Understanding Feminism (Women: Your opinions)

Post Reply New Topic

that statement is simply nonsense. But fine, here's stats that take age into account as well.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/varstab.cfm

couldn't find any that were just age and gender, this includes race as well (though only black and white), and the conclusions drawn after reviewing it are that black people are more likely to be victimized than whites, even when controlling for age and gender. that people between the ages of 18 and 24 were more likely to be victimized than other age groups, even when controlling for race and gender. And that males are more likely to be victimized than females, even when controlling for age and race.



yes it does. I'd modify that statement to say that men make up the majority of both the highest and the lowest social strata.



Fine, here's statistics that cover the entire US. http://www.ussc.gov/Research/Research_Projects/Miscellaneous/15_Year_Study/chap4.pdf

Please don't ask me to find them for every country in the damn world.

This also includes race as a variable. And, having gone through it, conclusion is that racial or ethnic minorities receive harsher sentences than whites, but that gender is an even greater predictor of who will receive those harsher sentences than race.

Given that a member of either gender will, over the course of their life, belong to all age groups, why does this matter?

From the PDF:
>>but defended by others who see women as often playing more mitigated roles in their offenses<<

That is the major factor. The rate of female violence is gradually going up (proportionately with men). With that, more prisons for women are being constructed.

It matters because the gender differences decrease with age. In other words, controlling on age, there are few differences.

Here is my problem with the whole debate. Feminism has constructed or is constructing new social models for women's role in society. Complain about what men go through if you want, but it's not really useful to do so unless you're coming up with new ideas as well. Good and well to come up with a few critiques of feminism, but rather pointless in the grand scheme of things, if all that's on offer is the same old tired roles for men. The only reason feminism has been as succesful as it has is that it's more than just a critique. Criticism alone never really changes anything - you've got to have something on offer that addresses the problems.

There are many feminisms. Here is a list I put together a few years ago:

Brief Outlines of Liberation Movements

(Scroll down the page.)

Sure, but the two on that list that have made the most impact jump out as being the ones with the most plausible alternatives on offer, not merely critiques (namely, liberal feminism and third wave). The rest are mostly just critical positions or too narrow in scope to have much impact.

I like that list. I was originally deterred by Masculism because of the Merriam Webster definition about superiority. But after reading the info on your list, I looked it up on Wikipedia, and I liked Wikipedia's article about Masculism and it's relationship to Feminism. I like how they have two words Masculism and Masculinism--Masculism being pro-equality like I view Feminism, and Mascuilinism being the more anti-female version.

I was once invited to a "men's group" by my 80 year old friend (he likes to shake things up--even good things). I arrived to a group of men sitting around a bond-fire in the woods. There were probably at least 15 of them. They were put off by a woman being present, but they took the opportunity to explain how their group was a safe place to share feelings and go over issues they'd experienced as men (about their fathers, expectations etc.) Talking about men stuff in a safe environment.

It seemed pretty wholesome, thought I could tell I was intruding. I guess this is an example of a local part of the Masculism movement. These men weren't anti-women at all--in fact, they seemed to be trying to transcend their gender roles and bond and share feelings.

I like how you included Dianic Wicca as part of Feminism, but I do think that Feminist spirituality can reach beyond Dianic Wicca. Even typical Wicca, with the God and Goddess is kind of Moderate Feminist--with the focus on polarity or equality between the gendered deities. But I guess it can be a bit Masculinist too--especially since the male deity can embody characteristics that might not be typically masculine, or he might embody stereotypically masculine qualities that are often seen as dark, and yet show them in a positive light.

Edit: I think my spelling errors are funny this time. Masculinism and Bonfire--though Bond-fire seems appropriate for what I was describing.

I subscribe to a variation of socialist feminism (dual systems theory).

I had a brief email correspondence with the guy who started something called masculinism (a kind of masculism). However, he seems to have dropped off the radar.

According to Wikipedia, Masculinism is kind of an anti-feminism version of Masculism. I love Wikipedia, and it sure as heck beats the Merriam Webster dictionary, in terms of clarifying words...but it really does rely on public debate for veracity.

I've never heard of Masculism before today. I think it sounds pretty awesome, so long as it's not about male superiority.

I like how according to Wiki, there's a different term between Masculism and anti-feminism. It seems that many people are turned off by Feminism because of it's association with anti-male stuff.

This is an interesting exerpt from Wikipedia:
The morphological difference between mascul-ism and mascul-in-ism obviously involves the -in ending: if mascul-in-ism is understood as a defense of masculinity, its morphological counterpart would be femin-in-ism, a defense of femininity. If masculinists are therefore understood as protecting their right to be macho and antifeminist, femininists would then be those who want to protect women's right to use feminine wiles to sway men, complain impotently about men, and generally to enjoy all the traditional prerogatives of traditional women (have doors opened for them, etc.). Masculinism and femininism would thus both be atavistic survivals of the patriarchal war between the sexes.

Mascul-ism, then, would be seen as the morphological equivalent of femin-ism, and masculists and feminists would be seen as allies in the project of transforming the social psychology that sustains patriarchy, and liberating both men and women.[5]

The beginnings of any movement are rooted in informal discussions like this one, in which awareness of the issues at hand is raised. Like modern feminism which had its beginnings in discussions between between individual women about the discontent they felt at the roles that were forced on them by society. Those who were inspired by those informal talks organized, began protesting against the injustice they saw, others were inspired by what they saw and joined in, and it snowballed into the massive global movement it is today.

Well, the idea of supporting gender equality outside of the constructs of gender specific movements like feminism or the laughable men's rights movement is a relatively new one. It has not been widely accepted enough to be considered a movement in its own right. The idea is in its infancy, being spread through informal discussion, like feminism was at its beginnings. I, and others like me (and it is always very gratifying to encounter others to whom equality matters, but who are tired of the biased and oppositional approach of feminism and the more recent men's rights movement) are trying to raise awareness of the possibility that one can support gender-equality without making it about women's rights or men's rights, but simple human rights.

Don't assume that this is simple bitching with no purpose. I do not believe that I can change the minds of those I argue against (though I do hope I can demonstrate that I am not the enemy), but maybe, if I'm very lucky, those who are on the fence about it, those who desire true equality but also find fault with the two opposing movements, will realize that they do not have to associate themselves with either in order to promote their views.

But I don't see why the movements have to oppose each other at all.

And also, speaking of the beginning of feminism, I think it's really sad to forget individuals like Christine de Pizan. Maybe a movement was possible during the 19th Century, but that movement may have been incubating in thoughts for long before then.

Edit: Also, I don't think there's anything laughable about men's rights movements, so long as it addresses genuine issues for men, and it doesn't try to preserve or instigate male privileged.

nor do I. But they do. And I find it more efficient to abandon both than to try to reconcile their differences.

Edit: go spend some time on men's rights websites and message boards, you'll find that the majority of those who call themselves men's rights activists are deeply misogynistic. The average MRA seems to be about as anti-woman as the most extreme feminists are anti-man.

There are different versions of masculism. The more useful ones are those which encourage men to grow, change, work for human rights, and support women's rights.

Yes, I never agreed much with him. Here is the original website on the WayBack Machine:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010411002423/http://www.masculinism.com/