Support NeoGAF

[faceless007]

I really dislike this analogy, because it implies that equal rights is a zero-sum game. Anything we put on the men's side of the fence will set feminism back, and vice versa. This is neither helpful nor true. Putting women in to combat situations is a feminist victory; solving discrimination in custody cases is not a blow to the feminist cause.

You're absolutely right, but ElectricBlue thinks it is zero-sum so I was addressing it from within his framework.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Cool, just know that people will stop listening to you. Contrary to what you seem to believe, you aren't carrying a stone tablet of truth to smite your opponents with. Sometimes listening is just as important as talking.

I'm unclear as to when and where I asserted 'bullshit' as 'fact'.

lol Have to agree. There is no Moses in regards to this particular topic.

 

[Vermillion]

I disagree with some of kittens's analysis of GAF, by the way.

There's some ignorance, but I would not call it overwhelming misogyny...

 

[BobsRevenge]

I really dislike this analogy, because it implies that equal rights is a zero-sum game. Anything we put on the men's side of the fence will set feminism back, and vice versa. This is neither helpful nor true. Putting women in to combat situations is a feminist victory; solving discrimination in custody cases is not a blow to the feminist cause.

I hate how uncomfortable this point is. That's absolutely not a victory in any realistic sense. Ideally the most righteous way of equalizing that is to get men out of combat situations too. Something is fucked up somewhere if it is a win to introduce a group you're defending into situations that are obviously horrible for them, or anyone.

I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, because I think this is something worth thinking about for anyone.

 

[cubicle47b]

It reminds me of a rather heated argument I got in with a friend of mine about feminism. He insisted it was anti male, pro female domination crap.

I told him it wasn't and insisted he was an actual feminist, and pointed out several issues affecting women, that he agreed should be addressed.

The next day he actually called me and apologized said he did some research and realized he was way off base and started calling himself a feminist.

That's not what's happening here, though. He knows what feminism is, he just thinks everyone in these threads are awful (feminists included) and doesn't want to be associated with any of you just like some people don't like to call themselves atheist even if they fall under the definition because r/atheism exists.

 

[Glass Rebel]

I think an important distinction could be made, in that one of these statements is false and the other is true. I mean, if the accuracy of statements is as important as tone is.

Though Satchwar is right; from what you've said, you're a feminist.

It was an oversimplified example. As I said, from my own experience, "lesbian femnazi", as mentioned in the article, has been as prevalent as "chauvinist macho rapist". When I was still in med school abortion came up in an ethics course but most self-declared feminists blocked any real discussion off. Apparently it's not up to discussion who has to decide about an abortion "because the woman is doing all the labour by carrying the child". That's just one of many cases that made me keep my opinion to me.

 

[Fugu]

On orchestras specifically: that is a rather strange result I must say considering the amount of women I see in orchestras. Based on that, I wouldn't have expected that at all.

This is sort of a tangent and also anecdotal, but whatever.

I work in the performance side of music right now in what I would consider one of the more traditionally-established components of the music industry (jazz). The gender ratio is absolutely flabbergasting: straight from the school system, jazz is incredibly male-dominated. The ratio in my undergraduate program must have been forty to one. Females are almost always singers (and, ironically, bandleaders). This isn't new, as within the jazz canon there are very few female role models that aren't singers. Similarly, male singers are somewhat rare outside of big band and swing, so here in the present male singers are obscure.

 

[TheExplodingHead]

No. A lot of men go to war, or whatever, for dignity and shit so they can come back and fuck chicks. In many situations men act dominating because women respond to it. Women play a huge role in how men act, and to say that men manufacture all of this is intellectually dishonest in my view.

It's a cultural issue, man. Don't pin this on a gender. All of it is a cultural issue.

To an extent it is a cultural issue, yes. But I was replying to your points on:

War is carried out largely by men and boys are led to believe that dying for a cause is righteous.

Men are still the only gender targeted for potential military service against their will in the US.

Men are, by a huge margin, hired into more dangerous jobs and situations.

Sure this happens all over the world due to culture, but it is the gender of men who enable, perpetrate and continue these things. So in reality it's a tragic mix of cultural tradition as well as imposed gender roles. It's not culture to say 2+2=4, it's culture to say "my team is the best", "my country is the best", and "our values are the best". The only thing you really need to remember about the word "culture" is the first syllable.

 

[Timedog]

Can I get a list of men's rights inequalities that aren't caused by patriarchy? No excuses, blubbering, or futzing around the question. Just a simple list and that's all. Let's see if anyone can do it.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Can I get a list of men's rights inequalities that aren't caused by patriarchy? No excuses, blubbering, or futzing around the question. Just a simple list and that's all. Let's see if anyone can do it.

There aren't any! Do I win the prize?

 

[Fugu]

I hate how uncomfortable this point is. That's absolutely not a victory in any realistic sense. Ideally the most righteous way of equalizing that is to get men out of combat situations too. Something is fucked up somewhere if it is a win to introduce a group you're defending into situations that are obviously horrible for them, or anyone.

I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, because I think this is something worth thinking about for anyone.

I don't think you need to be told this, but the issue of whether or not women are allowed to serve is an issue relevant to feminism, whereas the justifiability of combat is not.

There aren't any! Do I win the prize?

If you know that, why are you opposing a movement that's sole stated goal is to battle patriarchy?

 

[BobsRevenge]

To an extent it is a cultural issue, yes. But I was replying to your points on:

Sure this happens all over the world due to culture, but it is the gender of men who enable, perpetrate and continue these things. So in reality it's a tragic mix of cultural tradition as well as imposed gender roles. It's not culture to say 2+2=4, it's culture to say "my team is the best", "my country is the best", and "our values are the best". The only thing you really need to remember about the word "culture" is the first syllable.

I'm going to repeat myself, I think you're being intellectually dishonest, or are somehow ignorant in how both genders in a culture pursue these outcomes.

And your definition of culture is wrong and problematic in profound ways.

 

[Timedog]

There aren't any! Do I win the prize?

The entire point...THE ENTIRE POINT...of feminism is to get rid of patriarchy.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

I don't think you need to be told this, but the issue of whether or not women are allowed to serve is an issue relevant to feminism, whereas the justifiability of combat is not.



If you know that, why are you opposing a movement that's sole stated goal is to battle patriarchy?

Please show me where I said I oppose the stated goals of feminism.

 

[FO-totality]

Can I get a list of men's rights inequalities that aren't caused by patriarchy? No excuses, blubbering, or futzing around the question. Just a simple list and that's all. Let's see if anyone can do it.

Don't know if I know could make you big list without just quoting Wikipedia, but

1. Reproductive Rights
2. Child custody
3. divorce issues

And some will ask for SSS to take in females, as well, but that's more a US thing.

 

[cubicle47b]

Can I get a list of men's rights inequalities that aren't caused by patriarchy? No excuses, blubbering, or futzing around the question. Just a simple list and that's all. Let's see if anyone can do it.

There's a pretty substantial list of mens rights inequalities but which of them wouldn't be blamed on the patriarchy (if we've only lived in a male dominated society what wouldn't be blamed on the patriarchy?)? Divorce laws, child custody, parental leave, paternity fraud, military conscription, domestic violence against men, rape allegations, circumcision.

 

[TheExplodingHead]

I'm going to repeat myself, I think you're being intellectually dishonest, or are somehow ignorant in how both genders in a culture pursue these outcomes.

I never said it wasn't a joint effort toward a outcome, I said it was primarily men who traditionally raise boy's a certain ways with certain ways of thinking. The fact women are drawn to "manliness" has very little to do with the the issues affecting men you pointed out. If so, enlighten me specifically how each one traces back to BOTH genders. Objectively.

And your definition of culture is wrong and problematic in profound ways.

Is it? I guess that's your distinction to be made.

 

[faceless007]

Please show me where I said I oppose the stated goals of feminism.

By the fact that you haven't done nearly as much to advocate them as you have men's issues. Again, that's your own test.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Don't know if I know could make you big list without just quoting Wikipedia, but

1. Reproductive Rights
2. Child custody
3. divorce issues

And some will ask for SSS to take in females, as well, but that's more a US thing.

All of these are the result of rigid traditional family structures and how they effected laws based on prior case law some are perpetuated by feminists but the root cause is not the fault of feminism

 

[leadbelly]

This is sort of a tangent and also anecdotal, but whatever.

I work in the performance side of music right now in what I would consider one of the more traditionally-established components of the music industry (jazz). The gender ratio is absolutely flabbergasting: straight from the school system, jazz is incredibly male-dominated. The ratio in my undergraduate program must have been forty to one. Females are almost always singers (and, ironically, bandleaders). This isn't new, as within the jazz canon there are very few female role models that aren't singers. Similarly, male singers are somewhat rare outside of big band and swing, so here in the present male singers are obscure.

First of all, I'm not denying the studies only that I found it surprising. Of course a Jazz band isn't an orchestra.

All the orchestras I've seen there has been a fair amount of women in it.

Just an example on youtube where you can see the musicians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HdEySg0-A0&feature=related

 

[FO-totality]

All of these are the result of rigid traditional family structures and how they effected laws based on prior case law some are perpetuated by feminists but the root cause is not the fault of feminism

Okay, what about issues with paternity fraud and rape allegations?

 

[Timedog]

Don't know if I know could make you big list without just quoting Wikipedia, but

1. Reproductive Rights - I don't consider this a men's rights issue, no one should have to power to force someone to do things with their body.
2. Child custody - Patriarchal. Women are supposed to rear kids, that's what women are good for! Men are supposed to support those kids.
3. divorce issues - what divorce issues?

And some will ask for SSS to take in females, as well, but that's more a US thing. - Patriarchal.

.

 

[Satch]

Of course a Jazz band isn't an orchestra.

Don't tell that to Count Basie or Duke Ellington.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Okay, what about issues with paternity fraud and rape allegations?

Mostly caused by stereotypes that women are not capable of being as duplicitous and self serving as men, again perpetuated to some extent by those calling themselves feminists

 

[BobsRevenge]

I never said it wasn't a joint effort toward a outcome, I said it was primarily men who traditionally raise boy's a certain ways with certain ways of thinking. The fact women are drawn to "manliness" has very little to do with the the issues affecting men you pointed out. If so, enlighten me specifically how each one traces back to BOTH genders. Objectively.

Not sure I can do it objectively, but generally when dating, if I act in traditionally feminine ways it's a huge turn off. I used to actively have to watch myself, and it's immediately obvious when I act in some way that is perceived as feminine and is unattractive, if I'm being attentive. This seems to be a universal concern. I no longer really worry about it because I've consciously developed a more masculine personality.

Generally, if a man wants to get laid he would have the best results by buying into gender stereotypes. It makes him and his intentions more easily understood, because the patterns of behavior have been made recognizable culturally. This clearly brings women into the picture in a significant way, because in the end men act the way they do to make babies, whether they are aware of it or not. Whether it is sublimated into an activity working against those outcomes or not.

The problem with your definition of culture is that it is defined as exclusive. That's a problem with how people treat it, and it isn't necessary, and that is extremely important to be aware of and personally work against.

 

[ColonialRaptor]

Personally I think it has now gone the other way... it's now a female dominated society (in a lot of ways - perhaps not financially) but in so many ways women dominate society from so many angles.

The key to who is REALLY in control of society is to answer who controls / who decides whether to have sex / procreate or not and that distinction has been clearly given to the female now, unfortunately the 'fight' for women's right's over the years has unbalanced society so badly as to overbalance the power to women and therefore, because men have lots their procreation power they fight back with the financial power and 'glass ceiling' woman in the business and industrial sectors.

I'm not saying anything about 'forced' intimate relations, all I'm saying is that when it comes to reproduction and performing the act of reproduction 9/10 times the decision lies with the female and that is an unbalanced society.

 

[Stet]

Whoa. The bat in this thread's belfry just got a bat in its belfry. I'm out.

 

[Orayn]

Personally I think it has now gone the other way... it's now a female dominated society (in a lot of ways - perhaps not financially) but in so many ways women dominate society from so many angles.

Look at the statistics for every elected office in the country, then write me a two page essay about how you're wrong.

The key to who is REALLY in control of society is to answer who controls / who decides whether to have sex / procreate or not and that distinction has been clearly given to the female now, unfortunately the 'fight' for women's right's over the years has unbalanced society so badly as to overbalance the power to women and therefore, because men have lots their procreation power they fight back with the financial power and 'glass ceiling' woman in the business and industrial sectors.

I'm not saying anything about 'forced' intimate relations, all I'm saying is that when it comes to reproduction and performing the act of reproduction 9/10 times the decision lies with the female and that is an unbalanced society.

What in the actual fuck? I think you're trying to say that sex requiring a woman's consent is sexist against men?

 

[Glass Rebel]

Personally I think it has now gone the other way... it's now a female dominated society (in a lot of ways - perhaps not financially) but in so many ways women dominate society from so many angles.

The key to who is REALLY in control of society is to answer who controls / who decides whether to have sex / procreate or not and that distinction has been clearly given to the female now, unfortunately the 'fight' for women's right's over the years has unbalanced society so badly as to overbalance the power to women and therefore, because men have lots their procreation power they fight back with the financial power and 'glass ceiling' woman in the business and industrial sectors.

I'm not saying anything about 'forced' intimate relations, all I'm saying is that when it comes to reproduction and performing the act of reproduction 9/10 times the decision lies with the female and that is an unbalanced society.

 

[leadbelly]

Don't tell that to Count Basie or Duke Ellington.

I would if they weren't dead.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Personally I think it has now gone the other way... it's now a female dominated society (in a lot of ways - perhaps not financially) but in so many ways women dominate society from so many angles.

The key to who is REALLY in control of society is to answer who controls / who decides whether to have sex / procreate or not and that distinction has been clearly given to the female now, unfortunately the 'fight' for women's right's over the years has unbalanced society so badly as to overbalance the power to women and therefore, because men have lots their procreation power they fight back with the financial power and 'glass ceiling' woman in the business and industrial sectors.

I'm not saying anything about 'forced' intimate relations, all I'm saying is that when it comes to reproduction and performing the act of reproduction 9/10 times the decision lies with the female and that is an unbalanced society.

I think much of that comes from the fact that the establishment saw women as victims waiting to be victimized by a red blooded American male predator. This is a belief widely held by both males and females and is reflected in that women ultimately decide not only the fate of the unborn baby but what role that male will have in the child's life if they are unmarried

 

[TheExplodingHead]

Not sure I can do it objectively, but generally when dating, if I act in traditionally feminine ways it's a huge turn off. I used to actively have to watch myself, and it's immediately obvious when I act in some way that is perceived as feminine and is unattractive, if I'm being attentive. This seems to be a universal concern. I no longer really worry about it because I've consciously developed a more masculine personality.

Generally, if a man wants to get laid he would have the best results by buying into gender stereotypes. It makes him and his intentions more easily understood. This clearly brings women into the picture in a significant way, because in the end men act the way they do to make babies, whether they are aware of it or not. Whether it is sublimated into an activity working against those outcomes or not.

The problem with your definition of culture is that it is defined as exclusive. That's a problem with how people treat it, and it isn't necessary, and that is extremely important to be aware of and personally work against.

Yeah, but now you're entire pitch is completely focused on getting laid, and how both genders influence that. But it has nothing to do with the original things you pointed out that were issues affecting men, none of which had anything to do with getting laid.

But I'll let it slide on the "getting laid" part, but objectively and subjectively let's get back to your original points:

War is carried out largely by men and boys are led to believe that dying for a cause is righteous.

Men are still the only gender targeted for potential military service against their will in the US.

Men are, by a huge margin, hired into more dangerous jobs and situations.

Tell me how both genders influence these issues effecting men?

And in my opinion, by and large, for better or worse, "culture" is anything that is false, that we traditionally cling to by virtue of X or Y (some good some bad). But it's not empiricism, and it's hardly ever objective and cause far more harm than good, especially as it relates to medicine (end of life care being a big one), religion, and social fallacies applies to all types of individuals. Not to say some don't serve great purposes, but it isn't empiricism. We wouldn't need "feminism" if our society or "culture" was based on empirical fact and logical ways of thinking and living.

 

[marrec]

Personally I think it has now gone the other way... it's now a female dominated society (in a lot of ways - perhaps not financially) but in so many ways women dominate society from so many angles.

The key to who is REALLY in control of society is to answer who controls / who decides whether to have sex / procreate or not and that distinction has been clearly given to the female now, unfortunately the 'fight' for women's right's over the years has unbalanced society so badly as to overbalance the power to women and therefore, because men have lots their procreation power they fight back with the financial power and 'glass ceiling' woman in the business and industrial sectors.

I'm not saying anything about 'forced' intimate relations, all I'm saying is that when it comes to reproduction and performing the act of reproduction 9/10 times the decision lies with the female and that is an unbalanced society.

That's right men, fight the good fight! Keep those women from stealing you reproductive rights by discriminating against females in the workforce!

While we're at it...

Why don't we try to take control of the woman's reproductive rights.

How you ask?

We force them to buy contraceptives. We elect officials in every major office who uses religion as a shield for them to take the control of women's bodies out of the woman's hands and put it in 'Gods' hands. We make abortion illegal. We FORCE them to be the primary care-giver.

HA!

That'll show em.

 

[Satch]

Personally I think it has now gone the other way... it's now a female dominated society (in a lot of ways - perhaps not financially) but in so many ways women dominate society from so many angles.

The key to who is REALLY in control of society is to answer who controls / who decides whether to have sex / procreate or not and that distinction has been clearly given to the female now, unfortunately the 'fight' for women's right's over the years has unbalanced society so badly as to overbalance the power to women and therefore, because men have lots their procreation power they fight back with the financial power and 'glass ceiling' woman in the business and industrial sectors.

I'm not saying anything about 'forced' intimate relations, all I'm saying is that when it comes to reproduction and performing the act of reproduction 9/10 times the decision lies with the female and that is an unbalanced society.

Women have the right to say no to sex. And that is as it should be.

That in no way says that women are in control of society. Give me a damn break.

 

[Fugu]

First of all, I'm not denying the studies only that I found it surprising. Of course a Jazz band isn't an orchestra.

All the orchestras I've seen there has been a fair amount of women in it.

Just an example on youtube where you can see the musicians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HdEySg0-A0&feature=related

Oh I actually wasn't challenging your interpretation of the article or anything. It's just an interesting point of discussion. There are legions of female classical pianists and string players.

Personally I think it has now gone the other way... it's now a female dominated society (in a lot of ways - perhaps not financially) but in so many ways women dominate society from so many angles.

The key to who is REALLY in control of society is to answer who controls / who decides whether to have sex / procreate or not and that distinction has been clearly given to the female now, unfortunately the 'fight' for women's right's over the years has unbalanced society so badly as to overbalance the power to women and therefore, because men have lots their procreation power they fight back with the financial power and 'glass ceiling' woman in the business and industrial sectors.

I'm not saying anything about 'forced' intimate relations, all I'm saying is that when it comes to reproduction and performing the act of reproduction 9/10 times the decision lies with the female and that is an unbalanced society.

I don't see how the decision is imbalanced in favour of the female. It's an issue of consensus, as in both parties should agree to have sex. That you perceive women to consent to sex more often than men do -- thereby leading to more men wanting sex and not getting it than women -- then that is a perceptual issue, not a gender issue. It is not a gender issue because it is equal parts not true and not relevant.

 

[Sh1ner]

Used neogaf bans to see why poster on first page was banned:

http://neogafbans.com/#/user/12STS

from the page:
There's no record of any bans for 12STS just yet (how quaint!), but feel free to add one yourself. Don't feel bad, being banned for the first time is like getting your first period. It's a sign you're becoming a woman.

made me laugh.

 

[BobsRevenge]

Yeah, but now you're entire pitch is completely focused on getting laid, and how both genders influence that. But it has nothing to do with the original things you pointed out that were issues affecting men, none of which had anything to do with getting laid.

But I'll let it slide on the "getting laid" part, but objectively and subjectively let's get back to your original points:



Tell me how both genders influence these issues effecting men?

And in my opinion, by and large, for better or worse, "culture" is anything that is false, that we traditionally cling to by virtue of X or Y (some good some bad). But it's not empiricism, and it's hardly ever objective and cause far more harm than good, especially as it relates to medicine (end of life care being a big one), religion, and social fallacies applies to all types of individuals. Not to say some don't serve great purposes, but it isn't empiricism. We wouldn't need "feminism" if our society or "culture" was based on empirical fact and logical ways of thinking and living.

My point is that culture in general pursues these outcomes, and outside of extremely patriarchal circumstances (relative to western cultures), in a way that is necessarily not gender specific. And your working definition of the word culture is problematic when relating ideas to others, because most won't share it. It seems arbitrary to a harmful degree in terms of your communication.

A culture based on empirical evidence, rationality, and skepticism seems ideal. Though, I also have to admit that it might not be, given the lack of empirical evidence it's true and my inner skeptic.

 

[TheExplodingHead]

My point is that culture in general pursues these outcomes, and outside of extremely patriarchal circumstances (relative to western cultures), in a way that is necessarily not gender specific. And your working definition of the word culture is problematic when relating ideas to others, because most won't share it. It seems arbitrary to a harmful degree in terms of your communication.

A culture based on empirical evidence, rationality, and skepticism seems ideal. Though, I also have to admit that it might not be, given the lack of empirical evidence it's true and my inner skeptic.

Never implied my definition would sit easy with most, in a ironic way that's kind of the realistic response. Cultures can mean false unity, all the time, but unity nonetheless some would argue. I'm personally an empiricist, I choose to not allow culture and it proxies into everyday life invade mine. That's of course my personal position, and I'm not saying anyone has to agree.

 

[leadbelly]

Used neogaf bans to see why poster on first page was banned:

http://neogafbans.com/#/user/12STS

from the page:
There's no record of any bans for 12STS just yet (how quaint!), but feel free to add one yourself. Don't feel bad, being banned for the first time is like getting your first period. It's a sign you're becoming a woman.

made me laugh.

lol

There is a site called neogafbans.

 

[BobsRevenge]

Never implied my definition would sit easy with most, in a ironic way that's kind of the realistic response. Cultures can mean false unity, all the time, but unity nonetheless some would argue. I'm personally an empiricist, I choose to not allow culture and it proxies into everyday life invade mine. That's of course my personal position, and I'm not saying anyone has to agree.

You can be unified and inclusive. Unity is important, though, as it provides shared experiences, attitudes, and protective nets. It's obviously important to be progressive in terms of improving your environment, but to deny the culture that surrounds you on principle seems maladaptive.

Though maybe that's culturally attractive as an outlook to others regardless, and you get by fine having it. The world is fucking weird and impossible to make sense of.

 

[Devolution]

Women have the right to say no to sex. And that is as it should be.

That in no way says that women are in control of society. Give me a damn break.

We've really hit the bottom of the barrel today if respecting and establishing "consent" is being propagated as a negative.

(someone has trouble getting laid, blame women as gatekeepers of the pussay)

 

[BobsRevenge]

We've really hit the bottom of the barrel today if respecting and establishing "consent" is being propagated as a negative.

To be fair the biological allowances that differentiate the sexes should be a part of the discussion, in the sense that if everything else was equal women would have a significant social advantage given modern technology. This isn't meant to be an argument against feminism, it just seems true.

 

[Anton Sugar]

Whoa. The bat in this thread's belfry just got a bat in its belfry. I'm out.

We've really hit the bottom of the barrel today if respecting and establishing "consent" is being propagated as a negative.

 

[Devolution]

To be fair the biological allowances that differentiate the sexes should be a part of the discussion, in the sense that if everything else was equal women would have a significant social advantage given modern technology. This isn't meant to be an argument against feminism, it just seems true.

What.

 

[BobsRevenge]

What.

I know it's a weird statement, hahaha. I'm fully aware of that. But if you think about it, the basic biological difference in genitalia and reproductive roles seems to have this effect. I might be wrong, feel free to argue against it.

The reason I brought technology up is that as far as I'm aware men don't have the ability to reach an outcome of having a baby that is biologically related to them without female involvement. It's also much harder for them to adopt, and for obvious reasons.

Is there a method of getting an egg from a donor and fertilizing that with your sperm, and having that grow up outside of a womb? I'm not aware of that being an option available to men. And it's probably hard to believe, but I'm not trying to be facetious.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

I hate how uncomfortable this point is. That's absolutely not a victory in any realistic sense. Ideally the most righteous way of equalizing that is to get men out of combat situations too. Something is fucked up somewhere if it is a win to introduce a group you're defending into situations that are obviously horrible for them, or anyone.

I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, because I think this is something worth thinking about for anyone.

I'm in favor of a less interventionist foreign policy that would aid the development of and respect for international law, but I am not a complete pacifist. Soldiers will be needed and some conflict is inevitable, at least until the development of the world state; as long as that is true, putting women in combat will be a feminist victory.

It is possible, certainly, to be both a feminist and a thoroughgoing pacifist, in which case your point makes absolute sense, but I think we can agree that such extreme nonviolence is not a sine qua non of the movement.

You're absolutely right, but ElectricBlue thinks it is zero-sum so I was addressing it from within his framework.

Fair enough.

Not sure I can do it objectively, but generally when dating, if I act in traditionally feminine ways it's a huge turn off. I used to actively have to watch myself, and it's immediately obvious when I act in some way that is perceived as feminine and is unattractive, if I'm being attentive. This seems to be a universal concern. I no longer really worry about it because I've consciously developed a more masculine personality.

Generally, if a man wants to get laid he would have the best results by buying into gender stereotypes. It makes him and his intentions more easily understood, because the patterns of behavior have been made recognizable culturally. This clearly brings women into the picture in a significant way, because in the end men act the way they do to make babies, whether they are aware of it or not. Whether it is sublimated into an activity working against those outcomes or not.

The problem with your definition of culture is that it is defined as exclusive. That's a problem with how people treat it, and it isn't necessary, and that is extremely important to be aware of and personally work against.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Maybe I've just been hanging around some odd people, but IME, there are lots of women who adore feminine men, at least if they pull it off well. I got significantly more attention from the opposite (and same) sex when I grew my hair long, started paying attention to my appearance in feminine ways, and consciously played up the attractive feminine aspects of my personality. I even notice a marked difference in interest when I show up to parties crossdressed vs. not.

Personally I think it has now gone the other way... it's now a female dominated society (in a lot of ways - perhaps not financially) but in so many ways women dominate society from so many angles.

The key to who is REALLY in control of society is to answer who controls / who decides whether to have sex / procreate or not and that distinction has been clearly given to the female now, unfortunately the 'fight' for women's right's over the years has unbalanced society so badly as to overbalance the power to women and therefore, because men have lots their procreation power they fight back with the financial power and 'glass ceiling' woman in the business and industrial sectors.

I'm not saying anything about 'forced' intimate relations, all I'm saying is that when it comes to reproduction and performing the act of reproduction 9/10 times the decision lies with the female and that is an unbalanced society.

This is a pretty myopic view of the situation. Reproduction is far from the only thing that matters. Even if it were the only thing that matters, it is not true that women have taken the upper hand in those affairs. They can abort ater conception, whereas men cannot abandon a child as easily, that is true. But a man does not face the stigma of pregnancy, the financial cost of abortion, ad the lion's share of effort towards birth control. Fro ma consequentialist perspective, evening the burdens (in this case, one of the few areas where the zero-sum view is true) is the best way to achieve equality, and that includes alimony and no abortion option for men. From a rights-based perspective, invading a woman's bodily autonomy to support a fetus against her will is as heinous as knocking you out and taking a kidney against your will to give it to someone who is dying.

On an unrelated note, I highly recommend the blog, No Seriously, What about Teh Menz!?!?! for those who want to see some male bloggers writing within the feminist tradition aboutmale issues. This is the kind of thing we need from a properly "masculinist" movement, not the scions of thwarted privilege that characterize MRAs.

http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/

 

[kame-sennin]

Personally I think it has now gone the other way... it's now a female dominated society (in a lot of ways - perhaps not financially) but in so many ways women dominate society from so many angles.

The key to who is REALLY in control of society is to answer who controls / who decides whether to have sex / procreate or not and that distinction has been clearly given to the female now, unfortunately the 'fight' for women's right's over the years has unbalanced society so badly as to overbalance the power to women and therefore, because men have lots their procreation power they fight back with the financial power and 'glass ceiling' woman in the business and industrial sectors.

I'm not saying anything about 'forced' intimate relations, all I'm saying is that when it comes to reproduction and performing the act of reproduction 9/10 times the decision lies with the female and that is an unbalanced society.

This is completely insane.

 

[The Technomancer]

Uh...women can't exactly pro-create without men.

 

[BobsRevenge]

Uh...women can't exactly pro-create without men.

They can. Not without men existing, right now, that I'm aware of, but because males can donate sperm and women can create babies with it, they can pro-create without having to engage men sexually.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Shit just got unhinged in dis bitch.