What can feminism do for men?

[Nungali]

Well the root of the term "feminism" does imply a focus on women (thus alienating men).

 

So .... the focus used to be against women and they were alienated ... now after thousands of years, the scale starts to tip ever so slightly the other way and all these guys are wailing about the alienation and unfairness of it all .

 

Again ... this is similar to black oppression as I see it in my country. "But if I agree to Aboriginal Land Rights I might loose some of my 62,000 acres of desert cattle 'ranch'. " - it wasnt yours to start with, the Aboriginals only want equality fairness and justice and they are quiet prepared to share with the people that are there .... whaddya want fer gawdsake ?

 

Whereas anti-sexist activism would encompass things affecting men and women (thus not alienating anybody).

 

Fair enough if we have all been equally oppressed ... but ....

 

 

 

By this same logic, maybe it should be up to men to decide if, and if so, how, "feminism benefits men." And not for women to tell men how feminism benefits men. We men will tell you when it starts to benefit us.

 

I can agree with that , I am a man , I will tell them ... our benifit started when women's lib started.

[Nungali]

But then my Target had to close because it was taking a loss.

Must have been all that equal pay that did it eh ?

[Nungali]

Okay, instead of blame game, what can men do? And what can women do to help them while maintaining integrity? I know the pua angle has been overdone here and as long as it's not treating women like notches on the bed post, I can see how the social skills can be positive. Also, I think the undertones of military society are detrimental to men, dads seem to almost panic and tell their sons to "man up" if they cry- no blame I've seen the moms do too- what's up with that, they are little kids? What advice and support from a young guy in modern society's perspective should I give my sons as they come of age.

 

I love this post!

 

We could start a whole forum on it.

 

I taught a life skills test like this at the local school for year 10 youth ... so much of this essentially needed education is not in the education system (and this was in an alternative school - it was also lacking there).

 

I developed a curriculum on it for boys and girls and then , specifics for boys ... I leave the specific girl stuff up to women. Mostly it is relevant to both.

 

As I kept asking earlier here, what man has a male relevant model for this age? You better get that clear before son education takes place (and lack of that clarity is why so man boys are turning out sad lost and some suicidal .

[Nungali]

I used to do it with stories, kids love stories ... be careful of the morals you insert in them !

[tyler zambori]

Aetherous said:

You misunderstood my post and took only one sentence out of the context of the post. Later on in that thread, I explained that sentence more to make it totally clear that it was not an insult to women. If you continue to assert that it was insulting, I'll be willing to copy and paste the links to those 2 posts here.

I did not insult you, Tyler, nor did I intend to at any time.

 

 

Of course you didn't insult me personally. Please go back and watch that video Zanshin posted, then read my further comments about it.

 

And yes, I still do think what you said was sexist ,and that you did intend it to be a hateful, sexist comment. So I'm going to call you on it.

 

Here's what you said:

 

 

Aetherous

 

Gender:Male

 

Posted 11 June 2014 - 06:30 PM

 

 

steve, on 11 Jun 2014 - 19:15, said:

 

I would say that, in general, men are less conscious than women - more prone to violence, more concerned with worldly success, less loving and nurturing, less intuitive. Certainly these are all ridiculous generalizations, just like the OP, but I find women to be more in tune with reality, as a rule of thumb. This is why we tend to see more men in spiritual pursuits - they need a lot more work, women come to it much more naturally.

 

If reality involves what handbags are on sale this weekend, then yes.

 

 

Also, my main point in making any post in this thread is to point out how ridiculous it is that it can be said without any issue, "men are less conscious than women"...but if you say the opposite, you're perceived as threatening or something. It's just that our society is ridiculous and made most people behave this way.

 

The purest truth is that men and women are quite different, and have strengths and weaknesses in different areas, depending on how you look at things.

 

 

You made a sexist comment, then you tried to walk it back. That is what is going on here - you are just trying to walk it back.

(Here's a disclaimer: I would also not say that men are less conscious than women).

 

Then you said:

 

 

Posted 12 June 2014 - 02:24 PM

 

 

Brian, on 12 Jun 2014 - 04:09, said: (in post #83)

 

Ummm...

 

But it does.

 

(meaning reality does include expensive handbags)

You know what handbags cost these girls, right? It's like $450 for one. If someone thinks such things are indicators of living a conscious life...well, I can't ever agree.

 

Huh. You just forgot to walk it back on that one. So what you are saying here is that women are all about shopping, and buying expensive shit, and therefore could not possibly be more conscious than men.

 

You would not say this if you didn't believe it. You do believe it, and you want to say it to us, and then walk it back to avoid the reaction.

 

Then you said:

 

 

Posted 17 June 2014 - 05:56 PM

 

Apech said: Women interested in reality …"If reality involves what handbags are on sale this weekend, then yes."

 

 

This comment is taken out of context of the post. I was not insulting all women with that comment...the only purpose was to counter the claim that "women are more conscious of reality than men" made by Steve. It's like, "well here's some proof otherwise"...

 

It obviously does not apply to all women...but it undeniably applies to a portion. So basically, no, women are not more conscious of reality than men. On the other hand...we have quite a few women here who are interested in the more meaningful aspects of life. Who I would say are more conscious of reality than others.

 

So basically...not an insult. And please no one take it as one. Unless you primarily care about handbags being on sale this weekend. But then I'm sure you aren't even reading this.

 

So sometimes you want to apply it to all women, but when called on it, you only want to apply it to the "less conscious" women.

 

Tell you what, men can and do buy all kinds of expensive shit. They can go into a men's store and buy $200 ties, $500 alligator shoes and etc. There are men in my neighborhood who buy $25,000 trucks they don't need with $25,000 speaker ssytems, all the while living in cheap apartments.

 

If you really wanted to counter the claim that men are less conscious than women , you could have easily done it a lot better than that.

 

Face it, you made a hateful, sexist comment. You tried to backtrack and the others didn't, but you still did it.

 

Women do not want to have to put with a hateful, sexist environment on this forum. That is why there are so few. That is why so many leave, and YOU are a part of the problem.

Edited June 28, 2014 by tyler zambori

[tyler zambori]

Society (in its aberrant from) is designed to screw over the individual ... just like the church and state is.

 

Any group seeking liberation or fairness is going to be seen as a threat to those that sit on top of others... anything from women to Falun Gong.

 

Just curious here .... if the people (men and women) are straw dogs .... how does Taoism address sexual inequality, especially ifconsidering Taoist concepts of sex difference and straw dogs together ?

 

Now, in the art of screwing people over, one must focus on those specific differences and apply the screws in the most effect manner ( "but in different ways"), this applies to children as well ... also the elderly and sick.

 

I'm not sure I understand your question about sex difference and straw dogs? Could you explain more?

[Aetherous]

You made a sexist comment, then you tried to walk it back.

 

That's what you want to think...I don't weasel my way out of situations, or "walk it back" as you say. I also didn't say anything sexist...in fact, I stated a TRUTH. A truth which was solely to disprove the sexist notion that "women are more conscious than men". (which you disagree with by the way, in stating that neither sex is more conscious than the other. Why not focus on the fact that we agree?)

 

You accuse me of being "hateful", when actually I think it's the reverse. You are the one spreading hatred here, Tyler. I actually said something kind to you in particular, and said nothing bad about WOMEN...but that's not what you want to focus on, is it, Tyler?

 

I'm done here. If you address me again in an attempt to stir up shit (which is entirely what this was), you'll be met with silence.

Edited June 28, 2014 by Aetherous

[tyler zambori]

And on that note, I hope here is something more positive:

 

http://thebaffler.com/past/feminism_for_men

 

(It's an old article from 1914)

 

Feminism for Men
Floyd Dell
[from The Baffler No. 24, 2014]


Feminism is going to make it possible for the first time for men to be free.

At present the ordinary man has the choice between being a slave and a scoundrel. That’s about the way it stands.

For the ordinary man is prone to fall in love and marry and have children. Also the ordinary man frequently has a mother. He wants to see them all taken care of, since they are unable to take care of themselves. Only if he has them to think about, he is not free.

A free man is a man who is ready to throw up his job whenever he feels like it. Whether he is a bricklayer who wants to go out on a sympathetic strike, or a poet who wants to quit writing drivel for the magazines, if he doesn’t do what he wants to do, he is not free. . . .

And this will be true so long as women as a sex are dependent on men for support. It is too much to ask of a man to be brave, when his bravery means taking the food out of the mouth of a woman who cannot get food except from him. The bravest things will not be done in the world until women do not have to look to men for support.

Capitalism will not like that. Capitalism does not want free men.

The change is already under way. Irresistible economic forces are taking more and more women every year out of the economic shelter of the home into the great world, making them workers and earners along with men. And every conquest of theirs, from an education which will make them fit for the world of earning, to “equal pay for equal work,” is a setting free of men. The last achievement will be a social insurance for motherhood, which will enable them to have children without taking away a man’s freedom from him. Then a man will be able to tell his employer that “he and his job can go bark at one another,” without being a hero and a scoundrel at the same time.

Capitalism will not like that. Capitalism does not want free men. It wants men with wives and children who are dependent on them for support. Mothers’ pensions will be hard fought for before they are ever gained. And that is not the worst.

Men don’t want the freedom that women are thrusting upon them. They don’t want a chance to be brave. They want a chance to be generous. They want to give food and clothes and a little home with lace curtains to some woman.

Men want the sense of power more than they want the sense of freedom. They want the feeling that comes to them as providers for women more than they want the feeling that comes to them as free men. They want some one dependent on them more than they want a comrade. As long as they can be lords in a thirty-dollar flat, they are willing to be slaves in the great world outside. . . .

In short, they are afraid that they will cease to be sultans in little monogamic harems. But the world doesn’t want sultans. It wants men who can call their souls their own. And that is what feminism is going to do for men—give them back their souls, so that they can risk them fearlessly in the adventure of life. . . .

When you have got a woman in a box, and you pay rent on the box, her relationship to you insensibly changes character. It loses the fine excitement of democracy. It ceases to be companionship, for companionship is only possible in a democracy. It is no longer a sharing of life together—it is a breaking of life apart. Half a life—cooking, clothes, and children; half a life—business, politics, and baseball. It doesn’t make much difference which is the poorer half. Any half, when it comes to life, is very near to none at all.

First published in The Masses (July 1914).

[tyler zambori]

That's what you want to think...I don't weasel my way out of situations, or "walk it back" as you say. I also didn't say anything sexist...in fact, I stated a TRUTH. A truth which was solely to disprove the sexist notion that "women are more conscious than men". (which you agree with by the way. Why not focus on the fact that we agree?)

 

You accuse me of being "hateful", when actually I think it's the reverse. You are the one spreading hatred here, Tyler. I actually said something kind to you in particular, and said nothing bad about WOMEN...but that's not what you want to focus on, is it, Tyler?

 

I'm done here. If you address me again in an attempt to stir up shit (which is entirely what this was), you'll be met with silence.

 

 

Which truth? The truth that all women care about is shopping? Do you really think that is a nice thing to say? It isn't a nice thing to say. So yes you did say something bad about women. You said that all women about care is shopping and buying expensive things.

 

It's all fine as long as we don't get too real, I guess. And actually, you are the one who tried to engage me. So if you have nothing more to say, well, good.

Edited June 28, 2014 by tyler zambori

[Aetherous]

Which truth? The truth that all women care about is shopping? Do you really think that is a nice thing to say? It isn't a nice thing to say. So yes you did say something bad about women. You said that all women about care is shopping and buying expensive things.

 

It's all fine as long as we don't get too real, I guess. So if you have nothing more to say, well, good.

 

Who said "all women"? Not me. Please don't put words in my mouth and try to make me look bad. I can do that well enough myself, and don't require your assistance.

[tyler zambori]

When a person just says "women," what does he or she mean? He or she means "all women."

Just to be clear, "these girls" also means "all women." You thought you found yourself a cute device that would let you say something sexist and get away with it, and now you're mad because it didn't work.

 

I thought you said you were done with me?

Edited June 28, 2014 by tyler zambori

[Aetherous]

For anyone capable of integrity, this earlier explanation of the handbag comment will suffice:

http://thetaobums.com/topic/35145-are-men-generally-more-conscious-than-women/?p=554633

It should be obvious to anyone that I don't think all women only care about handbags being on sale this weekend. But some do...and that's proof that not all women are more conscious than men. Get it yet? That was all that was being said there. Something you agree with.

 

Anyway, Tyler, I'm reporting you for harassing me with your last post, and also for attempting to twist my words so that they are a breaking of the forum rules. I hope you will drop the issue now.

[C T]

When i read Aetherous's comment first time, it did not conjure up the idea in my head that he intended that remark as applicable to all women -- just pockets of them, which, btw, in modern times now, is the unfortunate truth.

 

Any intelligent person reading that same remark should probably see the same thing too, that is, that there are women (as well as men) who could do with living more consciously by not succumbing to materialistic distractions.

 

Aetherous made a clear statement - that generalized observations do not hold much water because there will always be exceptions to the rule.

 

It was a fair comment, and should be taken in context. Not advising anyone how to think or how to view things here, nor calling anyone out for being overly adamant without genuine grounds to be so.

 

Sometimes we need to reevaluate our views, and make necessary corrections when the time is appropriate, even if that means having to put one's pride aside.

[zanshin]

I did the same thing as the handbag comment. I made a crack about screaming at World Cup players on TV as comeback for women being more emotional. Neither were well PC worded. I think mine was taken as funny, so perhaps we do get away with dissing men sometimes.

[tyler zambori]

When i read Aetherous's comment first time, it did not conjure up the idea in my head that he intended that remark as applicable to all women -- just pockets of them, which, btw, in modern times now, is the unfortunate truth.

 

Any intelligent person reading that same remark should probably see the same thing too, that is, that there are women (as well as men) who could do with living more consciously by not succumbing to materialistic distractions.

 

Aetherous made a clear statement - that generalized observations do not hold much water because there will always be exceptions to the rule.

 

It was a fair comment, and should be taken in context. Not advising anyone how to think or how to view things here, nor calling anyone out for being overly adamant without genuine grounds to be so.

 

Sometimes we need to reevaluate our views, and make necessary corrections when the time is appropriate, even if that means having to put one's pride aside.

 

I'm going to really break it down then.

 

1. Steve said that men are less conscious than women. He also said that women are more in tune with reality.

 

2. Aetherous then said that: If reality involves what handbags are on sale this weekend, then yes.

(meaning that in that case, then yes women are more in tune with reality if reality involves shopping for handbags).

 

3. Aetherous wanted to make a disclaimer that anything he says in this thread is all about disproving the statement that "men are less conscious than women".

 

4. He then said: The purest truth is that men and women are quite different, and have strengths and weaknesses in different areas, depending on how you look at things.

 

5. Brian said that reality does include expensive handbags, and all the ten thousand things (basically).

 

6. Aetherous said that “These girls” spend $450 for a handbag, and that he doesn't think that is an indicator of living a conscious life.

 

7. Apech included his statement that "If reality involves what handbags are on sale this weekend, then yes." in a list of offensive things said in that thread.

 

8. Aetherous claimed his statement was taken out of context, and that he was not insulting women. He said that his purpose was to give some proof that women are not more conscious of reality than men. He then said that he doesn't think it applies to all women, so there fore it could not be an insult to the women on this forum, because they are probably not that type.

 

Now on to post #407 in this thread:

 

9. The pertinent thing Aetherous said was: “ I also didn't say anything sexist...in fact, I stated a TRUTH. A truth which was solely to disprove the sexist notion that "women are more conscious than men".

 

 

So how does saying that only some women's reality is all about shopping for expensive handbags, disprove the statement that men are less conscious than women? I'm asking you, logically, how does that work out? It doesn't.

 

No, this only works as an argument if you want to make the claim that ALL women's reality is all about shopping for expensive handbags. And that is exactly what he did, in #2. He did not mention any sub-pockets of the population that are the ones who make shopping for handbags their reality. True he did not type the word “women,” because he was responding to Steven who did use the word “women,” meaning all women. So he didn't have to say “women” meaning all women, because Steve already had said “women.”

 

Now, #3 doesn't really jibe with #6, because #5 was not about proving the statement that "men are less conscious than women". It was about saying that shopping bags are indeed a part of reality.

 

#4 is nice and pretty.

 

#6 also does not mention any sub-pocket of the population that are the ones who make shopping for handbags their reality. It further reference “these girls.” Who are “these girls”? Women? Yeah.

 

The sub-pocket of the population that are the ones who make shopping for handbags their reality, were not even mentioned at all, until his statement showed up on Apech's list. (Uh oh!)

 

But when Aetherous started getting mad at me, he went on to say that he stated a truth, which he used to disprove the idea that “men are less conscious than women, and that that women are more in tune with reality.”

 

So now is he saying that he does think all women are all about shopping for expensive handbags? Because if he's not, then it doesn't work as an argument. And he only mentioned the supposed sub-pocket of the population when faced with a higher-ranking male. Hmmm....

 

Nope, I think my conclusion was absolutely correct. Thank you for your input though.

 

Eh, it's probably always a mistake to really confront any of these guys with their sexism, because they are just not going to become conscious of it. And that's why I don't really agree with the idea that debate will help anything. What's really needed is a bathroom wall. I really wish there was one.

Edited June 28, 2014 by tyler zambori

[tyler zambori]

PS: When I say "these guys" I only mean the sub-pocket of men who have already shown

sexist attitudes.

Edited June 28, 2014 by tyler zambori

[Nungali]

Is this the appropriate place to hold a requiem for Yascra ... I just went to her Profile Page and it says she has been killed by Admin ...

Edited June 28, 2014 by Nungali

[UTI]

Ok, interesting subject, and I'm sorry for not reading the whole thread. I think you can all empathize with me.

 

Sweden is an interesting place, since it actually has a political party that brings up politics from a feminist point of view. There are many debates over equality going on everywhere, and we recently had the introduction of a gender-neutral word to use in stead of "him" or "her" in contexts where gender isn't a necessary part of the information being relayed.

 

Now, as to what feminism can do for men, there was a really funny and pointive blog article about this just the other day. I will translate it for y'all to share the goodness.

 

It is called "how to respond to the five most common "men are also sexually discriminated" arguments. It is written by a blogger

called Hejj Blekk.

 

____________________________________________________________________

1. Fathers more often loose custody of their children after divorce.

Why? Sadly, this is true, which has to do with the traditional idea that men are responsible for bringing in money for the family, in contrast to spending time with them.

solution: This laconic rate of contact can be changed, ex. by shared parenting insurance, or as a father choosing to take responsibility for raising and building a relationship to the children.

 

2. Men are judged more harshly for the same crimes as women.

Why? This is true, studies have shown that this sadly is caused by men generally being viewed as perpetrators of crime. This may not be too odd, since men commit 80& of all crime, 95% of all violent crime, and 98% of all rape.

Solution: Through working with gender equality we can in the long run get rid of macho idealism and violent male gender norms.

 

3. Men are often focus for unprovoced violence.

why? yes, men attract more violence. In common for most violence, as mentioned in 2, is that men commit it.

solution: That a large ammount of men are prone to violence is caused by the fact that men in a patriarchal society are expected to live up to a hegemonic male norm. Patriarchy fosters men to be "real" men, feminism sees men as more than that.

 

4. Men are expected to pay, not women.

why? This is partially founded in the fact that men generally have higher wages than women, even when performing the same task, ergo they have larger opportunities to pay. It is also partially founded in that a man is expected to "spoil" a woman with gifts, flowers and chocolates in a heteromonogamous relationship. This phenomenon, existing because we have a patriarchal structure, is damaging because it implies that a man can buy (ownership of) a woman.

solution: If you have similar income, share the tab. Or take turns paying.

 

5. Boys are performing worse and worse in school.

Why? Sadly there is an anti-study culture among young boys, which causes them to fall behind in studies. Many mean that this has to do with boys being expected to be smart without studying, forcing them to try and live up to a stereotype that is smart, cocky and hard.

solution? By working with the attitude among young boys, this can be solved.

 

Feminism can explain the situation where men are discriminated. This si because men are discriminated for the same reasons as women, the patriarchy. The difference is that this discrimination expresses itself differently. As you see my answers are fueled by a critique of the atypical male stereotype, which isn't degenerative to women but also to men. Through working with gender equality, and analysis of gender and power in society, the binary and dual gender-types will be questioned and eventually dissolved. Together we can bring down the patriarchy, and then you will be free!

 

____________________________________end of text from blog.

 

I think this text helps bring focus to the initial question asked, namely what feminism can do for men. I agree with it on all points.

 

link to the whole article (in swedish) :http://nojesguiden.se/artiklar/sa-bemoter-du-de-5-vanligaste-man-diskrimineras-ocksa-argumenten

[tyler zambori]

Thanks UTI, this is very interesting . We would all like to be free, indeed.

 

#5 is especially sad. I was thinking this myself - the young boys need more help than they get.

[UTI]

Thanks UTI, this is very interesting . We would all like to be free, indeed.

 

#5 is especially sad. I was thinking this myself - the young boys need more help than they get.

 

Yes, absolutely! As adults we're free to be free, so to speak, but a child can only try to follow the behaviour of adults. Also, they're so good at picking up the subtle hints of society. The stuff no-one says, but everyone acts after. It needs to be consciously changed, for everyone's sake.

[UTI]

And I think we men need to be conscious of, and keep in mind, how it IS of interest for us to work in favour of the gender-equality politics that goes under the name of feminism. We need to stop making silly excuses about how feminism is only for women, educate ourselves on the history of and need for gender enlightenment, and act for change.

 

It's a bit silly, really, to talk about on a forum about taoism. Considering that harmony within requires harmony without, and harmony within is a balanced femininity and masculinity (taiji), both in temper and in physique. I think it could be said that this is the venture point for all endeavours -physical, spiritual, governmental and intellectual -within taoism.

[Kajenx]

Kajenx is stirring the pot in a few threads, it's that same impulse that kids have to stomp on a calm puddle.

The words are mostly meaningless, it's the desire to stir up shit that shines through...

 

Haha, am I? I was actually trying to be careful with my post.

[HoldorFold]

Well, I could say that men are more than 80% likely as those that foreclose on loans and evict people, 2/3/ of homicides of men ( or much more) are by men murderers and men are more likely to be robbed (because they get more money by another male.

 

I'm not sure about men being 80% more likely to foreclose on loans and evict people. I haven't seen that statistic anywhere, is that true? You must be implying that if more women were in positions of power in banking that this wouldn't happen.

 

Men commit more murders and are more likely to rob others, that's established and widely known despite their victims mainly being male. Also men are 3x more likely to commit suicide than women. Do these facts imply that all is well and good in the world of men and we should ignore these issues and just focus on feminism? I'm not sure if that's the point you're making.

[C T]

I'm going to really break it down then.

 

<snipped>

Your effort in analyzing/detailing your perception is very much appreciated. Its clearer where you're coming from.

 

I was merely opining on what i read into that particular 'handbag' post. It did not strike me at all that he was putting down all women. I had thought he was making an obvious comparison between women who are more absorbed by materialism as opposed to a very rare few here on TTB who probably couldn't care less about what sales are on where, be it handbags, shoes and all the other excitable objects that a hefty proportion of women today, especially now with their increased disposable incomes, hankered after in the past and could now afford to possess. I never underestimate the immense satisfaction humans have in the ability to possess something... anything. Its as if their self-value increase thru the gratification of that deep longing to own something which their minds objectify. These things are then desirably wrapped up by media houses to tantalise and scintillate the unawares, men as well as women.

 

Perhaps it'd be worthwhile to do a research on what profit percentages advertising companies are creaming off the top from targeting women, and whether or not they have significantly stepped up their campaigns in this sector in the last decade or so, due to a increasingly large pool of women having their own independent income now PLUS probably another source of secondary income either from their spouse or ex-spouse. These companies must be rubbing their hands in glee and will come as no surprise if they are also agent provocateurs to the feminist movement, for very selfish reasons, naturally.

 

My gut tells me these ad agencies are getting bored with men. Not only do men of today have only one source of income, but due to the almost idiotic legal systems in place all over Europe/USA/rest of the world, this source of income is often the subject of scrutiny by the courts (in the event of dispute), dissected, and parts have to be shared due to various reasons, some of which are actually not the men's doing. But it matters not. Judges don't want to hear anything in favour of the men, especially where there are kids involved. Is this an agreeable point? I would like to hear different views on this.

 

Im only speaking from conjecture here, and not from experience, although i have seen a number of male associates and acquaintances crumble under the sheer pressure of a separation while their partners kick off their shoes and drink champagne in Costa del Sol. No, im not slagging women here. That is too easy to do, and a cop out. If i was in their shoes, perhaps i will do the exact same thing, maybe even more. I feel there has to be a more sinister undercurrent at work somewhere, and right now, its not clear where is the root of the problem. This flow is bound to be detrimental to both men and women in a couple of decades from now... and there are glimmers of this happening already, some of which have already been discussed on this very thread. Eg, the fact that young children nowadays are no longer seeing the relevance of education. There is major disrespect of teachers happening in the education system now(not the fault of the students), and kids are more preoccupied with things which are clearly mis-prioritised. This is a vast issue that spans all cultures and societal levels. Its a monumental challenge to redirect the flow, and god bless those who seem oblivious to this ominous unfolding.

 

Off-topic rant over.

Edited June 28, 2014 by C T

[BaguaKicksAss]

What I'm finding not very helpful in some areas of this thread, is the either or thinking. It's not like we can't both embrace feminism, as well as embrace empowering men. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Just because we are looking into what can help women be considered more equal, doesn't mean we can't also look at what we can do to have men be considered more equal. It isn't a competition. Bringing about more knowledge about some of the actions and thinking which make women inferior, shouldn't degrade men. Sort of like focusing on how being gay is OK (finally becoming acceptable in the USA), doesn't mean that we are trashing on heterosexual love.