(December 21, 2017 at 12:16 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(December 21, 2017 at 12:09 pm)Thena323 Wrote: By doing what? Voicing my opinion? 
Arguing my points?

Show me where I've made disparaging remarks about "evil men" anywhere in this thread. Or insinuated that men didn't have real problems and/or that their concerns shouldn't be addressed.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

Anyone who disagrees with you is an Alt-Right/MRA sympathizer. You bring up your race as if anyone cares or even knows what color you are. Congratulations, you're what's wrong with feminism.

P.S. No one's going to ban you for being a crabby patty.

Lol, trick...Would it kill you to simply admit that you found NOTHING?

You and I both know that I simply brief sarcastic reference, about anger. And that your dear old hubby is the one who engaged in active race-baiting due to his little complex. 
If you're try to shift the focus off of your lousy arguments by goading me into an explosive argument about racism...and hopefully call you and/or hubby the "R" word, then give it up. It's not gonna happen.

You'd have to get up way earlier than you do now in order to pull that off.

(December 21, 2017 at 12:41 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 21, 2017 at 2:36 am)Tiberius Wrote: Equality under the law and equality in society (one could argue they are the same thing).

There's a reason why the terms de jure and de facto were imported into our language, and that's because the existence of the two separate states of affairs is obvious in most cases -- especially in our own society. It's the same reason the 1964 CRA didn't eliminate racism (which is simply the belief in inequality) even though it made all Americans legally equal.

The two are linked though. Equality under the law doesn't usually come about unless society's views are changing, and at the same time, societal views can be changed by new laws. Gay Marriage is a good example of this.

(December 21, 2017 at 12:47 pm)Thena323 Wrote:

(December 21, 2017 at 12:16 pm)Shell B Wrote: Anyone who disagrees with you is an Alt-Right/MRA sympathizer. You bring up your race as if anyone cares or even knows what color you are. Congratulations, you're what's wrong with feminism.

P.S. No one's going to ban you for being a crabby patty.

Lol, trick...Would it kill you to simply admit that you found NOTHING?

You and I both know that I simply brief sarcastic reference, about anger. And that your dear old hubby is the one that that engaged in active race-baiting due to his little complex. 
If you're try to shift the focus off of your lousy arguments by goading me into an explosive argument about racism...and hopefully call you and/or hubby the "R" word, then give it up. It's not going to happen.

You'd have to get up way earlier than you do now in order to pull that off.

I think you sound way more coherent in your head than you actually are. No one's trying to get you to call them a racist. You're paranoid. I'm pointing out that using race and labeling anyone who disagrees as "Alt-Right" or "MRA" are traits of the so-called "fringe." Try to focus on the actual debate instead of your weird personal vendetta and my irrelevant relationship to Tibs. You get so hung up on that, not even realizing that we don't actually hold the same position on this topic. I don't care what my "dear old hubby" says or does to you. That's his debate, not mine.

---

(December 21, 2017 at 11:04 am)Divinity Wrote: Men's Rights Activist is just a term for Anti-Feminist.  

I'd go so far as to say anti-female. That's been my experience. There's little difference between a typical MRA and an incel.

Quote:I'm not denying that men aren't disadvantaged in some areas -- just that 90% of all Men's Rights Activists don't actually give a shit about men's issues, and only care about being anti-feminist and minimizing the problems women face (and getting out of paying child support).

Totally. I'm all for ironing out the inequalities that men face. I'd rather not do it at the expense of women. I don't know why this is so hard.

Quote:I agree that Egalitarian can do a lot to dismiss the concerns of feminism because they would rather define feminists by their fringe elements.

You lose me here. I don't think they're necessarily defining feminists by fringe elements as much as they are eschewing the feminist label because of a lot of fringe groups and the lack of cohesion over what the term really means.

(December 21, 2017 at 11:04 am)Divinity Wrote: People may try to say "Well, you're an egalitarian!" Not really. Maybe I will be when we are actually closer to equality than we currently are. But right now, we're nowhere near close. That doesn't mean I will dismiss the issues men have. But I'm going to focus more on women's issues. Not just because they effect me more -- and obviously, as a woman, they do. But because more work needs to be done on the feminism side. Because let's be honest. Nobody has ever said "Do you really want a man running the country?" But I've heard several people ask "Do you really want a woman running the country?" That doesn't mean I'll compromise on things like Paternity leave in order to get more maternity leave for women. But it does mean my efforts will be more concentrated on feminist issues. And if people have a problem with that, well too fucking bad. You don't have to like anything I do. You aren't my father, and you aren't my mother. And I'm an adult, so even if you were, it'd still be too fucking bad.

...and this is why MRAs exist. It's all fine and well claiming that feminism is about equal rights for men and women, but by and large, most feminists don't participate in any kind of activism for men's rights. That's fine, I don't expect them to, and certainly there are more problems that women face.

Since most feminists aren't focusing on men's rights issues, the MRA movement sprung up. Of course, then the movements started attacking each other, because reasons. The vast majority of MRAs aren't anti-woman, and the vast majority of feminists aren't anti-man, but the fringe groups are of course, the loudest, and they ruin any kind of dialogue both could have.

That's why egalitarianism is important. It removes the gendered label, it can focus on a plethora of issues including sexism, racism, homo/transphobia, etc.

(December 19, 2017 at 6:01 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: And autism.

I've heard that most of the important information for churning out a functionally capable human is contained on the x chromosome.  Your lot has two of those so there is redundancy built into your system.  For men if the info in that one x is faulty we're screwed period.  On the other hand all those baby making and nurturing systems you carry are obviously cancer magnets and place extra demands on your systems.  At least you'll never know the joys trying to pee around a grapefruit sized prostate.(Kind of funny that those fundamentalist types could ever imagine our design was divine.)

(December 21, 2017 at 12:58 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(December 21, 2017 at 12:47 pm)Thena323 Wrote: Lol, trick...Would it kill you to simply admit that you found NOTHING?

You and I both know that I simply brief sarcastic reference, about anger. And that your dear old hubby is the one that that engaged in active race-baiting due to his little complex. 
If you're try to shift the focus off of your lousy arguments by goading me into an explosive argument about racism...and hopefully call you and/or hubby the "R" word, then give it up. It's not going to happen.

You'd have to get up way earlier than you do now in order to pull that off.

I think you sound way more coherent in your head than you actually are. No one's trying to get you to call them a racist. You're paranoid. I'm pointing out that using race and labeling anyone who disagrees as "Alt-Right" or "MRA" are traits of the so-called "fringe." Try to focus on the actual debate instead of your weird personal vendetta and my irrelevant relationship to Tibs. You get so hung up on that, not even realizing that we don't actually hold the same position on this topic. I don't care what my "dear old hubby" says or does to you. That's his debate, not mine.

But YOU'RE the one who brought it up, yet again, Shell. 
I've made it clear that I don't think this conversation has anything to do with race, but you insist on circling back to it for some unknown reason. I just guessed at to what that reason is.

If I'm wrong, then tell me....Why do you keep coming back to it?

And I don't label ANYONE who disagrees me as Alt Right or MRA. I specifically labeled you your husband as a sympathizer, because he parrots their talking points

(December 21, 2017 at 12:09 pm)Thena323 Wrote:

(December 21, 2017 at 12:00 pm)Shell B Wrote: "Mainstream feminism is good. You can't judge us all by the fringe elements." Proceeds to behave exactly like the supposed "fringe" elements.

By doing what? Voicing my opinion? 
Arguing my points?

Show me where I've made disparaging remarks about "evil men" anywhere in this thread. Or insinuated that men didn't have real problems and/or that their concerns shouldn't be addressed.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

When you get frustrated and ranty you remind me of me when I'm frustrated and ranty, lol.

But without the ranting to the point of getting yourself banned for "trolling"

I'd like to point out that I think the way the society is stratified leads to a lot of unfairness.

First of all, the richest, most powerful people in the US are clearly men. Just to balance out male / female average worth in the US, you'd have to screw 75% of men, i.e. those who are normal wage-earners. But I'd say those 75% are as much a victim of the right white men as anyone else is, including poor black women-- their opportunities are more and more limited as union jobs disappear, and they have less and less say in how the country is run.

Also, competition from women in the job market screws EVERYONE. When you double your workforce, the predictable result is that wages plummet. Now, I for sure don't think any woman who can work and wants to should be blocked from doing so-- but maybe there could be another way of looking at it-- like a couple could choose who will be the primary wage-earner, and the other would be limited legally to 20-hour weeks or something. Actually, the wage problem is a really vicious circle, because the lower wages mean many women HAVE to work even if they'd like more time to take care of their children, just to pay the mortgage and the basic bills.

The other problem is age stratification. Since wages have dropped, and inflation has caused pensions to be worth less than expected in real buying power, older people are required to hang on to jobs longer. The results: no jobs, no opportunity.

I don't really think there's a problem agreeing about abortion, or much care about who should / shouldn't open doors. Only a pretty unenlightened person would think that women can't contribute AT LEAST as much as men in most professional fields (maybe more because of superior communication skills, tolerance for pain and illness etc. etc.). But the fact is that women's stronger place in society has also led to some real growing pains, with the ironic result that people are probably worse off than better off compared to a generation or two ago.

(December 21, 2017 at 1:15 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(December 21, 2017 at 12:09 pm)Thena323 Wrote: By doing what? Voicing my opinion? 
Arguing my points?

Show me where I've made disparaging remarks about "evil men" anywhere in this thread. Or insinuated that men didn't have real problems and/or that their concerns shouldn't be addressed.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

When you get frustrated and ranty you remind me of me when I'm frustrated and ranty, lol.

But without the ranting to the point of getting yourself banned for "trolling"

Lol...I'm actually not frustrated though, Hammy.

Just killin' time. I'm off today.

(December 21, 2017 at 12:34 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Some feminists oppose sex workers and think they are anti-feminist, some feminists say sex workers are pro-feminist because they are free to use their bodies how they like. Egalitarians believe the latter.

Well, it's not just egalitarians that believe the latter though. It's the true feminists that believe the latter too.

True feminism is defined by what feminism actually is, not by people who claim to be supporting women's rights but then think stuff that has nothing to do with women's rights (like denying them the right to be a sex worker???? How is that pro women's rights? Denying a right is not pro rights. I mean fair enough if they wish to deny EVERYONE rights as a sex worker but to deny women a right and not men and to claim to be pro women's rights... doesn't make any sense at all).

Claiming to be a feminist but not being fully women's rights doesn't make you a feminist. Being anti-male rights doesn't make you a feminist. Being pro women's rights makes you a feminist. Denying women certain rights and claiming you're still fully pro women's rights doesn't make you truly a feminist just like claiming to be a Christian but not following Jesus Christ or the Bible won't make you a Christian.

I'm both an egalitarianism and an actual feminist. I don't see any point in not being a feminist when I'm an egalitarian. If I wasn't pro women's rights I wouldn't be pro-equality. I'm pro men's rights too but men don't need a group fighting for their rights because the very fact that feminism started in the first place is because men alright have more rights than women.