Meh, marginalized would be taking it too far I think, but the law can skew towards favoring one sex or the other depending on the situation. Most times that it seems particularly skewed in favor of women I chalk that up to a captain save-a-hoe mentality. Mostly guys writing the laws, but they pander to demographics and some things become sacred cows, especially come election time.

(September 24, 2014 at 2:16 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Meh, marginalized would be taking it too far I think, but the law can skew towards favoring one sex or the other depending on the situation. Most times that it seems particularly skewed in favor of women I chalk that up to a captain save-a-hoe mentality. Mostly guys writing the laws, but they pander to demographics and some things become sacred cows, especially come election time.

So, taking all into account, you think that women have the upper hand in western society?

One more thing though - it is not only about tweaking the laws to give this or that group more rights. It's about reducing the pressure to conform to certain harmful gender stereotypes which affect both men and women negatively.

Not at all.

Agreed. If we find the law reinforcing those stereotypes it doesn't matter which way the axe is swinging.

(September 24, 2014 at 2:08 pm)Alex K Wrote:

(September 24, 2014 at 1:27 pm)Godslayer Wrote: I mean, if you look at the feminist rhetoric, it is very obscene, just some of the misandrist things they'll say and present, like the #KillAllMen for example.[...] when it's now women who seem to have more rights in the western world.

*Snortle* Are you for real?

You don't get to define what feminism is. Sure, you can pick some strange positions (#KillAllMen, srsly?) and decide for yourself that that's your definition of feminism.
However, you kind of knock yourself out of the conversation with this one, because it's not a definiton that most feminists would accept.
I could just as well define that feminism is Hitler, and then prove that it's evil. That's not giving you any new insights.

Also, sure, women have all the rights in the western world, and the poor men are so marginalized, there are barely any left!

I am sorry but in truth the observation seems to agree mostly with godslayer, and he is saying that this is now feminists define feminism, and I have not seen a feminist that says otherwise. Also you are straw manning his argument with sarcasm, by saying that he said women have allthe rights. He did not say anything about men having non rights just that women have more and I would agree, after all we have no male birth control.

(September 24, 2014 at 4:41 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: I am sorry but in truth the observation seems to agree mostly with godslayer, and he is saying that this is now feminists define feminism, and I have not seen a feminist that says otherwise. Also you are straw manning his argument with sarcasm, by saying that he said women have allthe rights. He did not say anything about men having non rights just that women have more and I would agree, after all we have no male birth control.

I have to agree with Alex. To claim that women have more rights than men in our society is largely a crock. The only exception I can even think of is in child-custody cases in the event of a divorce. The male birth control issue is more of an R&D matter, not because powerful women are preventing it from happening. And the "well what about the Middle East" argument strikes me as a red herring. We have a way to go. That they have a much longer road ahead of them doesn't diminish our task.

(September 24, 2014 at 5:06 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(September 24, 2014 at 4:41 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: I am sorry but in truth the observation seems to agree mostly with godslayer, and he is saying that this is now feminists define feminism, and I have not seen a feminist that says otherwise. Also you are straw manning his argument with sarcasm, by saying that he said women have allthe rights. He did not say anything about men having non rights just that women have more and I would agree, after all we have no male birth control.

I have to agree with Alex. To claim that women have more rights than men in our society is largely a crock. The only exception I can even think of is in child-custody cases in the event of a divorce. The male birth control issue is more of an R&D matter, not because powerful women are preventing it from happening. And the "well what about the Middle East" argument strikes me as a red herring. We have a way to go. That they have a much longer road ahead of them doesn't diminish our task.

It is somewhat of a R&D issue, but tell me if men have more rights then men, what rights are there that men have and women don't?


Okay rereading maybe the aggressive tone is a little too much, but I am genuinely interested in how men supposedly have more rights, but perhaps I'm baised because I never was a woman. I am also curious as how to feminism in its current incarnation is equipped to solve these issues, particularly how feminists are better equipped to solve these issues then egalitarians.

(September 24, 2014 at 6:14 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: I am also curious as how to feminism in its current incarnation is equipped to solve these issues, particularly how feminists are better equipped to solve these issues then egalitarians.

For me, feminism (at least the feminism I was introduced to as a student) is simply on par, or a sub-set (whatever) of egalitarianism. Its goals are the same; equality for the sexes (although of course egalitarianism goes much further than that arguably making it preferable to matters not concerned with sexuality).

Egalitarianism is also, by definition, a more inclusive notion being that it is not a focus simply on sexuality. Often matters on sexuality are co-dependent on other issues that simply focusing on sex cannot solve. A multi-pronged approach to equality and equality of opportunity (which no doubt a lot of feminists also hold of course) for me supersedes. As an example, equality of pay. Whilst often it appears to be the case that women get paid on average less than men for the same job (no doubt a different debate altogether), equality of pay actually transcends sexuality into things like ethnicity, race and so on. It's actually a debate that both men and women need and should have as I can think of many examples where both have been affected by the in-equality of opportunity.

As an aside - If anyone is interested in reading an egalitarian critique of multiculturalism (aka, the book that made me an egalitarian), I heavily suggest this:

(September 25, 2014 at 5:24 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: For me, feminism (at least the feminism I was introduced to as a student) is simply on par, or a sub-set (whatever) of egalitarianism. Its goals are the same; equality for the sexes.

THIS!!! Outspoken activists who I know have all defined feminism in that way: 'a belief that sexual/gender equality is served by focussing on issues which affect women'. That doesn't separate feminists from egalitarian conversations, it simply means that they're coming at the issues from a specific perspective.

IMO, DeistPaladin hit the nail on the head: Tf00t's using sweeping generalisations and that puts him in the wrong, even when he's getting things right. I've posted my opinion on his channel, to voice my objections, so he needs to change his overall approach for me to give his views anything more than passing attention.

(September 25, 2014 at 5:47 am)Ben Davis Wrote: IMO, DeistPaladin hit the nail on the head: Tf00t's using sweeping generalisations and that puts him in the wrong, even when he's getting things right.

Citation needed.

(September 24, 2014 at 2:22 pm)Alex K Wrote: So, taking all into account, you think that women have the upper hand in western society?

One more thing though - it is not only about tweaking the laws to give this or that group more rights. It's about reducing the pressure to conform to certain harmful gender stereotypes which affect both men and women negatively.

I'm from the Netherlands. I don't how it is in other countries, but we have got:

- women with the same qualifications get preference when applying for a job
- they are fired less easily
- they get into social housing more easily
- pregnancy leave is three months for women, three days for men (there's good arguments for that, but the difference is disproportionally big)
- the laws enforcing equal pay are skewed toward a wished for ideal situation instead of economic reality*
- health care coverage is cheaper for women
- pensions are cheaper, paid for by guys

And then theres laws that aim to help the non feminists:
- people married to older people can get their state pension at 18. I kid you not. In reality this means a lot of money flows from men to women, as these pensions are paid for by taxes. We are losing this law now but there is a lot of opposition
- a stay at home mom used to get money for... Staying at home

This is just from the top of my head. And it's all law in some way. I'm a feminist myself to be clear, but all these laws (and we have similar laws that help immigrants) create a class that hears the words 'sorry, you are perfect for the job\house, but there is a woman with the same credentials so goodbye' a bit too often. This is not helping feminism I feel.

I also think laws should work towards equality, but an eye should be kept out for the less fortunate in the group that gets defined into having all the privilege. I.e. Less educated white men.