Is one a MEN's Libererationist? A Feminist? Both? OR Neither?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2008 12:35 AM GMT
    Like everyone else, One prefer to be listened to rather than labeled. But labels do give us foothold in a complex world. And any movement that has impacted developed an identity-or-label-in the public's mind so.........

    One is a men's liberationists (or "masculist") when Men's liberation is defined as equal opportunity and equal responsibility for both sexes. one is a feminist when feminism favors equal opportunities and responsibilities for both sexes. One oppose both movement's when either says our sex is oppressed sex, therefore, "we deserve rights." Thats not gender liberasion but gender entitlement.

    Ultimately one is in favor of neither a women's movement nor a men's movement but a gender transition movement. However. one opposes skipping past a men's movment until men have equally. One believes the women's movment started out as a genuine and sincere effect to improve conditions. The original concerns of feminists, such as equal pay for equal work, were laudable and justifiable. people had a right to be upset at the treatment of "some" women received, and some of their activism and protest were understandable.

    Then gradually there was a shift in their approach and in the type of women who were attracted to groups like NOW. The profile of the NOW women come to be that of a laud militant person whose views were based on a belief that women no longer needed men. They seemed to believe that to love and need a man would somehow compromise women and set them back. they set out to avoid and attack the traditional role for women because they believe it was responsible for making them subservient to men.

    One admits, one is still confused about how one should view women, because it is hard too keep up with the current gender protocol. Women seem to be told different things things every year. many young women of today, have very little in common the militant of the 1970s, many of whom today are embittered feminises... But now women have equality, is it not time men got it, as in family law courts, divorce courts, the right to adopted, as single men, the same way single women can, and so on.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2008 12:38 AM GMT
    sweet jumpin' jehosaphat! What? .... icon_eek.gif

    Kissingpro, can you interpret this?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2008 12:41 AM GMT
    Right... go tell the women that are still paid less then men doing the same job that men aren't treated equal.

    Just be sure to wear a cup.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2008 12:52 AM GMT
    I am for the feminist and masculinist movements. Women should have equal rights, equal pay, and be treated without gender stereotype. Men should have better access to adoption rights, child custody in the case of a divorce, etc. and also be allowed to embrace a feminine identity without being ridiculed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2008 12:56 AM GMT
    Gwgtrunks saidRight... go tell the women that are still paid less then men doing the same job that men aren't treated equal.

    Just be sure to wear a cup.
    by the 1980s and 90s, feminists ability to articulate women's light side and men's shadow side led to women magazines, talk shows, "self-improvement" books and TV specials. all equating progressive with women as victims, and men victimizers, but rarely with men as victims.

    feminism turned he battle of the sexes into a war in which only one side showed up.

    have we been misled by feminism? yes.
  • Sirkit

    Posts: 182

    Mar 24, 2008 4:07 AM GMT
    Your original post lacks a thesis as well as an argument so I'm not sure what your trying to actually state here. However, if your going to speak to feminism you should be more specific as to which feminisms you have issue with.

    Has feminism lied to us, no. Do we owe it for most of the rights we have accrued to this point, yes. Has second wave feminism gone too far, perhaps. But that's why there are third wave feminisms, to compensate. Truly, to lump them together is analogous to limiting Gay men to flaming, fashion obsessed, glitz queens.

    If you feel women should have the right to work, vote, wear pants, make their own decisions, ect. Then you are a feminist one way or another. To be a feminist is not to disparage the rights of other groups but to demand equality in the face of patriarchy. If you want to see a lie, you should really be checking out institutionalized masculinity.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2008 4:29 AM GMT
    One finds the syntax confusing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2008 5:06 AM GMT
    obscenewish saidOne finds the syntax confusing.


    LMFAO
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2008 5:16 AM GMT
    One is very confused by what one is trying to say. One would like one to elaborate.....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2008 6:11 AM GMT
    Moudi saidOne is very confused by what one is trying to say. One would like one to elaborate.....
    You will understand, when you grow up.icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2008 11:13 AM GMT
    Pattison, you're a gorgeous guy, but your English is totally out of this world. LOL

    I need a night's sleep to process this. icon_wink.gif
  • DiverScience

    Posts: 1426

    Mar 24, 2008 12:59 PM GMT
    Clearly "one" missed the transition from second to third wave feminism, when militancy and man-hating went out of vogue. It happened a while ago.

    You're behind the times, buddy.
  • Salubrious

    Posts: 420

    Mar 24, 2008 1:13 PM GMT
    Pattison said[quote][cite]Moudi said[/cite]One is very confused by what one is trying to say. One would like one to elaborate.....
    You will understand, when you grow up.icon_eek.gif[/quote]
    I'm pretty sure there isn't anyone of any age (save you)that can understand what you're saying.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2008 1:24 PM GMT
    Pattison: You've got some complex ideas working, but it's hard to figure out what you're trying to assert or ask because the syntax doesn't read logically. I'm 38 and have already grown up, BTW, so I don't think lack of maturity is the reason why I cannot understand your writing. Can you re-read and edit your OP?

    Still, sticking to the general theme of the thread...

    Sirkit's last point is an excellent one. The prevalence of institutionalized masculinity has been a surprising phenomenon over the past 10 years. Sometimes I think most of this phenomenon simply asks society for acceptance of men who want to act like assholes, which allows our elected leaders to more easily drift in this direction. Anyway, I still (mildly) tease straight guys for reading Maxim magazine (which I hold as a symbol of these past ten years of institutionalized masculinity).

    As for feminism, I cannot claim to be much of an expert. I choose to let thoughts about men dominate. ;-) But I treat women with both a moderate level of chivalry (yes, I hold doors open) and respect for them being able to do anything I can do (and the right to be paid accordingly). The latter partially comes from having been in the same great tribe as the lesbians. I guess I simply like to play it safe with women so they don't consume my time and emotional energy with things I don't think I can influence. More directly, that means not angering the lesbians (sometimes difficult when that's a lesbian's default mood).

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2008 1:53 PM GMT
    Salubrious said[quote][cite]Pattison said[/cite][quote][cite]Moudi said[/cite]One is very confused by what one is trying to say. One would like one to elaborate.....
    You will understand, when you grow up.icon_eek.gif[/quote]
    I'm pretty sure there isn't anyone of any age (save you) can understand what you're saying.[/quote]


    Thank you!
  • ShawnTX

    Posts: 2484

    Mar 24, 2008 2:02 PM GMT
    Omg, I can't believe I'm going to say this...here it comes...hell is about to freeze over...

    I understand what Pattison is trying to say...to a point. Before everyone raises their eyebrows, I understand but I don't agree.

    Firstly, it appears that Pattison is really out of date, but perhaps Australia is a bit behind the times and hasn't yet experienced that third-wave of feminism that we in North America have experienced. Never having been to Australia, I really can't say for sure.

    Fighting fire with fire solves nothing. Men oppressed women, women fight back to a point where women are now the oppressors (I'm not saying this has happened, I'm using this as a senario). Societies problem has not been solved, sexism would still exist, just in reerse. As a similar example, whites enslaved and oprressed blacks, blacks fight back eventually oppressing whites. The problem of rasism has not been solved.

    The militant feminist movement had a fight fire with fire attitude. That solves nothing, and to prove it, it died out.

    Back in the mid 90s I had a lesbian friend that moved away to go to university to take women's lit. She came back a very different person. Once in a conversation when I was talking about not being sexually attracted to women, she got very insulted and upset, saying that I'm not allowed to say that. Being gay, I asked why I can't admit to not being attracted to women. She said it was misogynistic. I was baffled, but I countered by saying that why is it then that you say your not attracted to men? She answered that as a women she had that right becasue of the years of oppression women experienced. She then went on to say that many things in the world were created to remind women of their oppression, like tea pots and cups. A tea cup has a spout (penis) and the cup an opening (vagina), and the act of pouring tea was a symbol of their oppression.

    This is what she was learning in her women's lit class!!!

    I could be wrong, but to me, it was a victims attitude, a poor me...poor me...oh my life is so hard, sort of thing. To me, that doesn't open the door for positive change.

    Years ago I was at a party, and I'm pretty friendly and like to have a good time. I like everybody and will talk to anybody, until you give me a reason not to. So I'm being friendly to a lesbian, and big bull-dyke of a lesbian, and she gives me this disgusted look and walks away. I ask what her problem is and I'm told that I have a penis so she won't talk to me. I asked if her father was a woman.

    Ok, so I get that Pattison does not agree with the militant feminist attitude, however out-of-date it may be.

    But to say that women have equality and now it's mens turn for equality?!?!?! If one sex has more 'equality' than the other, then neither has equality, to use the term correctly. That would be to say women now have more rights than men, and if you believe that, I don't think you leave the house very often.

    Men still get paid more than women. A single guy has the same obstacles as a single women when it comes to adoption. I'm still waiting for the first female president of the USA (go Hillary!), and is it just me, or all Roman Catholic priests men? Perhaps the only 'edge' women have over men is in divorce court when it comes to child custody, but that's probably evened out by the fact that whether children are involed or not, she's more likely to get alimony than he is to get palimony.

    We've come a long way, but we still have a ways to go.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2008 2:16 PM GMT
    ShawnTO saidOmg, I can't believe I'm going to say this...here it comes...hell is about to freeze over...

    I understand what Pattison is trying to say...to a point. Before everyone raises their eyebrows, I understand but I don't agree.

    Firstly, it appears that Pattison is really out of date, but perhaps Australia is a bit behind the times and hasn't yet experienced that third-wave of feminism that we in North America have experienced. Never having been to Australia, I really can't say for sure.

    Fighting fire with fire solves nothing. Men oppressed women, women fight back to a point where women are now the oppressors (I'm not saying this has happened, I'm using this as a senario). Societies problem has not been solved, sexism would still exist, just in reerse. As a similar example, whites enslaved and oprressed blacks, blacks fight back eventually oppressing whites. The problem of rasism has not been solved.

    The militant feminist movement had a fight fire with fire attitude. That solves nothing, and to prove it, it died out.

    Back in the mid 90s I had a lesbian friend that moved away to go to university to take women's lit. She came back a very different person. Once in a conversation when I was talking about not being sexually attracted to women, she got very insulted and upset, saying that I'm not allowed to say that. Being gay, I asked why I can't admit to not being attracted to women. She said it was misogynistic. I was baffled, but I countered by saying that why is it then that you say your not attracted to men? She answered that as a women she had that right becasue of the years of oppression women experienced. She then went on to say that many things in the world were created to remind women of their oppression, like tea pots and cups. A tea cup has a spout (penis) and the cup an opening (vagina), and the act of pouring tea was a symbol of their oppression.

    This is what she was learning in her women's lit class!!!

    I could be wrong, but to me, it was a victims attitude, a poor me...poor me...oh my life is so hard, sort of thing. To me, that doesn't open the door for positive change.

    Years ago I was at a party, and I'm pretty friendly and like to have a good time. I like everybody and will talk to anybody, until you give me a reason not to. So I'm being friendly to a lesbian, and big bull-dyke of a lesbian, and she gives me this disgusted look and walks away. I ask what her problem is and I'm told that I have a penis so she won't talk to me. I asked if her father was a woman.

    Ok, so I get that Pattison does not agree with the militant feminist attitude, however out-of-date it may be.

    But to say that women have equality and now it's mens turn for equality?!?!?! If one sex has more 'equality' than the other, then neither has equality, to use the term correctly. That would be to say women now have more rights than men, and if you believe that, I don't think you leave the house very often.

    Men still get paid more than women. A single guy has the same obstacles as a single women when it comes to adoption. I'm still waiting for the first female president of the USA (go Hillary!), and is it just me, or all Roman Catholic priests men? Perhaps the only 'edge' women have over men is in divorce court when it comes to child custody, but that's probably evened out by the fact that whether children are involed or not, she's more likely to get alimony than he is to get palimony.

    We've come a long way, but we still have a ways to go.



    When i think of equal opportunity among men and women, i throw in all minorities as well. White women might have the upper hand when it comes to women of different color or race.

    I see ur point clearly here, but i think we have come a long way, and i look at it form the business world perspective. We have more and more women as CEO's. In fact, PepsiCo's CEO is a woman, black, and indian...three in one, and its all part of how important diversity is for a business.

    We still have a long way to go for sure, but we have come a great way since the times when the stereotypical christian Caucasian male had the upper hand.

    The only way we can progress (how i see it) is through the integration in our business world, as it makes the major part of what runs a society nowadays. The more business gear a movement towards equal opportunities for women and minorities in the workforce, the more normative it becomes among average families.

    Compare third world countries and the USA, and take a look at what percentage of women have higher positions in businesses.

    That being said, i would like to state that i am a big women rights activist, and i love strong women, women who tramp over men and get their way. women in my country and strong and fierce, they get what they want, and they humiliate the hell out of u if u say one wrong word to them. It makes me happy to see a strong woman defending herself, and it makes me angry to see a man oppressing a woman.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2008 2:56 PM GMT
    That's what wrong with our government. Not saying that Pattison has hit the nail on the head exactly, but a lot your guys responding have made it clear to me. Our government doesn't supply every person in this country with with complete inalienable rights.

    Sure it's a complex world, but this world is what we make of it as well. So I believe it's simple. Once again, I find the simplicity and thoughtfulness of XRuggerATX, Sirkit, ShawnTO and hippie4lyfe as good examples of this.

    Despite best efforts and good intentions Pattison's statements are both out dated, and accidentally misleading. Nothing is clear cut black and white, right or wrong anymore these days. Everyone demands their voice be heard and respected, but either people are sitting on their hands on the sidelines, or extremist who take an old fashioned point of view of "we're right, and the rest of you are wrong", in my opinion.

    It's this extremist persona that drives people apart, and I resent them in all walks of society. I believe, that if anything, extreme rightest, leftest, liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans, militants, passivist... etc. are sure signs that we're undoing whatever ties were mended by the Civil Rights Movement. All these groups are saying, "I, Us, Me", "Poor me".

    But there's something else going on. Something I simply call, "'agreeing' with your surpressor". If someone's being beat, discriminated against, or are having your rights taken away; they either develope stockholm syndrome, a victim's mentality, or they simply accept their lives for what it is, and the pain becomes the norm. It's in these three scenarios that I believe it's most likely that someone's going to "agree" with the surpressive force in their life, and take their beatings as just; or feel that they either can ONLY play the beat or the beater; and believe that only way out of their pain is to turn the tables on those whove mistreated them.

    It's because our society has evolved far enough in the last century that this scenario still plays out in all facets of society and on all levels. People need to be able to put their sense of self on equal footing with their sense of society, and society must be able to do the same. That's where the simplicity and the complexity of the situation will cross. But we lack the wisdom, leadership and revolutionary minds to push the envelope of Our Mutual Civil Rights any further before we all begin to whine for the restraints of our past lifestyles. It'll be the time when society begins to march foward again, that we'll see some people walking talk on a high and narrow road to civil liberation for all, and watch others fall back to the painful cycles of the past or give up because they miss how other's pity enabled them. Umm, this paragraph wasn't as congruent as I hoped, but I hope you understand it's meaning :/
  • DiverScience

    Posts: 1426

    Mar 24, 2008 3:02 PM GMT
    Extreme passivist? What the heck does that mean? How would they ever oppress anyone?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 25, 2008 10:47 AM GMT
    Not familiar with feminist movements at all, but anyway yes, I do believe the feminist movement overshot itself once. It's bad coz now feminist women are stereotyped as butch misanthropic women. But considering the state of women back in the early 20th century and earlier, I wouldn't blame them.

    I look forward to a time when gender really wouldn't have anything to do with society's expectations of you. That doesn't seem like a long way off now, honestly.

    It's no different from the Harijans' fight for equality in India, the African-Americans' fight for equality in America, American Indians' fight for equality in America, Africans' fight for equality in Apartheid South Africa, and yes GLBT's fight for equality in the World, etc. When we feel there is unfairness, we can demand for justice.

    It does stink a bit when people label it as fighting for 'special' rights. As long as the goal is equality, I'm all for it.