's perceptions of gender as a whole.

opaltiger said:

While I'm here, I'd also like to reclaim the word 'radical'. It means nothing else than 'from the root'; as a radical feminist I want to address feminist issues at the root, e.g. at society's perceptions of gender as a whole.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, how about the term 'extremist' for those on both sides who cannot accept the other side?

Koori Renchuu said:

Fair enough, how about the term 'extremist' for those on both sides who cannot accept the other side?

Click to expand...

Sure. I just disagree that extremist feminists (or indeed extremist anyone else) should be considered feminists at all.

opaltiger said:

Sure. I just disagree that extremist feminists (or indeed extremist anyone else) should be considered feminists at all.

Click to expand...

I think the issue here is that, whether or not they "should" be considered feminists, they still are by many people. Hence we have misconceptions about what feminism actually means, at which point feminism does, in fact if not in definition, cover that previously stated wide range of views.

There are, after all, a multitude of male centered issues that women may not understand. The prostate is a gland found in men alone, the procedures for testing and treatment are often highly invasive. Mammographies are not as highly invasive in nature for either testing or treatment.

Click to expand...

... That isn't even true. :| What about trans guys/girls?

ETA: About what feminism means.

People who don't understand feminism, or misappropriate it to mean something else, do not get to do that and ruin feminism. Simply because there are some people who think they are feminists and are in actuality extremely sexist, does not mean that is what feminism is. And in fact, assuming that because a few people in an organization are bad the organization must be bad, even when the people can call themselves feminists without feminism having any control over the matter, is generalizing. So please stop. :|

Also late ETA but I didn't read the thread till last night so :[

Women aren't good comedians. Or rather, there aren't any good female comedians. I like Franky Boyle, not because of his 'gimmick' (Scottish jokes), but because he's bloody funny. Jo Brand, on the other hand, is not funny. At least, not to me.

I can almost guarantee that any refuse collector, any sewage worker, any builder or any street cleaner will be male too.

Click to expand...

opaltiger said:

No. I'm sorry, that simply isn't true. First of all I have never actually encountered someone like that last group, but even if they existed, they wouldn't be feminists. Calling yourself a feminist isn't enough.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call the first group feminist either. It just seemed the most logical place for the other end of the spectrum, since anyone further over basically sees women as being less than human. I figured wanting women to be treated as human beings is the minimum needed to even be considered as a potential feminist (and it's possible that some people would see even that as being like the extremists, if they hadn't seen any real ones to compare it to).

I'm just going to say something short here, But Feminists want equality right? Then why is it that my friend's mother, whom has custody of my friend, and has a better paying job than his father, had to pay less for child support when my friend's dad had custody, than his dad, who has a bad paying job, does now? And when I grew up, I was taught 'Ladies first'. Why? We all want to be equal, isn't that putting women above men? Or when me and my friend get in angered verbal arguements, it's just an arguement, but when me an dmy Girlfriend do, she say I am abusing her, and her friends agree? And thats only a few examples. I want to know how that makes women equal to men, because the way I see, women are treated higher than men, at least in canada.

Just because you have one anecdote to prove that the opposite does occur doesn't mean that it's a trend all over Canada (nor do I believe that it is the case there). Although Canada is a pretty cool country in pretty much all sorts of ways, and I am a big fan of it, I don't think that even in Canada, this is not an issue anymore. I can think of only a few countries in which it is more or less negligible and they are pretty much all Scandinavian I think? (and even then I'd say it still needs continuous enforcement)

And when I grew up, I was taught 'Ladies first'. Why? We all want to be equal, isn't that putting women above men?

Click to expand...

Yes, and this is exactly the sort of old-fashioned value that feminists are arguing against.

You've cited three cases of women having the advantage over men. Two of them are tiny; the third, I agree, is an important issue. Are you seriously proposing that these outweigh the myriad disadvantages women are faced with every day?

Cydnix said:

I'm just going to say something short here, But Feminists want equality right? Then why is it that my friend's mother, whom has custody of my friend, and has a better paying job than his father, had to pay less for child support when my friend's dad had custody, than his dad, who has a bad paying job, does now? And when I grew up, I was taught 'Ladies first'. Why? We all want to be equal, isn't that putting women above men? Or when me and my friend get in angered verbal arguements, it's just an arguement, but when me an dmy Girlfriend do, she say I am abusing her, and her friends agree? And thats only a few examples. I want to know how that makes women equal to men, because the way I see, women are treated higher than men, at least in canada.

Click to expand...

Where are you getting the idea that feminists are fine with this? We really do want to exterminate the idea that women are automatically better parents than men or that women need to be treated like fragile things and prioritized simply for being women.

Every aspect of society that treats the genders differently has two sides to it and is ultimately harmful to both genders. You as a man complain about "ladies first" prioritizing women, but women have every reason to complain, too, because it's rooted in a chauvinistic idea that women are frail and helpless and need to have a man protect them, open doors for them and give them privileges. It all has a flipside and we want it all gone.

I open doors for women because it's polite...in the same way I open doors for men... I mean, it's not about prioritizing women particularly above men, but it's about prioritizing others above yourself, which is polite and humble. The same reason that when I cook, I give someone else first pick. It's fairness and politeness.

And that's fine! The problem is with the idea that, as a general principle, women need doors opened for them as if being women makes them somehow unable to open the doors themselves or that opening doors is 'unladylike' or whatever. Anyone should be able to open the door for anyone when being polite; like everything else, the problem is with the gendering more than the thing itself.

While the sexism that seems to be ingrained into all of the world's dominant cultures definitely gives women the short end of the stick, it also hurts men enough that I think there's ground for a masculist movement too.

See, by holding up the ideal that men are stronger, braver, etc. than women, it punishes those who fail to live up to this ideal. For example, you can probably how much luck a man will have if he suffers spousal abuse, or rape, and tries to charge the one who wronged him (Although to be fair, women who have been raped get a raw deal too - as I said before, sexism benefits no one). And if you're a man who happens to be physically weak? You get a lot of flak for it. I speak from experience.

So yes, the masculist movement is a good idea, but I don't think it should be in opposition to the feminist one. They're both opposing the same thing, a culture that tries to force people into roles based on what's between their legs.

Starship Trooper said:

While the sexism that seems to be ingrained into all of the world's dominant cultures definitely gives women the short end of the stick, it also hurts men enough that I think there's ground for a masculist movement too.

See, by holding up the ideal that men are stronger, braver, etc. than women, it punishes those who fail to live up to this ideal. For example, you can probably how much luck a man will have if he suffers spousal abuse, or rape, and tries to charge the one who wronged him (Although to be fair, women who have been raped get a raw deal too - as I said before, sexism benefits no one). And if you're a man who happens to be physically weak? You get a lot of flak for it. I speak from experience.

So yes, the masculist movement is a good idea, but I don't think it should be in opposition to the feminist one. They're both opposing the same thing, a culture that tries to force people into roles based on what's between their legs.

Click to expand...

Have you actually read the rest of the thread? The reason there's no need for a masculist movement isn't because there aren't issues for it to address, but because these issues are already addressed by the existing feminist movement. There are plenty of feminists - of all genders! - who are concerned about the issues you've raised, and plenty of others. It's entirely possible to address both sides of the issue at the same time - you don't need two entirely separate movements for it.