Maybe People Should Not Look Up To YouTube Atheist

[pineapplebunnybounce]

And how do react when men form there own groups to have these issues addressed? Some like yourself may be quite reasonable and fine with it. How ever many aren't. AndI think that is what Tj addresses in many of his video's.

Feminism isn't a women's group. Women are people too and feminism is the group that was formed to address these issues, and this group includes men and women alike. You seem to have a problem with the fact that they don't give men's issue equal time? (I don't really understand what you were trying to say about prostate cancer) But now you would like to form a group that's for men to discuss men's issue but how is this group not the same as the type of feminism you don't like?

[TaraJo]

Lemon - Huh? I took a woman's studies course and we had an entire section on men. Some of those issues were brought up, and not to mention if feminism is done properly such things against men would also equalize. Feminists often do not like if too much focus is put on men because it always has been put on men. That being said, feminists do talk about how issues have an effect on men - they generally do not like when you DERAIL topics about women with men's issues.

I always mention this too - the woman's studies department at my old college (and others as well) is changing to Gender and Sexuality Studies or something similar. Inclusivity was already a part of the class, but now it is in the title as well.

Most of the people in charge of universities are trying to reduce the hostility towards masculinity that's in feminism, I get that, but it's not going to happen overnight. As it stands, I've talked with other guys who have taken gender studies classes and felt nothing but hostility from the rest of the class, one guy going so far as to say he felt abused in the class. I remember dealing with some garbage like that on facebook when, someone posted a pic of a sign. The sign said "End violence against women" but someone marked out where it said "against women." It was done in such a way, though, that it was obviously intentionally done this way and not someone elses' sign that was vandalized. Suddenly, this became a huge, sexist issue with lots of self described feminists screaming how misogynisitc it was. I only convinced (most of) them that it wasn't when I pointed out that the the symbol under the writing was the transgender symbol and that it's suggesting ending violence against transgender people, including those who don't qualify as women. But it strikes me, why is it suddenly more acceptable to say "violence against women is bad" than it is to say "violence is bad"? Especially when violence against men has so much social acceptability:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks

[Lemonvariable72]

If that is true esquilax then why haven't we seen feminists redress inequality issues such as reproductive rights? Or the draft? How come they often go berserk (I'm referring to the U of T incident) when you do try to bring up issues against men like prostate cancer research?

I'm not familiar with any kind of inequality slanted against males with regards to reproductive rights, but in terms of the draft, I would have thought the first step there would be getting women as frontline soldiers, which is what's happening now. These things can't all come at once, especially since we haven't really had a draft to make that topic relevant.

Also? I don't really see any feminists saying prostate cancer research is a bad thing? Not really sure what you're referring to, there.

Do you have male birth control in Australia? If no then you and every other man out there is praying the condom doesn't break or paying for the next 18 years, regardless of if you wanted a abortion or not. On other hand if she wants a abortion and you want the baby, well too bad. Also what I was referring to with the prostate cancer is the u of t meeting again. That was the topic to be discussed.

[Psykhronic]

And how do react when men form there own groups to have these issues addressed? Some like yourself may be quite reasonable and fine with it. How ever many aren't. AndI think that is what Tj addresses in many of his video's.

The problem is - men's issues are already a part of feminism. I have no problem with a bunch of dudes getting together and talking about men issues - but to form a separate group away from everyone else seems counter-productive to equality.


I KNOW there are groups of feminists who do not like transmen, or transwomen, or whatever gender. But the feminist circles I explore are very accepting of, and they discuss, matters of gender that affect everyone. If men were to leave those circles and form their own group, a gender and all the perspectives of those who belong to such would be lost from the discussion.

[TaraJo]

Feminism isn't a women's group. Women are people too and feminism is the group that was formed to address these issues, and this group includes men and women alike. You seem to have a problem with the fact that they don't give men's issue equal time? (I don't really understand what you were trying to say about prostate cancer) But now you would like to form a group that's for men to discuss men's issue but how is this group not the same as the type of feminism you don't like?

I've seen men try to form groups where they discuss sexism from their perspective and they regularly get called misogynistis for it. If feminists aren't going to try to make their own group more welcoming to men (and they haven't) then they're going to have to accept that mens groups are going to form that are going to examine the issue from their perspective. If there's hostility towards trying to talk about mens issue within feminism and trying to form groups to talk about sexism from their perspective, then specifically anti-feminist mens groups are going to form (and, yes, it's happened already and the more hate they get, the stronger they get).

---

I think part of the problem is that the term "feminism" has become such an umbrella issue. Yes, there are people who claim feminism ecapsulates mens issues, and there are people who say it doesn't. There are people who claim that feminism is also about race and class inequalities and there are people who claim that feminism is just about gender equality. There are feminists who claim that feminism is welcoming to men and there are those who are specifically hostile towards men and masculinity. There are people who claim feminism is inclusive and accepting of transsexuals and there are feminists who are specifically hostile towards transsexuals. So, if you're asking us to make general statements about feminism as a whole, the group has become so diverse that it can be hard to do.

That being said, the louder, more abrasive types have certainly made themselves known online and it's rare to see other feminists stand up to them. Am I saying all feminists are loud and abrasive? No, but the reasonable ones are letting the loud ones get away with it.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Feminism isn't a women's group. Women are people too and feminism is the group that was formed to address these issues, and this group includes men and women alike. You seem to have a problem with the fact that they don't give men's issue equal time? (I don't really understand what you were trying to say about prostate cancer) But now you would like to form a group that's for men to discuss men's issue but how is this group not the same as the type of feminism you don't like?

I've seen men try to form groups where they discuss sexism from their perspective and they regularly get called misogynistis for it. If feminists aren't going to try to make their own group more welcoming to men (and they haven't) then they're going to have to accept that mens groups are going to form that are going to examine the issue from their perspective. If there's hostility towards trying to talk about mens issue within feminism and trying to form groups to talk about sexism from their perspective, then specifically anti-feminist mens groups are going to form (and, yes, it's happened already and the more hate they get, the stronger they get).

Again, you really could say the same thing about men's groups. Feminists are often called feminazis and manhaters like they have been many times in this thread. Grow a thicker skin I guess. There is already a lot of animosity between men's groups and feminism groups but I don't see how forming another group (antifeminists) and reacting to this animosity is going to help nor do I think any outside party can be responsible for what another party does, everyone can control how they react to things and thus must be responsible for their own actions. If men want to form their own group that's fine with me, but if they're going to be exclusive and only talk about men's issues, how are they not perpetuating what they first accuse feminism of? Why not form an inclusive group that instead of talking about men's rights, talks about rights and their relation to gender across the board? That would be a logical response considering the original criticism to feminism's exclusivity (which doesn't exist in all groups).

---

Yes I completely agree that feminism is so broad these days and calling yourself a feminists doesn't necessarily mean you're aware of what every feminist movement is doing or that you even condone it. I have this annoying facebook feed (I should get rid of it really) that spends almost 80% of its time talking about how barbies look like and how models look like. That's a feminist movement I find utterly ridiculous, and yet some have chosen to pursue it in the name of feminism.

[MindForgedManacle]

I'm always troubled by people who bring up stuff like this as some form of argument against feminism, because I and the other feminists I know (maybe I associate with a more level crowd, I dunno) would find your example to be a problematic issue that needs to be redressed, just as much as the voting thing.

The problem (for feminism) is that it IS a problem for feminism. It was an example of something in a time wherein women could take advantage of a case of female priviledge over their male counterparts that was not available the other way 'round.

I'm not saying the movement doesn't have its fair share- perhaps more so- of screamers and bad arguments, but that's not all feminism is about. "Proper" feminism, so to speak, is about equality; one could argue, as I'm doing now, that not having those duties assigned to them as much as men furthers the impression that women are incapable of shouldering them, a stereotype that works against feminism very much.

I agree, because I too would like equality for women and men. But unfortunately, even my phrasing there assumes a sort of history of female oppression and male freedom This is where a case like the Taliban-run Afganistan comes into play, where female priviledge (in certain parts of Islamic law) backfired on women making it unnecessary and detrimental for them to get an education and for the well-being of families there in general. And that's certainly not to say that women never got the shaft (this might be read as a misogynistic joke :{D), just that I think a lot of feminist writings (sometimes even in academia), are much too simplistic.

[Lemonvariable72]

And how do react when men form there own groups to have these issues addressed? Some like yourself may be quite reasonable and fine with it. How ever many aren't. AndI think that is what Tj addresses in many of his video's.

Feminism isn't a women's group. Women are people too and feminism is the group that was formed to address these issues, and this group includes men and women alike. You seem to have a problem with the fact that they don't give men's issue equal time? (I don't really understand what you were trying to say about prostate cancer) But now you would like to form a group that's for men to discuss men's issue but how is this group not the same as the type of feminism you don't like?

I never said I dislike feminism as a whole, or that I don't approve of women having groups to discuss and address women's issues, that's actually done a lot of good in the past. What irks me is first, when they say feminism is for equality for everyone, and then turn around call anyone that disagrees with them a mysgenistic pig that's a slave to the patriarchy.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Feminism isn't a women's group. Women are people too and feminism is the group that was formed to address these issues, and this group includes men and women alike. You seem to have a problem with the fact that they don't give men's issue equal time? (I don't really understand what you were trying to say about prostate cancer) But now you would like to form a group that's for men to discuss men's issue but how is this group not the same as the type of feminism you don't like?

I never said I dislike feminism as a whole, or that I don't approve of women having groups to discuss and address women's issues, that's actually done a lot of good in the past. What irks me is first, when they say feminism is for equality for everyone, and then turn around call anyone that disagrees with them a mysgenistic pig that's a slave to the patriarchy.

I'm sorry you're just making very general claims I cannot determine if those people who disagree are disagreeing because they really are misogynistic pigs or if they really have valid arguments. And I'm not sure when you say disagree you disagree with the fact that feminism is working towards equality or with the methods they employ. So I really don't know how to comment. But it's logically impossible to bring equality to only one group of people, by granting women rights that only men used to have, men and women are now more equal than they were in the past.

[TaraJo]

There is already a lot of animosity between men's groups and feminism

There shouldn't be, though, because when you get past the anger and hostility and blame, both sides tend to want the same thing. Which is what makes their hate for each other absurd.

but I don't see how forming another group (antifeminists) and reacting to this animosity is going to help

If men want a place to talk about issues of sexism from their perspective, and they want to be able to do it without having to worry about feminists coming in and telling them that they're misogynists or if they want other people who can relate with their experiences, these groups would be kinda perfectly suited for that. At least that's what I think.

own group that's fine with me, but if they're going to be exclusive and only talk about men's issues, how are they not perpetuating what they first accuse feminism of?

Because the group would be formed by men who feel like feminism doesn't give them the opportunity to talk about mens issues.

Why not form an inclusive group that instead of talking about men's rights, talks about rights and their relation to gender across the board? That would be a logical response considering the original criticism to feminism's exclusivity (which doesn't exist in all groups).

I've seen some groups try to do that, but they do seem to be on the rare side. I think the best example I can think of, if anyone wants to give the a look, is the good men project. Here's the link to their site.

---