Masculism

[Ivy Newton]

Only men who owned land were able to vote. Because they were rich, not because they were men.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that only men could own land.

Sounds pretty damn sexist to me.

 

[Aletheia]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that only men could own land.

Sounds pretty damn sexist to me.

Certain exceptions were made, like when a married man owned land but died or went off to fight some war.

Incidentally, this has been emphasized in pretty much every presentation on the Homestead Act I've ever seen.

There's also examples (in the colonial U.S., anyway) of it happening as early as the middle 18th century. I'm pretty sure feminism wasn't really around back then.

Whoah, am I forming an opinion? I better leave before people start thinking I'm part of this debate.

 

[Ivy Newton]

Ah. Well, close enough. Though, I'm curious now... could these women who owned land vote?

 

[Furiianda]

That article is about people being stoned to death for adultery, not for being women. I counted three women being stoned to death and three men. Ho hum.

Huh, but two of those men weren't stoned for adultery. In fact, the laws and such didn't seem to involve gender discrimination (it seems the reason the woman was stoned and the boyfriend only lashed was because she was married prior and he was not). Bad example, eh?

However, your statement "women have never been beaten for being women" was a bit too general, though I haven't a handy source right now to prove it. Sorry. From what I was taught in my history class they were, in fact, beaten just for being women sometimes, although that information was from a school textbook, generally a very unreliable source (and then there's the whole witch trials thing which apparently didn't apply so well to men)... so, well, I wouldn't say never, that's all. There was probably something in the bible about it, not an expert myself, but I think that female rape victims didn't get the best treatment.

 

[Aletheia]

Ah. Well, close enough. Though, I'm curious now... could these women who owned land vote?

No. owning land =/= suffrage

 

[Ivy Newton]

No. owning land =/= suffrage

So then it was obviously a gender issue... not a class issue.

 

[Koori Renchuu]

In regards to Tailsy's argument, I am going down the list. This is to increase the possibility and the quality of debate. If I sounded like I was demeaning feminists in general, I am sincerely sorry. However, I was merely presenting a viewpoint on a few issues that were supported by the Mens Rights Movement.

 

[Saith]

And when women are in Iraq at all, they're women. Not 'soldiers'.

Because in Iraq, when a woman did something or had something done to her that's newsworthy, she isn't a soldier. Out of 179 casualties, less than 10 were women. So yeah, they probably weren't soldiers. Just saying.

I'd love to know what kind of media you watch. Because nearly every TV show I watch (regardless of genre) has a male main character, 95% of science shows I see are presented by men,

Soaps and Glee. :3
Eastenders consists of a street of domestic abusers and domestic abuse victims. Every guy in there has some huge flaw that makes him horrfically unlikeable and just a generally terrible person. By the same token, almost every woman is treated as a complete and utter victim whose every actions are completely virtuous and whenever they do something wrong, it's cause they're misled or mistaken, or doing it for the greater good etc. The only female villain I can think of was that Stella woman. And even then, she was killed by Phil.

if a comedy panel show has a single woman in an episode it's unusual,

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.

if there's a politician being interviewed on the news you can almost guarantee they'll be male

I can almost guarantee that any refuse collector, any sewage worker, any builder or any street cleaner will be male too.
There might be a 'glass ceiling', but there's certainly a 'glass cellar'.

and any sport that gets covered will be entirely male-centric. And that's just off the top of my head.

Netball is bloody boring. It's like basketball but crap. Nobody wants to watch it.
But yeah, I agree with that last point of yours. Except for tennis and the Olympics. But apart from them, I agree.
Of course, I'd prefer if there were no gendered sports. That men and women share the same leagues.

From what I was taught in my history class they were, in fact, beaten just for being women sometimes, although that information was from a school textbook, generally a very unreliable source (and then there's the whole witch trials thing which apparently didn't apply so well to men)

You mean those witch trials where little girls would just point at whoever, and those people would be tried for witchery? Those trials? The trials that were basically an antiquated version of Mean Girls, but scarier?

As far as I recall, men were tried in those trials, too. Not to the same extent, of course (The Salem witch trials had 50-odd women, 7 men). On the other hand, a higher percentage of the men were found guilty of the women, so there is that. (About 50% for the women, about 75% for the men).

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Ignoring the misogyny from the previous post, which is thicker than the reams of rheum that were in my eyes the other morning, here's what you do;

masculism + feminism = something wonderful

I really don't understand why it is in any way productive for a movement which generally opposes the use of gendered terms is named according to a gender. Just seems silly to me. In both cases.

 

[Dannichu]

I was going to go through your post one point at a time ('the media' is considerably larger than a soap aimed at middle-aged housewives, the vast majority of prostitutes and sweatshop workers are women and women actually do play more sports than netball), but this? This is just mental:

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.

Well obviously women aren't good comedians! It's because their bodies are so full of womanhormone, they're all irrational and can't make jokes (also why they shouldn't be in the workplace, shouldn't vote and shouldn't have reproductive freedom!). If there aren't many women in an area of work, it's because women aren't good at said job (I mean, look at Margeret Thatcher - she wasn't a good politician (assuming you think so, because your opinion is Word Of God apparently), so obviously all women are bad at politics!) - what other reason could there be?

(and, for the record, Frankie Boyle's 'gimmick' is "And then I kicked a pregnant black woman!!! I am un-PC and therefore funny!!!")

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

I just find it baffling that because you can think of a couple of shows with fleshed-out lead female characters it means that we can ignore that the vast majority of shows doesn't have these fleshed-out lead female characters. Same line of thinking for anything else being discussed; sports or jobs or whatever.
And this was a while back but saying white people were being opressed by being the only people allowed to be in the army shows an intense lack of understanding of what being opressed or discriminated against is about.

Your method of arguing in general seems to be "find a single or meager number of examples as use it as a rule to prove how badly men are oppressed and how easy it is to be a woman" which is laughable at best.

 

[Phantom]

This is insane, look the whole feminist movement is about gender equality. It's about not putting one gender before the other. I brought this up to some people I know and if I hear one more thing about, "well only men get drafted" I will shoot someone. And guess what, I'm a girl. Currently women can't serve on the front lines. They are forced to be in the background. So if you're saying that if there is a cause I want to fight for that I can't because I am a woman? Instead I get to drive you there like a soccer mom dropping off her kids, hell no! Is that fair? That I am willing to fight and die for something and I can't????


We were running a training scenario in my police post some time ago and there was a person who we had at gunpoint and needed to take down. Some big guy comes up and says he'll do it, when I'm right there. I say, "Like hell you are," and I take down the suspect who's twice my size. Hell half the time I'm better at my job then the guys are. So that's my rant.

 

[Aobaru]

Women aren't good comedians.

I gotta call bullshit on you here. I mean, of course this is subjective, but what you're implying is that women don't have the capability to be good comedians, which is, frankly, misogynistic. I can think of four great female comedians off the top of my head: Gina Yashere, Sarah Silverman, Chelsea Handler, and Wanda Sykes.

 

[Phantom]

^ Lucille Ball, oh and Betty White is amazing.

 

[Aletheia]

I gotta call bullshit on you here. I mean, of course this is subjective, but what you're implying is that women don't have the capability to be good comedians, which is, frankly, misogynistic. I can think of four great female comedians off the top of my head: Gina Yashere, Sarah Silverman, Chelsea Handler, and Wanda Sykes.

Really hate to defend Hoity Toity, but he went on to say:

Or rather, there aren't any good female comedians.

 

[Phantom]

Really hate to defend Hoity Toity, but he went on to say:

Yes, but then why did he say the first thing at all if he didn't believe it were true?

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

I don't really see the difference between saying women at large aren't funny and then going on to say that funny women just don't exist.
I'm tired, so I might be missing the point, but it looks like the same sentence written twice but reworded?

 

[ultraviolet]

He was not saying that women are inherently unfunny.

"Women aren't good comedians". He didn't say anything about women not being funny enough or not enough of them stepping up to the plate; if that's what he meant then he should have clarified his point better. :|

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.

Yes, not to you. Whether you find female comedians funny or not is rather subjective and missing the point; idk how it is in the UK but most comedy shows here almost always feature female comedians at the very least and often there's a 50/50 split. Whether you find them funny or not is irrelevant; if they aren't showing female comedians then the show is male-centric, no?

Also, can you please refrain from saying something like 'Women aren't good comedians' as though it's an absolute thing? Whether you intend it or not, that's actually hurtful and quite irrelevant to the discussion; it also really lowers the validity of your argument as a whole. Why should I respect your opinions (and by extension, your arguments) if you're going to generalise women like that? Your arguments are about men being generalised, and then you go and generalise women. Do you not see the irony here? o_o

The fact that masculism exists is kind of strange because contemporary feminism already campaigns for the things that masculism does. I honestly think the reason why this comes up is because feminism is still called feminism despite the fact that it's about gender equality much more than it is about women. I understand that people use 'feminism' instead of saying they're 'for gender equality' because the former contains so much more force than the latter; few people are exactly going to come out against gender equality, even if they are, because it's such a vague and relatively unhelpful term. But people who are uneducated about feminism are obviously going to assume it's about and for women; it's called feminism after all and I hardly think you can blame anyone for that.

The more important issue is that there shouldn't even have to be feminists or masculists(?); gender equality should be a given and instead of bickering over differences in the treatment of genders, everyone should be willing to help each other to try and change things. Complaining about the differences between us and calling ourselves feminists or masculists is completely missing the bigger issue that there is gender inequality around still in 2011.

Also re: gendered abuse centres: why exactly couldn't there be unisex help centres with facilites to help men, women, transpeople and so on? I mean it makes sense for help centres to be proportionate to the actual amount of victims, but I don't really understand why a lot of charities couldn't just amalgamate into larger, unisex ones. They could still offer services to particular genders; but as one entity instead of lots of smaller charities who would probably receive less funding as a whole.

 

[Eloi]

already[/I] campaigns for the things that masculism does. I honestly think the reason why this comes up is because feminism is still called feminism despite the fact that it's about gender equality much more than it is about women. I understand that people use 'feminism' instead of saying they're 'for gender equality' because the former contains so much more force than the latter; few people are exactly going to come out against gender equality, even if they are, because it's such a vague and relatively unhelpful term. But people who are uneducated about feminism are obviously going to assume it's about and for women; it's called feminism after all and I hardly think you can blame anyone for that.

I concur. Not to mention that, how one gains gender equality is by strengthening the causes, pursuits, and socio-economic power of women. Men are not the ones disadvantaged by wage disparity, or other types of persecution comparable to the ones the feminist movement is fighting against. That's why its called 'feminism' and not 'equalism'. Because the only way to be equal in gender is explicitly support the rights and interests of women.

Also re: gendered abuse centres: why exactly couldn't there be unisex help centres with facilites to help men, women, transpeople and so on? I mean it makes sense for help centres to be proportionate to the actual amount of victims, but I don't really understand why a lot of charities couldn't just amalgamate into larger, unisex ones. They could still offer services to particular genders; but as one entity instead of lots of smaller charities who would probably receive less funding as a whole.

Indeed, I don't get why that can't be either. Its really amazing how people kind of assume homeless shelters, public restrooms, jails for minor misdemeanors, or rape help centers have some sort of something for trans people (if they care at all). [And common reactions from each of those in order for an example trans women first trying to pick the female division and then going for the male division: rejection/abuse, rejection/abuse, rejection/abuse, rejection/[no option]. Yes, that's right, there is a section of our (the USA, I'm speaking of here as 'our' not necessarily 'our' though) population that can be rejected from homes just 'cuz (no discrimination laws nationally enacted to protect them) and then either sit out in the cold and rot or get abused in the male portion of a homeless shelter. Then, even if this trans person did own a home, while in public, can't even really use the restroom without being rejected or abused if doing so openly trans. If they go to jail *for anything*, they are likely to be segregated with male prisoners with horrific results, and finally, if they get raped (either at the homeless shelter, in the restroom, or in jail as I outlined above), rape victim centers are not usually going to help them. At all.] Its really sad, actually. :sad:

 

[Koori Renchuu]

I concur. Not to mention that, how one gains gender equality is by strengthening the causes, pursuits, and socio-economic power of women. Men are not the ones disadvantaged by wage disparity, or other types of persecution comparable to the ones the feminist movement is fighting against. That's why its called 'feminism' and not 'equalism'. Because the only way to be equal in gender is explicitly support the rights and interests of women.

Here's the issue I have with this viewpoint, it is a one-sided viewpoint. It sees only the plight it wants to see. How often have you seen a rally for a prostate cancer fund? How often have you seen a product that says it helps out prostate cancer research? Is there an Office for Men's Health? When a man is raped by a woman, is he usually taken seriously by the masses? When a man is in divorce court, does he normally get equal consideration for custody? When a man is accused of rape, does he normally get due process of law or is he normally considered guilty before proven innocent? Is there a fertility control product out on the market for men? Is education in general doing its part for the boys in the system? These are disadvantages that only men experience. I admit that the wage disparity is still a major issue, but women are quickly catching up. The idea that the only way to promote gender equality is through the 'feminist' agenda is immensely narrow minded. There are many issues that do not affect women. The women of the feminist movement did nothing to make sure these issues were equalized. This is why masculism now exists, men feel disadvantaged in ways that women aren't being disadvantaged.

In addition, this has been sold. If the slogan said 'Girls are stupid, throw rocks at them!', it would be universally hated. Both men and women would be rallying against it.