The Warring States of NPF - The Battle Of The Sexes

The Warring States of NPF (http://www.nuklearforums.com/index.php)

- Dead threads (http://www.nuklearforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=91)

- - The Battle Of The Sexes (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=28451)

The Battle Of The Sexes

I've been reading a little about this recently - looking into equality via the works of Martin Luther King, Malcom X, Susan B. Anthony - and I became interested in the concept of equality in today's society - sue me, I found it interesting. This post has a chance of sparking a discussion, or coming off as horribly sexist, biased and will probably give me a bit of a headache. I'm hoping for the former.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Allen

Like most men, I'm confused by feminism. It also confuses many women, but that's someone else's book. For the longest time, I wasn't sure what the word actually meant. At first I thought it was the study of "what men do wrong." That is because many of the loudest early voices in feminism seemed to be man haters. They didn't like us. They said we'd screwed up everything. They thought that the planet would be better of without us. When they were feeling generous, they said that men were only good for one thing, and we weren't very good at that, either. I don't know why, but I took that personally.

Feminism has grown a lot since then. Most women don't think me should be exterminated. They'd be satisfied if we agreed to submit our brains to a good housecleaning - and if we hire an undocumented alien to do it, and we remember to pay her social security taxes.

I've always wanted to understand feminism, so I tackled a regimen of intense research into the subject. Eventually, I earned a Ph.D in Advanced Woman's Studies, by correspondence course. All it took was one of my days off after the TV season had wrapped, before I was on the road, wrote this book, and made a movie. I now realize that feminism describes an ideology with an ongoing agenda to support women's self image, to create equality in the workplace, and to provide more choice in all areas of life. In short, as former NOW chairwomen Patricia Ireland has said, "feminism is to promote the recognition of this simple fact: Women are people, too."

Unfortunately, there is no related expression or ethos - no opposite of feminism - to bind men together. Hmmm. Some would say that men don't need that sort of thing because we already own everything. We have the best jobs. We get to do whatever we want, whenever we want. We don't need philosophy for being on top. Men are pigs. Well, bullshit. I think a lot of men don't enjoy, take advantage of, or even recognize their alleged superiority.

Nonetheless, I thought men should have a credo, so I checked around. I read all the great social philosophers. I hung out in leather bars. I looked in the dictionary for a term that might describe us. The only word that came close was "philanthropist," which means "love or benevolence towards mankind in general." Of course, that definition has become obsolete since women joined mankind about thirty years ago, with the advent of feminism. Still, the definition includes the idea that a philanthropist is someone who makes an "effort to promote the happiness or social elevation of mankind, by making donations." This can get pretty confusing. A philanthropist is a lover of man, but a feminist isn't a lover of women. That's a "philanderer," which conveniently comes right before philanthropy in the dictionary. A philanderer is someone who makes love without serious intentions.

A good friend was helping me search dictionaries for answers, and finally he said "Clearly, you've discovered an epistemological void." I didn't even want to look up that word. I was afraid it might have something to do with men's bathrooms, or something I should see my doctor about.

Finally, after lots of deep, hard thinking in the only place a man can get a little piece of mind, I realized I had no choice but to coin my own term so that men didn't feel left out.

I call it "masculinism."

Feminism celebrates female traits. Masculinism celebrates male traits. They collide to create the volatility of life. The Sturm und Drang. The exquisite passions. The troublesome tensions. The family fights about who takes out the garbage and who drives the garbage truck.

The differences are so much more vast that bookstores are stocked with volumes lamenting the sorry state of inter sexual relations, because men and women just don't understand each other. Writer after writer has tried to explain this state of affairs, and the illicit affairs that result. Writer after writer churns out books knowing that the female market for self-help is seemingly bottomless.

I'm tired of waiting for the complete man woman dictionary. I guess I'll have to do that myself.

To some, the distinctions between the sexes - their attitudes, sexual styles, communication skills and personal hygine habits - are unsolvable conundrums, destining men and women to forever be at odds.

Sounds about right.

Masculinism and feminism embody those differences. We hate them, we love them, and we can't do much about them. So we might as well enjoy them.

After all, they're pretty darn entertaining.

I agree with this viewpoint - that people are people. Most men that I've known " do not take advantage of their alleged superiority," and that stating that men have all the power is a stereotype that is just not true in this day and age. I believe that women have all the rights and opportunities that men do - furthermore, that women have more power. Most men - well, me, anyway - listen to their mother or wife or girlfriend. That point is very opinionated. (>>)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susan B. Anthony

The true republic — men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less.

Arguably, this was a different generation - the 1800's, to be exact; and it was true that men had more rights than women; and while men claimed their rights, women earned theirs - battling sexism in every court. Early feminists, or "first wave" feminists battled for things like legal rights, and the ability to vote.

In the 60's, "second wave" feminism was born, which concentrated on the social sexist stereotypes, asking women to realize that they could become more than housewives.

However, reading this today (this sounds very silly when I read it) it sounds stereotypical. It generalizes that men the same way that a female comic generalizes all men leaving the toilet seat up. It's people that define a gender, and because men are stereotyped as being big and strong, yet not compassionate or too unfeeling, while women are portrayed as innocent and sweet is something that I find to be unfair.

As I said, that statement was made in another generation, and quite a lot has happened since then - but I find that men are continued to be stereotyped in that fashion while women are displayed in the opposite fashion, which I find unfair. It's the individual, not the gender that describes how a person acts.

I suppose this is more about stereotypes rather than gender bias.

I wish I had the time to fully reply to your post, but I have to leave for school in just a minute so I'll keep my initial reply brief.

I wholeheartedly agree that the dichotomy between stereotypes of men as emotion-restricted and strong, etc and stereotypes of women as frail and delicate and uncontrollably emotional are unfair. But that's why they're stereotypes.

Third wave feminism isn't just about promoting the ideology of women as equal, it is much more like a social justice movement.

I'll add more later.

The main problem I see with movements like this - Feminism, racial equality, etc. - Is that there are entirely too many people who are more than happy to go above and beyond the original ideas and... I guess you could say "make up for lost time". These select few destroy the nobility of the original idea and try to corrupt it to swing in their favor.

So you have some members of racial minorities calling foul anytime something doesn't go their way, and calling the offender racist, or in this case, some women (or I suppose a lot, given that women make up about half the world population, but then again I don't really have the experience to judge) who take any challenge to their whims as an attempt to crush gender equality.

It's a precarious balance, and a very difficult one to approach safely.

what people don't realize is that yes, men hold most of the high-pay jobs, but they also vastly outnumber women in the areas of extreme poverty and homelessness. to represent it as a graph, women have a bell curve, but men have a flat line.

First off, I'm pretty sure the term is Chauvinism.

Secondly, I'm an Equalitist (I coined the word, so it doesn't exist yet). I believe we should all be equal regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. With that in mind, I do believe in this day and age, women are better off. Hence, there is no need for feminism. People complain a lot about how women are treated unfairly. But tell me this. Who gets the kids in a divorce? On an equal stature, the mother does (and by that I mean if both parents are ruled fit for caring). I know, I would want my kids. So in essence, thats one thing women have up on the men. On the other hand, and employer is more likely to hire a male for more demanding positions, because they know that a woman may want to take maternity leave at some point in her life.

It sorta balances out, and these things are not going to change. Nor should they. Men and Women, while both human, are not the same. We are genetically designed to mix, but to not be the same. We cover each other's flaws in that respect. You have to understand, we were never meant to be the same. These anatomical differences are going to divide us forever. And there is nothing we can do about it, but the best we can do is find equality in the right areas, so neither gender is discriminated against. But we do live in a mostly equal society, and it all evens up in the end. We have no need of radical feminists who think men are nothing but failures, nor do we need chauvinists who assume women were made to serve men. I think both sides are quite destructive at this point in time in society, and its not worth encouraging them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GARUD

With that in mind, I do believe in this day and age, women are better off. Hence, there is no need for feminism.

Among other things, women are twice as likely to be subjected to spousal abuse. One in six women (or more depending on your views on under-reporting which I won't go into at this time) will be the victim of rape or attempted rape compared with one in thirty-three men (who are usually victimized, it should be noted, by other men). I would consider both of those by themselves to be sound arguments for the necessity of advocacy for women's rights.

Quote:

Who gets the kids in a divorce? On an equal stature, the mother does (and by that I mean if both parents are ruled fit for caring).

Re: divorce, this site notes that 95% of divorces are settled out of court (though they don't cite a source so I don't know the reliability of that) so whatever percentage of custodies are settled by courts are themselves already small as an overall fraction. Also this site (which does cite sources) states that men who initiate custody challenges are more likely to be acting out of a desire to threaten or punish their spouse than sincere concern for their children. It also claims that women are overwhelmingly likely to be the primary caregivers (which they do not cite though this does jibe with what I have read elsewhere) which would explain why they are more likely to be awarded custody even if both parents are equally fit to perform the actual job.

Quote:

Yes but is it legal? No. Point and case, thats a matter of protection, not rights. But lets say that rape is legal, for example. If Feminism were to counteract it, it would have the effect of a fat kid jumping onto a see-saw with another fat kid on the other side. It wouldn't balance out.
Women have the rights, it's just we need to actually have people to PROTECT those women. Besides, whats a feminist going to do to protect people from Rape? Just because there are laws, doesn't mean people wont go beyond them. That includes violating someone's rights. Our solution is not to bring in the feminists, but to eradicate the chauvinist mentality so these things don't happen.

Quote:

Well, isn't that biased against a male parent? I mean, this problem would be moot if there was no divorce, but sadly, there is. But men who have custody battles to spite their spouses aren't fit parents, and hence, why THEY don't get custody. It's the ones that are fit, that it discriminates against. We cant just make generalizations, and assume all male parents are trying to get back at their spouses. Many people have different reasons, and while surveys and statistics are well and good, they can't and wont get details from EVERYBODY. They never tell the whole story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

I don't see how this has as much to do with rights as they do with rights already in place being violated. Women already have the right to not be beaten or raped and those who do these things ought to be punished as the law states. We've moved well beyond the "she was asking for it" defense.

What those statistics do show, however, is certain violent behaviors are much more prone to occur in men than in women. It actually lines up with some things Garud was saying.

The reason which so many rapes occur is that rapists are far too infrequently punished for committing rape, in part due to the continued use of "she was asking for it" victim-blaming behavior among many factors.

Now women certainly might be said to have the right not to be raped in the same sense that we all as people theoretically posess natural rights to to e.g. the security of our persons and effects, but it is emphatically the case that our society and its constituted government do a poor job of honoring that right. Rape is actually committed by a relatively small percentage of men but this small group is able to victimize a disproportionately large number of women because systemic weaknesses in our social and legal response to this crime allow it's perpetrators to commit it repeatedly with little risk of being held to account.

Quote:

You seem to be conflating your definitions of "fit" between the legal determination thereof and what we as rational and decent people might consider the common-sense usage. Certainly in common parlance a person who initiates custody proceedings as a means of punishing his wife is not someone we would consider a fit parent but it is extremely unlikely that a court of law would be able to establish a father/husband's intent in doing so* short of that father outright stating in court that this was in fact his intent so a father acting from motivations we would consider as rendering him unfit to parent would nevertheless be found fit in the determination of the court.

Which is another example of how the weaknesses in our social and legal systems permit the continued entrenchment of sexism and why feminism subsequently continues to be necessary as a means of raising awareness of and finding ways to address said weaknesses.

Quote:

Besides, whats a feminist going to do to protect people from Rape? Just because there are laws, doesn't mean people wont go beyond them. That includes violating someone's rights. Our solution is not to bring in the feminists, but to eradicate the chauvinist mentality so these things don't happen.

And the aim of feminism is to eradicate the chauvinist mentaility so that these things don't happen, which is what feminists would do to protect people from rape.

*Additionally in my rather spotty acquaintance with the way our legal system functions it's entirely possible that a father could in fact admit in court to filing custody proceedings for precisely that reason and nevertheless have this excluded from the determination of his fitness due to this or that legal principle.

Quote:

It also claims that women are overwhelmingly likely to be the primary caregivers (which they do not cite though this does jibe with what I have read elsewhere) which would explain why they are more likely to be awarded custody even if both parents are equally fit to perform the actual job.

And this overwhelming likeliness is itself a function of traditional (patriarchal) gender roles. It is slowly changing, I think, and that has more than a little to do with feminism.

Also, stereotypes tend to cut both ways. The net result is that they're always unfair.