What can feminism do for men?

[YawningMind]

We can try to squeeze square pegs into round holes by pretending yin is yang.

 

Or we can let yin and yang run their course.

 

As for which one of those is actually feminism...

 

"Feminism", just like "god", "liberal", and "conservative", has become a meaningless word. A word loses its meaning, when people cease to agree on its meaning. You can't have a meaningful debate if you can't agree on the meaning of the word you're debating about. We can still debate about agreed-upon of subforms of feminism, and I think opening a thread about that would be more productive.

[tyler zambori]

We can try to squeeze square pegs into round holes by pretending yin is yang.

 

Or we can let yin and yang run their course.

 

As for which one of those is actually feminism...

 

"Feminism", just like "god", "liberal", and "conservative", has become a meaningless word. A word loses its meaning, when people cease to agree on its meaning. You can't have a meaningful debate if you can't agree on the meaning of the word you're debating about. We can still debate about agreed-upon of subforms of feminism, and I think opening a thread about that would be more productive.

 

I can add some meaning I think:

 

 

[Feminists are] just women who don't want to be treated like shit." Su, an Australian woman interviewed for the 1996 anthology DIY Feminism.

[tyler zambori]

And since women are still often treated like shit, (yes on this forum) that makes for a

very clear definition.

 

To make it even more clear, one could even say that a feminist, on this forum, is a

person who doesn't want to be treated like shit, and doesn't want women who post on this

forum to be treated like shit.

 

So within the context of this forum, I hope that is a really clear and meaningful definition.

I know it is for me.

Edited June 26, 2014 by tyler zambori

[tyler zambori]

This TED talk is about gender violence, but it's also about the leadership failure

of men with power, to stand with women on these issues:

 

 

So from the point of view of leadership failure, it's very much on point.

 

The speaker calls himself an anti-sexist activist, but it's the same thing as

feminism.

 

And here's a TED talk called:

We should all be feminists: Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie at TEDxEuston

 

 

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie was a 2005-2006 Hodder Fellow at Princeton, where she

taught introductory fiction. She strikes me as charming and amusing.

OMG, not your typical feminazi!

 

I'm sure the people who really need it won't watch it, but I'll post it here

in case somebody does find it interesting.

[C T]

Brilliant talk by Ms. Adichie. Clear and to the point, fair, and thought-provoking.

[Marblehead]

Yeah, well, I still think we should be talking about Yin and Yang instead of man and woman but that's just my opinion.

[Sloppy Zhang]

 

I can add some meaning I think:

 

[Feminists are] just women who don't want to be treated like shit." Su, an Australian woman interviewed for the 1996 anthology DIY Feminism.

 

I would like to unpack this quote and hopefully show how the issue is not so clear cut, despite what various quips and witticisms seem to indicate...

 

First I'd like to ask

 

1) What does "treated like shit" mean?

 

Is it about getting paid less in the workforce? Is it about being viewed sexually? Is it about not being viewed sexually (because of lack of conforming to sexuality)? Is it about being trapped in the sexual dichotomy in the first place? Limited career opportunities because of the societally ingrained ideas of femininity? Is it about violence towards women because women are perceived as weaker, more exploitable? (Please note how I did not assume that this violence towards women is perpetrated by men, but rather, is perpetrated towards women, thank you)

 

These are just a few sample questions, I'm sure we can come up with more. Regardless, I would like a clear definition of what "treated like shit" means (and for the sake of debate, if you only would like to pick one we can just discuss one, then switch, or list them, but that makes posts long and in my experiences causes a lack of reading. I can personally handle long posts though, so go for it).

 

I ask because my next question is this:

 

2) Are people treated this way because they are women? Or are men treated this way equally?

 

Perhaps the crux of the issue is not that "women are treated like shit (by men or otherwise)" but (and this is my personal opinion) people are treated like shit by people because people are shitty.

 

People are selfish and greedy and tend to exploit whatever opportunity arises.

 

I'll take an example: A man is walking down the street and is mugged by a group of other men. The other men perceive their target as being weak physically and the group has a numbers advantage. So they beat and rob him and leave him to live or die by his wounds.

 

In my opinion, this is merely human criminal exploitation.

 

But there are strains of feminist thought which would indicate that the male victim was targeted because he was in a "feminized" position. As in, the target was seen as weak and less likely to put up meaningful resistance, mainstream "feminine" qualities. And so this male on male crime was actually an expression of misogynist views.

 

In my opinion, that's taking it a little bit far.

 

 

If women want to form up and make a movement to stop treating women like shit, that's fine. Because no one deserves to be treated like shit.

 

My main issue is where many feminists attribute the source of the problem: the inherent contempt men hold for women. I posit that is simply not true.

 

And I think that's where a lot of feminists garner their own contempt from, say, mens rights groups, because that group is composed of men who have been treated fairly horribly by women. Certain strains of feminist thought would posit that those men are really just butthurt because of their lost patriarchal dominance. I think that's warping the scenario a bit too far around.

 

But I am beginning to digress from my original point:

 

Are women mistreated because they are women, or because they are people living in a fucked up world, and happen to be women?

Edited June 26, 2014 by Sloppy Zhang

[Marblehead]

Are women mistreated because they are women, or because they are people living in a fucked up world, and happen to be women?

Or have feminine qualities?

 

Excellent question. I have my opinion but will withhold it as it doesn't matter because everyone else has their own opinion.

[Sloppy Zhang]

Or have feminine qualities?

 

Yet another complication...

 

In a 5 against 1 situation, is the 1 person in a "feminine" position? Does feminine mean weak, outnumbered, defenseless, unable to resist?

 

Rather than arguing that "men hate women," you might go further by saying that "men have perverted the definition of femininity."

 

But, is that as far as it goes?

 

As BKA has mentioned, what about the definition of masculinity? Is it exploitative, violent, prone to outbursts? In a 5 against 1 scenario, are those 5 guys acting "masculine" by taking advantage of that one person?

 

Maybe men (the "patriarchy") has perverted the definition of men so it can exploit women (startin to sound like some feminist literature yet?)

 

But, is that as far as it goes?

 

If men were looking to exploit women (for the benefit of the men) then what about the men that don't benefit by this definition? The men who aren't prone to violence, the men who aren't looking to exploit, and the men that don't develop the "masculine" traits- height, strength, success, etc.

 

In my opinion, there is the limitation of feminism. Because feminism, despite what some might say, is about helping women. Yes, there are situation that might benefit some men, but it's fundamentally about women.

 

It expresses itself in some of Yascra's posts, where she talks about women being inherently disadvantaged in a physical encounter. Well, guess what, there are plenty of situations in which men are disadvantaged (sometimes in the same ways as women, sometimes in others). But those situations are not inherently addressed by feminist arguments because feminism is about women.

 

Similarly, there are plenty of situations (hence MRA groups) in which women take advantage of men. Are women in a "masculine" position and men in the "feminine" position? In some feminist arguments, yes (and that explains the "anger" and "hate" MRAs have towards women, it was brought upon by the cognitive dissonance created by that situation). But I think that's forcing the terms to fit the situation.

 

Just take a step back. A person was exploited by another person (but look at that passive verb tense! Feminine? Shifting the blame to the victim?) A person exploited another person (there we go).

 

Feminist groups focus on women victims. That's great and they totally have a right to do so. But why demonize men?

 

MRA groups focus on men victims. That's great and they totally have a right to do so. But why demonize women?

 

It's that last step that gets these groups hated, IMO.

[Marblehead]

If we boil it all down what I see remaining is "power" and its abuse.

[BaguaKicksAss]

As far as this forum goes, the thing is that the membership is 90something% male. Due to this I think sometimes folks forget that there are even any women members. It is much better now, but previously there was no way I could talk any of my female friends into coming on here. Me personally, I'm used to lockerroom talk, and the standard male dialog due to my martial arts practice and having worked in warehouses many years back. Most women aren't used to this.

 

So anyways, I asked the guys at the magic meetup last night what feminism does for men. Well a couple of them said they prefer strong (as in personality) women. One went on about how women were the superior gender and he has known that his entire life, and he feels that men being in control for so many centuries just didn't work out so well, and he prefers seeing women in power now. His path is traditional witchcraft if anyone is wondering. Another of them said "it makes men better at lovemaking". I'm taking this to mean that both men put in more effort towards such things these days, but also women are more comfortable with asking for what they want. (I'm taking this from what he said afterwards and just knowing him as a person).

[tyler zambori]

Sure I have something more to say about Yin and Yang. They are principles, not people.

 

Men going around saying that men are better than women because they are more Yang,

is just using the principles of Yin and Yang to treat women like shit.

 

Using one's religion to treat women like shit is something that happens all over the world.

I thought Taoism wanted to be better than that. In fact, I'm pretty darn sure it does.

 

BKA, thanks for asking that question at your meeting last night. I'm glad to get their

input too, even though it's indirect.

 

The guy who said women are superior sounds like a good guy, but we all just want

to be equal, that is , not be treated like shit.

 

CT, thanks for watching that video, and for your feedback on it .

[BaguaKicksAss]

The guy who talked about women being superior just naturally felt that way ever since a very young age. Personally I'm all about 100% equal, but hey everyone has their differing viewpoints. As long as everyone is respected I'm good.

 

PS to all members do NOT PM me to tell me my viewpoints suck, you can do that in thread, if you can't post in a thread, well wait until you can, *then* tell me my viewpoints suck. Thanks .

 

I think I'm starting to get cranky today, perhaps a 2nd meditation session lol.

[Yascra]

If we boil it all down what I see remaining is "power" and its abuse.

 

Like for example deleting a post because you don't like the content as an admin, and then put the user on "censorship"-Status.

[Sloppy Zhang]

If we boil it all down what I see remaining is "power" and its abuse.

 

I tend to agree.

 

It's a person issue, not gender/sex issue.

 

As far as this forum goes, the thing is that the membership is 90something% male. Due to this I think sometimes folks forget that there are even any women members. It is much better now, but previously there was no way I could talk any of my female friends into coming on here. Me personally, I'm used to lockerroom talk, and the standard male dialog due to my martial arts practice and having worked in warehouses many years back. Most women aren't used to this.

 

I think it may point to a difference in how men and women approach new situations? (whether by biology or sociology)

 

Men tend to (or are socialized to) jump into a new situation and establish themselves. Steady eye contact, firm handshake, loud voice, funny stories, etc. So they jump straight into the locker room talk.

 

Women tend to (or are socialized to) hang back and get a better feel for the group before jumping in (don't want to rock the boat).

 

Of course, plenty of guys (myself included) are rather introverted and take a while to warm up to the group, taking the "let's feel it out" approach. And plenty of women jump right in there. So maybe it's an introvert/extrovert kind of thing (but plenty of ways you can break that down too).

 

I've known plenty of girls who can sling locker room talk with the best of them, but that only tends to happen after they feel really comfortable with the group.

 

So anyways, I asked the guys at the magic meetup last night what feminism does for men. Well a couple of them said they prefer strong (as in personality) women. One went on about how women were the superior gender and he has known that his entire life, and he feels that men being in control for so many centuries just didn't work out so well, and he prefers seeing women in power now. His path is traditional witchcraft if anyone is wondering. Another of them said "it makes men better at lovemaking". I'm taking this to mean that both men put in more effort towards such things these days, but also women are more comfortable with asking for what they want. (I'm taking this from what he said afterwards and just knowing him as a person).

 

Yeah, well, there are plenty of situation in which women abuse power too, so I'm not entirely sure that a women run/matriarchal society/country would make all our problems go away. Some problems? Sure. But I'm thinking there would be different problems that crop up and we'd be back to square one.

 

PS to all members do NOT PM me to tell me my viewpoints suck, you can do that in thread, if you can't post in a thread, well wait until you can, *then* tell me my viewpoints suck. Thanks .

 

see stuff like that blows my mind.

[tyler zambori]

The guy who talked about women being superior just naturally felt that way ever since a very young age. Personally I'm all about 100% equal, but hey everyone has their differing viewpoints. As long as everyone is respected I'm good.

 

PS to all members do NOT PM me to tell me my viewpoints suck, you can do that in thread, if you can't post in a thread, well wait until you can, *then* tell me my viewpoints suck. Thanks .

 

I think I'm starting to get cranky today, perhaps a 2nd meditation session lol.

 

As long as everyone is respected I'm good too.

 

The people who are PM'ing you are being abusive. Feel better soon.

[BaguaKicksAss]

I don't normally react to PMs like that, I'm just being cranky today I think. The PM wasn't in any way putting down women btw, in case anyone is curious.

[BaguaKicksAss]

I tend to agree.

 

It's a person issue, not gender/sex issue.

 

 

I think it may point to a difference in how men and women approach new situations? (whether by biology or sociology)

 

Men tend to (or are socialized to) jump into a new situation and establish themselves. Steady eye contact, firm handshake, loud voice, funny stories, etc. So they jump straight into the locker room talk.

 

Women tend to (or are socialized to) hang back and get a better feel for the group before jumping in (don't want to rock the boat).

 

Of course, plenty of guys (myself included) are rather introverted and take a while to warm up to the group, taking the "let's feel it out" approach. And plenty of women jump right in there. So maybe it's an introvert/extrovert kind of thing (but plenty of ways you can break that down too).

 

I've known plenty of girls who can sling locker room talk with the best of them, but that only tends to happen after they feel really comfortable with the group.

 

 

Yeah, well, there are plenty of situation in which women abuse power too, so I'm not entirely sure that a women run/matriarchal society/country would make all our problems go away. Some problems? Sure. But I'm thinking there would be different problems that crop up and we'd be back to square one.

 

 

see stuff like that blows my mind.

 

Yeah, Margarette Thatcher isn't a good example for a matriarchal run society lol. Some tribes have done really well with it however.

 

Most people, no matter the gender, change with power, it is unfortunate.

 

The funny thing about my meetup group is that it is currently all guys and me; as I have (by far) the most experience amongst the current group, it is very likely that they wish to not piss me off (fortunately for them that is hard to do usually). The one guy though, I know him well enough to know he really does think that way about women...

[silent thunder]

Yeah, well, I still think we should be talking about Yin and Yang instead of man and woman but that's just my opinion.

I agree.

Talking about men as a group and women as a group is a process of projected self-fiction.

 

The only thing that exists are individuals and each is unique and will not fall into any neatly defined grammatical definition within the conversation.

 

While it can be entertaining/ or infuriating, it's a process of projecting personal fictions based on what your subjective definitions are, rather than some all encompassing definition of reality.

 

Semantics rules this conversation along side of personal projection.

[tyler zambori]

A matriarchal society would not make all our problems go away, because women are human too.

And that is not what feminist / anti-sexist activist are trying to achieve anyway.

 

Sometimes I've wondered, well, what if we took the money out of it, and made being in power,

politically, an act of service, and they don't get to be rich because of it? Well then, how would

we get the best talent for the job in that case? What if only enlightened people could run for office?

They may not want to do it / there may not be enough of them, etc. And that could result in some

kind of fascism - separation of church and state, you know.

 

We humans have a lot of problems to solve, really hard problems. Anti-sexist activism could only

help some of them, but that's something that can be achieved the more people become aware

and change.

[GrandmasterP]

I don't normally react to PMs like that, I'm just being cranky today I think. The PM wasn't in any way putting down women btw, in case anyone is curious.

 

If I get silly PMs ( seldom on TTB but elsewhere sometimes) I can succumb to PM-Tetchiness.

A guy PM'd me an entire copy n pasted book from the Bible one time.

 

[tyler zambori]

I agree.

Talking about men as a group and women as a group is a process of projected self-fiction.

 

The only thing that exists are individuals and each is unique and will not fall into any neatly defined grammatical definition within the conversation.

 

While it can be entertaining/ or infuriating, it's a process of projecting personal fictions based on what your subjective definitions are, rather than some all encompassing definition of reality.

 

Semantics rules this conversation along side of personal projection.

 

I'll make the semantics simple for you. Women don't want to be treated like shit.

Think about that one - women don't want to be treated like shit.

 

It's very simple. Once again, women don't want to be treated like shit.

Edited June 26, 2014 by tyler zambori

[silent thunder]

A matriarchal society would not make all our problems go away, because women are human too.

And that is not what feminist / anti-sexist activist are trying to achieve anyway.

 

Sometimes I've wondered, well, what if we took the money out of it, and made being in power,

politically, an act of service, and they don't get to be rich because of it? Well then, how would

we get the best talent for the job in that case? What if only enlightened people could run for office?

They may not want to do it / there may not be enough of them, etc. And that could result in some

kind of fascism - separation of church and state, you know.

 

We humans have a lot of problems to solve, really hard problems. Anti-sexist activism could only

help some of them, but that's something that can be achieved the more people become aware

and change.

Agreed. I don't get the sense that when society was matriarchal, things were balanced and fair either.

When we step beyond the swinging power play pendulum and co-create a society where individuals are free to act openly as their nature dictates, then perhaps things of this nature will fail to manifest.

[BaguaKicksAss]

A matriarchal society would not make all our problems go away, because women are human too.

And that is not what feminist / anti-sexist activist are trying to achieve anyway.

 

Sometimes I've wondered, well, what if we took the money out of it, and made being in power,

politically, an act of service, and they don't get to be rich because of it? Well then, how would

we get the best talent for the job in that case? What if only enlightened people could run for office?

They may not want to do it / there may not be enough of them, etc. And that could result in some

kind of fascism - separation of church and state, you know.

 

We humans have a lot of problems to solve, really hard problems. Anti-sexist activism could only

help some of them, but that's something that can be achieved the more people become aware

and change.

 

Unfortunately I have seen just as nasty political plays happen with volunteer positions of various sorts . It is a (perceived) "power" thing.

[Enishi]

If you've grown up in a society with strict hierarchies, I think that the term "matriarchal" automatically conjures up an image that is likely different from what many are longing for on a subconscious level. So far as hierarchy goes, the nurses I work with as a hospital orderly are higher in the organizational hierarchy than me, and they treat me like shit. What many are longing for is a world that is relatively more "matrifocal" where the feminine/masculine are in balance, rather than simply giving people who are biologically female a higher position on the totem pole (but still beneath the bankers). Some Native American tribes are a good example of that.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Enishi