You know you're in for a treat when you see this headline! Not that I expect anything less ridiculous from the Daily Mail, but this one was just too good not to post about.
"Reporter" Neil Lyndon regurgitates all of our favorite misogynist standards, from feminism making women miserable to barely concealed rage against women who have the audacity to want equality.
Despite sexual and marital liberation, massively increased career opportunities and earning power, educational privileges and the wholesale demolition of the inhibiting conventions that restricted the lives of women in the past, today's women report themselves as feeling a low sense 'of life satisfaction and well-being'.Well, men might be entitled to retort, welcome to the real world, sweethearts.
What you are complaining about is the very same life that you promoted and celebrated when you were swanking around chanting 'sisters are doing it for themselves'.
But perhaps what's better than Lyndon's own tripe, is the oh-so-telling accompanying art and content alongside the article.
In the middle of the piece, here are a couple of the related stories:
Why are women so horrible to each other?Men told secret to a longer life is marrying a younger woman, but wives with toyboy husbands are MORE likely to die early
But my favorite is the picture of a man getting his head smashed in by a woman's high heel with this caption: "The selfish, conceited, man-despising yet predatory 'have-it-all' feminism of the Cosmopolitans was always a recipe for insupportable burdens for women."
The fear practically drips off the page; it's awesome. (I imagine Lyndon waking up every night in a cold sweat because of a reoccurring vagina dentata nightmare.) The thing is, pieces like this don't make me mad any more - they light a fire under my ass. Because they serve as yet another reminder of why the work feminists are doing is just so damn important. So thanks, "sweetheart," for the motivation; it's much appreciated.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The anti-feminist article to end all anti-feminist articles.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14247
Sounds like someone got shot down at the bar on Friday.
Can I tell him to man up? I know it's perpetuating the mythical link of masculinity to courage and stoicism, but this kind of self-pitying, projection-laden whining bothers me. He's foisting his personal failings on an amorphous "movement," using red herrings and strawmen (strawfeminists?) to detract from his real meaning, which is, "women frighten me and I must react in adolescent rage!"
"It has been obvious to me for some 25 years that social and political equality for women (which I wholeheartedly and unreservedly welcome) could not work unless men became equal as parents at home."
And this is feminism's failing, how?
It sounds like he's really pissed that men don't create a "man's movement."
It's a shame that that he has to be all "feminism has failed" and not "men! let's demand our right to stay home with the kids! we will be happier that way!"
Cuz you know, staying home with the kids isn't manly. [/sarcasm]
Well, they have a men's movement. Too bad it's all about protecting their privilege rather than focusing on real men's issues, like fatherhood and health risks and the culture of masculinity.
>>It sounds like he's really pissed that men don't create a "man's movement."
It's a shame that that he has to be all "feminism has failed" and not "men! let's demand our right to stay home with the kids! we will be happier that way!"
There is a men´s movement, and men are demanding that rights. Sadly what he says about discrimination against fathers is true as fathers in Britain are often denied access to their children.
And do not worry about the men´s movement, the momentum is increasing and it needs some time (just like feminism) to create a powerful movement.
And I have a feeling lauren does not know so much about the goals of a men´s movement, but hey no surprise to me.
Btw, some thoughts on that London paragraph:
>>We don't even count it as an intolerable injustice and inequality that men are still required to work five years longer than women before they become eligible for a state pension (it is entirely typical of feminists' capacity to pervert the truth that Germaine Greer once described that inequality as an advantage for men).
Oh, boo hoo, that bitter loser is just so angry that NO respectable woman would touch him with a 10 foot pole.
"It has been obvious to me for some 25 years that social and political equality for women (which I wholeheartedly and unreservedly welcome) could not work unless men became equal as parents at home."
Wow, that's amazing, Mr Lyndon - that's exactly what us feminists have known for ages too! Well done! Have a cookie! The difference between us and you though, Neil, is that we've been actively discussing and campaigning for equal parenting rights for a good while, whilst it would appear that all you've done in the last two decades is write a smug little book and try and sell as many copies as possible whilst whinging about those bloody women who are trying to keep you down. If it wasn't for anti-feminist loudmouths like you, Neil, we'd probably have garnered a lot more support for our various causes and may have gotten a lot closer to our goal than we are now.
Thanks.
*Ahem*
I have never heard, that feminists actually fight for father´s rights. But you made me curious, how has feminism helped fathers?
Feminists fight for equality which helps everyone. As feminists fight for women to not constantly be seen as default mothers and only skill being to raise children this helps fathers. It creates a situation where they can be seen as contributing equally. The child should always go to the best parent and my fightinig to make parenting just a "woman" skill it opens the door for case workers to evaluate based on parenting.
Also, by fighting for maternity/paternity leave and against pregnancy discrimination there is a net positive affect for a father or any partner in a two person relationship. It allows secruity in a family instead of putting an unneccesary financial burden. How does that NOT help fathers?
Feminism is a movement by women, for women. If feminism was a movement to achieve equality they are forgetting a whole lot of issues that are important to those who are men.
I am sorry but I see paternity leave especially in England as a much lesser problem as the current politics that surrounds everything that has to do with custody and especially discrimination of men in family courts.
It is a huge difference. Staying at home after birth is a nice think. Having the right to see your own kids should be a default human right that many fathers, especially in the UK, where even stay-at-home-dads loose custody, do not have. Much like other countries in the western world.
So when do feminists act on this injustice?
No one is saying men can't act on this injustice and why should it be a woman's job to fix these problems for me. Feminists strive for equality. IF that's yoru fight, you will hear no complaints from feminists. The problem is that many MRAs use the parternity rights arguement (which is valid) yet also support anti-woman movements and refer to them as "pro-male"
Maybe when Men's organizations help females we will be able to work together, instead think about your privilegte that demands that women's issues focus on a fight centered around men
I am not saying it is women´s job to act on this. I am just saying feminism, and this really confuses me, does little to empower fathers, which should be part of their agenda if they are for equal parenting rights.
I am saying there is a reason there is a mens and womens movement, countering the idea that somehow feminism is the answer to anti-male bias, which it is not.
I liked your comment but I also have some sympathy for feckless' point of view here.
My feeling is that father's parenting rights is a feminist issue. Feminism as a movement needs to support fathers in this endeavour, but individual feminists, of course, retain the right to pick the issues most important to them.
Within the feminist movement, it is usually the group most affected that takes the lead in trying to address an inequality. The rest of us provide a support structure. There are men within feminism, some people call them allies but an ally is just a feminist without an inequality directed specifically at them. Feminist allies are feminists because under the patriarchy men's rights in traditionally feminine spheres of influence are not properly acknowledged.
It is reasonable to expect feminist men to take the lead in championing father's issues. Then we would expect feminist women to play the role of allies.
My concern, and I think it is feckless' too, is that feminist women haven't embraced the role of ally. And it is probably for the reason you suggest: misogynistic men's movements. But for desperate fathers this presently appears their only choice for an advocate. Many men don't support everything these movements stand for but they do support striving for men's rights.
My father used to say to me that 'extremist views create an extremist opposition.' Men's movements are making feminists ambivalent to father's rights. We can't fall into that trap. Only by openly supporting fathers can we hope to impede the momentum of extremist men's movements.
Support father's rights, let men see that feminism is about equality for everyone and we advantage the feminist cause.
My concern, and I think it is feckless' too, is that feminist women haven't embraced the role of ally.
You should totally do a community posting on this.
Support father's rights, let men see that feminism is about equality for everyone and we advantage the feminist cause.
The sentiment is a nice one, but I think at this point supporting father's rights is a goal that should be independent of proving what feminism is about. It's like when white folks are allies to communities of color I would hope that they are doing so out of a sense of justice. If it changes perceptions, that's icing on the cake of course!
I have to disagree with you on that one. First of all the fathers rights movement is something that excisted since the 60s or 70s. Members of it have different political views and it is quite a versatile movement much like the mens movement. To paint everything that goes in the direction of mens right as extremist is quite the same as thinking feminism consist only of radical man-hating lesbians. Quite a cliche. Also that the liberation of women leads to a liberation of men was something that Steinem stated in 1970, so feminism liberating men is not a new idea. Interestingly if you find a feminist who is speaking for men like Wendy McElroy she will be asigned an anti-feminist.
Secondly, I believe the reason you will not see feminsm playing an active role in fathers- or mens right is because it contradicts with feminist theory. Compare the definition of sexism, discrimination because of gender, with the definition on Feminism101 and you will see there is no room for discrimination against men.
And last but not least, I really do not see pro-feminist men being the ones who would act on male issues. There seems to be a trend. I know quite a few MRAs that are former feminists (that quite feel betrayed by feminism "equality" approach and therefor "switch sides"). It seems to me pro-feminist men are more concernend with the definition (or destruction) of masculinity throught the feminist lense than to figt for fathers rights.
What, you think there's no such thing as a male feminist? I guess you've never heard of Jackson Katz, or Hugo Schwyzer, or Thomas Miller of the Yes Means Yes book and blog, or Ampersand, whose post here you really ought to read.
Or, for that matter, the less-well-known feminist husbands and boyfriends many of us have.
Exactly! I've met many male feminists firsthand, and I'm including my own boyfriend in that category.
To say that a feminist can only be female and thus focuses on improving women's rights at the cost of men's is patently untrue, and is a statement that only perpetuates the myth that to be feminist is to be anti-male. While there may be anti-male feminists in the world, that has more to do with individual personalities than it does with feminism as a whole.
Come on, don't pretend that male feminists aren't always treated with at least SOME degree of suspicion.
... by whom, exactly? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
The whole point of my comment was that it's dangerous to lump every single feminist into the same category. By definition feminism is a movement consisting of individuals, some of which may be anti-male. That doesn't mean every single feminist feels that way, and it doesn't mean that feminism as a whole endorses it.
Your comment seems to be implying that all male feminists are treated (at best) with suspicion and distrust by all female feminists. This would be lumping every feminist into the same category, which brings us back to my original comment.
Quite simply put, if someone believes feminism is the solution for fathers or men issues check the NOW page for their thoughts on men rights, or think about the way "H.R 2115 : Men and Families Healthcare Act of 2009" was handled by feministing.
(stop searching, both sites did not cover anything about those topics)
There are some feminists who care about men issues as well, just don´t expect them to be mainstream. A lot of the time those will be defaced as misogynysts as well.
"By definition feminism is a movement consisting of individuals, some of which may be anti-male."
Please explain to me how you can be a feminist 'by definition' and be anti-male when the definition is (According to the OED as cited on finallyfeminism101):
"The advocacy of women`s rights on the grounds of sexual equality."
Equality! Feminism is an equality movement.
I can not see how you could be anti-one gender and simultaneosly demand equality for both - it's paradoxical! To do so would mean you were against both/all genders and then you wouldn't be an advocate for anybody!
Again the phrase is something I picked up on the feminism101 blog let me cite:
>>However, there are also men and women who are ideologically uncomfortable with men calling themselves feminists, because it seems to be a co-option of movements built by and for women. These groups express a preference for the terms pro-feminist or feminist allies when speaking of men who support and advocate feminism.
I am not aware of all feminist male bloggers but I am aware of Hugo and ampersand and from my mind don´t they call themselves pro-feminist men instead of feminists?
Anyhow as a daily reader of feministing, as someone who is informed about the feminists in my country (Germany) and as someone who knows the agenda by NOW the biggest feminist organisation in the world I think I have a pretty acurate view on what feminism is all about, thinking about the recent conversations here about the role male feminists have and especially thinking about the attitude ampersands Barry Deutsch had to endure by radical feminist for talking about his feminism on the radio. Strange world.
When women are viewed as the legal and social equivalent of men, treatment is more even-handed. The bad experiences of fathers in the family and divorce courts, for example, stem from the patriarchal idea that raising children is a woman's job, or that women always require spousal maintenance because women can't be wage earners. MRA nuts don't realize they often struggle against their allies because their misogyny blinds them.
I do not see women trying to tear down this privilege the patriarchy grants them.
When the gouvernment of Switzerland was talking about a law that gives fathers custody by default even to those that are not married. A law that not only punishes those who don´t pay child support, but those as well who keep their children away from their partner. A law that grants a father default rights a father nowhere in the world has, the first to complain were feminists from Switzerland. Isn´t that strange? Shouldn´t those be the ones helping to equalize fahters and mothers in the first place?
And you can not sincerly tell me that feminism is an ally to the plights of men as long as important issues of men simply get ignored. Quite the contrary, speaking of the "Duluth-Model" for example, I believe feminism has made it worse sometimes in being selective on what stereotype is worth fighting against and what not.
Feminism is about not giving mothers OR fathers custody of children "by default." If fathers were equally involved in time and effort in raising children (which would also mean giving up time at work and possible promotions in the same way mothers are expected to), then I don't think you'd hear a single feminist complaining about fathers getting custody more often.
I think when you hear assertions that mothers should have default custody, it's usually not coming from feminists, but women who support the patriarchy of our culture. Or you're hearing it from feminists in cases where mothers have done all of the sacrificing for their children, and should be recognized for that. It helps if you actually listen to the arguments to find out which one it is.
Feminists can't fight all fights all the time. We often pick those that are most salient in our lives (mine, for example, is fighting sexual assault). We then lend our voices in support of other feminists who are fighting other fights. You need to fight the fight most salient for you. If that's equality in parenting, I'll lend my support 100%. If you're just not advocating for equality for women and men (giving men the default as they have in so many other areas of life), then you get nothing from me. And from what I've seen of the MRA, they're not fighting for equality, they're fighting to maintain superiority. And they can go fuck themselves for that.
This is a great reply. First we begin with Feminism is your ally, we want fathers to be as empowered as women. Then we end up at, oh we don´t have time to act on this issue yet, but support us because someday it will benifit fathers, too.
BTW the wording I used might be wrong I was talking about joint custody, something very rarely applied in the US or to put it bluntly. If I am not married to the woman I have a child with in Germany, I am not legally entitled to have custody if she disagrees as if it was not my kid. To me it would be a good think to be recognized as equal parent as it would be my child but again it doesn´t surprise me that women do not want to change that.
Damn, I blame the alcohol but I missed pars of your posts. My personal opinion, or scenario for the future is equality of gender. I am concerned with the mens rights part of the coin of humanism though, but think about it, usually the extremists yell much louder than reasonably persons and are therefor heard more often (at least online). And do not try to make me believe there are no radical feminists out there...
In the example you give, having "default custody rights" based on gender, either gender, is an inequality, and I would expect feminists to mobilize against such. Custody rights should be granted on a case-by-case basis, where finances and time spent with the child, among other things, are ALL considered. Granting custody to women because childcare is traditionally woman's work is not equal rights. Granting custody to men because they typically make more money, or whatever reason was used, is not equal rights.
I strongly recommend that you pick up some feminism 101 books or something and learn what feminism really is about. Feminism isn't about promoting women above men, it's about giving women the same opportunities that men have always had as well as opening some doors to men that have always been in the feminine sphere. Patriarchy hurts women directly, but it hurts men too, and the goal of feminism is to break down the patriarchy into an egalitarian society.
Oh I missed your post. Sorry for not being clear about the laws in Switzerland. I was talking about joint custody as a default (extreme cases aside)
The link is here - http://blog.fathersforlife.org/2009/01/29/switzerland-plans-to-make-presumptive-joint-custody-the-law/
Anyhow as I said before reading feministing on a regular basis as well as knowing about NOW and the feminists in my country what else do I have to check out that feminist are forwarding mens rights as well (I really searched a long time on the NOW page). I am willing to learn, really!
A law that grants a father default rights a father nowhere in the world has, the first to complain were feminists from Switzerland. Isn´t that strange?
Actually no, considering that Switzerland is on the conservative/traditional spectrum of countries in W. Europe. They granted women the right to vote only in 1971, for example. Labor participation, and therefore economic participation, of women in Switzerland lags other countries of similar scale economies. Switzerland relies heavily on traditional divisions of labor and thus I would imagine that the feminist opposition (which I have to take your word for) to the ruling is in context of the fact that Swiss women do not have equal economic and social participation with respect to male peers.
Context is everything.
Yes, context is everything. We are talking about what feminism has done for men, correct? Given the context that feminism should be interested in empowering fathers it is kind of confusing to oppostie an empowerment of fathers when there is one. Especially when the points in question are not working against the points you brought up. Or is there a connection between fatherhood and economic equality?
Legally recognising more equal rights for fathers would be a positive thing no matter what the social circumstances for the local women are. Why you ask?
Well, because in doing so society is implying that father's are expected to take equal responsibility for the raising of children. That realisation in itself will produce greater social equality in related areas. Consider that if parenting is valued by everyone then facilities for child care, maternity/paternity leave, part-time work availability for parents, etc. are all likely to improve. A shared responsibility means a greater awareness of the issues which translates to policy change after some time.
If we consider a divorce, I'm not convinced that the roles each parent has had in raising the children prior to the divorce represent a fait accompli for deciding a division of custody later. We divide a couple's assets equally down the middle at time of divorce, so why not their responsibilities? Women had to learn parenting when they first started, men can do the same. Granted, social conditioning acts to make men less confident initially in this area, but it must be this social conditioning that we try to break down. Granting greater parenting rights to women by default perpetuates the idea that women should be by default the carers.
There is a potentially massive kick-on effect from fighting for father's rights. Think of a world where advertisers don't just target women for parenting products. Or a world where boys and girls are encouraged to play with dolls. Where not just the women's magazines do parenting columns. And with women/girls freed from the stereotype that these things are just for them, how much easier might it be to embrace other traditionally masculine things without the stigma of losing one's femininity?
I'm not really knowledgeable about the history of feminism, but what I do know suggests that the legal inequalities were the first barriers to be broken down - they were the first things fought for; social change is slower but it would be slower still without legal equality. There were plenty of men in the past, I'm sure, who argued that women shouldn't get the vote because the majority of them weren't interested in politics; they ignored the logic that greater rights go hand in hand with greater awareness and responsibility. Give fathers equal rights and they will be more aware of parenting issues and take greater responsibility for the children.
In the states, in my state, if a non-custodial parent pays a potion of back child support, she or he can be eligible for visitation rights. Therefore, a cease in visitation (or in many cases a sudden decision to visit their children) is punishment for non-payment (or for being awol). I am not sure how the system works over in the uk, but this standard seems reasonable to me. I am not sure if a judge in her or his right mind would look a parent who actually wants to have a role in her or his child's life in they eye and deny them without just cause. It is pragmatic not to give some default access to a child; I don't care if it is the biological father or whomever. If you're not concerned with women's rights: what of a child's rights?
I am very much concerned with childs rights. The fact is, if a mother decides a paying father should not be allowed to see his children (which is more often the case than in a genders reversed case) this is illegal, but noone is enforcing this (except Switzerland when the law is granted).
So we have "don´t pay child support" -> punishment but "don´t let him see his children" -> ...
You don't know how family courts work. Go to your local family court for a week.
Believe me, you should go there. I am in contact with a lot of fathers who are not allowed to see their children.
Ever heard of a woman who immolated herself in front of the family courts or a woman who acted in a crucification in the family courts?
There are men who have done this. Remember 2/3 of all male suicide victims are divorced men.
I am an attorney. I work every day with the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, family law attorneys, judges and case workers. I prosecute protective orders and domestic violence cases. Believe me, you don't know what you're talking about.
Very well. You might want to talk to disenfranchised fathers as well to broaden your horizont. And btw it can´t be a bad idea to get your facts straight:
- Think about the rate divorced men commit suicide vs the rate divorced women commit suicide
- Think about the rate fathers are granted custody
- Think about the rate women admit to interfere with the visiting rights and think about how the state does nothing to punish this
And now think about how you would feel, paying for your child you are not allowed to see in a society that highlights "deadbeat dads" as an issue on fathers day.
Then you might want to think about men like Derrick Miller who shot himself in the head on the steps of the courthouse in San Diego.
Handy link....here -> http://www.glennsacks.com/distraught_fathers_courthouse.htm
And there are estimations that as many as 40% of female suicides are directly related to violence at the hands of their intimate partners. You might also look at statistics dealing with murder-suicides of fathers and their children. I'm not discrediting your statistics, just saying that there are unexplored facets to every issue.
I have never come in contact with a sexual assault organization who claimed that male rape victims don't exist, or even that they are not common. On the contrary, they have all maintained that there are clear and distinct barriers which keep male victims from reporting, all of which should be challenged, in the same way that reporting barriers for women/girl victims should be challenged. Prevention relies on the idea that all people should be taught that it's wrong to force or coerce activity, whatever the context. And THAT is a truly feminist concept.
And now we are at what I called being selective in what stereotype is worth fighting, before.
The Duluth Model pretty much ignores
- male victims of DV
- mutual violence
- every other theory made about the resons of DV which there are far more than the one (Patriarchial violence) which is supported by feminism
Do you think that not recognizing a signifcant (depending on what you think "much more common means") amount of DV victims because of their sex is a good thing?
And speaking of "not taking into account" I assume you are talking about CTS-studies here (which are interestingly often used by feminists as well). Do you take into account what 30 years of CTS-studies have found out?
Oh I am answering you second post as well here, as there is some connection between those and to make it easier to answer those in one post.
It doesn´t surprise me that the suicide rate of abused persons is higher than those who were not abused, but I must admit I am always seeing estimates careful. I am interesting in reading the source though if you have a link at hand.
What you said about male-rape victims is something I would 100% agree with. What surprises me is that it contradicts with your opinion on male victims of DV imho. I see those have a hard time coming forward and the Duluth Model helps to reinforce the stereotype that women can only be victims while men can only be perpetrators, which doesn´t sound like the feminist ideals of helping victims of abuse no matter what kind of genitals they have.
I am not sure about organisations in the USA but sadly in my country (Germany) if you work with male rape victims (Zartbitter e.V.) or house male victims of DV (2 male DV shelters here) you won´t receive state funding.
Obviously the most common criticism of feminism is that it ignores all issues that are not in the interest of women. However, this claim is patently false. Precisely because of the fact that feminists are opposed to the rigid gender roles and stereotypes of patriarchy, they're working in the interest of men as well.
I'll admit that I'm not very knowledgeable on matters of child custody, so I don't feel competent enough to comment on it, but another example that illustrates how feminist work for the interest of equality, and therefore men, is the matter of male rape victims.
Society at large holds the false and regrettable view that men cannot be victims of rape (especially not in cases where the perpetrator is female). However, because feminists are in the business of actively denouncing the view that women are simply weak, submissive beings who are only capable of being victims, feminists, at a much greater rate than the rest of the population, recognize that men ARE victims of rape, and that male rape victims deserve just as much emotional and legal support as female victims. While feminism is a movement aimed towards gender equality and began in order to address the oppression of women, fighting for equal rights for men is a natural byproduct of that, and one that the feminist community (for the most part, and definitely on this site) embraces wholeheartedly.
*sigh*
Please just search the NOW page or feministing for male rape victims.
Think about how the Duluth Modell hardened the stereotype that men are perpetrators and women are always victims. Think about the story of Erin Pizzey, founder of the first women shelter in the Uk, Strauss a self proclaimed feminist and researcher of DV or Neil Lyndon himself talked about feminist reactions of their research, articles etc.
Those people critizise feminism because a different view on topics like DV or feminism led to death threads or libel by feminists. Heck in Germany an organisation which decides to take care of male rape victims as well does not receive funding by the state. I honestly find it hard to believe that feminism cares about male victims of DV or rape as well, but prove me wrong and show me how NOW or feministing put this issue forward. And with issue I am talking about male victims of DV and male rape victims by women.
"While I'm not sure what feminists you have spoken to, or what shrieking harpies have caused you such misery, I have to say I disagree with your opinions and statements. I am positively gleeful that I can have the career I want, and have the freedom to do with my body what i choose. Women before me fought hard for my freedoms and I am just as happy and proud to have them in my history as the bravest soldier. If I am in anyway UNHAPPY regarding my feminism, it is because in this world there are places where women are raped and murdered, denied jobs, have acid thrown on their face and are tortured just for being women. It is up to every human being, regardless of gender to stand up for the rights of our fellow men and women. Maybe when that actually happens.( And those rights are truly secure.) All Women will smile with genuine happiness."
(comment i left)
Is this guy friends with or related to Spencer Pratt?
Here is my favorite part to talk about how sexism doesn't exist anymore:
"Motivated by conscience and a desire for justice and equality, it was primarily men who revolutionised the position of women. I can see your jaw dropping at this peculiar idea, but if you don't believe it, ask yourself these questions: how many women MPs were sitting on the benches of the House Of Commons when, by a majority of two-to-one, Parliament passed the Bill in 1918 which extended the franchise to women? Answer: not one.
Who was responsible for the Abortion Act of 1967 and the Divorce Reform Act of 1969? Men. Who brought into law the Equal Opportunities Act and the Sex Discrimination Act? Men."
That isn't exactly reinforcing the idea that women have gotten everything they've ever wanted. I bet there are little girls out there who wanted to be politicians jsut like those little boys who voted. what an idiot.
I find this interesting as well. When men are the only ones who are politicians, of course they will get credit for "passing laws." Discrimination has kept women out of politics for a long time and we're still not anywhere near equally represented in many countries. These men were 'responsible' for these laws because they were privileged enough to be able to take part in politics. Many feminists, who know anything about history, know that women have not exactly been welcomed into politics with kindness and compassion...Writing this just proves to me that he is indeed an idiot, because he doesn't examine the history behind 'men passing all the laws'.
Yeah, I thought that point was particularly ridiculous.
It's like...prior to the Civil Rights Movement, obviously government was dominated by white males, and thus those WHITE male lawmakers were largely responsible for passing laws pertaining to the Civil Rights Movement. But just because those white people were responding to the call for equality, does not mean that racism simply doesn't exist anymore. And I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who truly believes that racism is now a non-issue because the Civil Rights Movement happened, and was aided by many white people.
this guy needs to understand that, as Mytrr said above - feminism is not only about promoting women's rights over men's, but rather, making everything equal. reverse sexism makes me just as angry when i see it as sexism against women, because any kind of sexism hurts us all and hurts our cause of fighting to be equal.
also, it really bothered me that he seems to think we have reached all of our goals and 'have everything we want.' i know i still face sexism nearly every day, and through sites like feministing, i see that it's not only me, or not only LGBT women, or not only southern women, that face it. we still have a long way to go.
Again, please show me, take NOW the biggest feminist organisation in the world or feministing itself as an example, where feminists have addressed male issues like discrimination in family courts or the fact that men in the UK have to work more years to receive a state pension.
It's bizarre to me how my discussions with MRAs always lead to them saying "But NOW - the premiere blah blah blah - does this!"
I think you guys seriously overestimate the role of NOW in today's feminism. I know you're very certain of yourselves, but feminism doesn't actually have a formal organizational body overseeing it. Saying that NOW does or doesn't care about something proves that...NOW does or doesn't care about something. It doesn't prove anything about feminists. Much as you'd like it to.
As to the whole "If you cared about gender equality you'd be fixing the military / divorce settlements / child custody / heart attacks / pension / women with-holding sex / intimate violence against men / whatever" argument - imagine that ideal human life is a level ten, while absolute human despair is zero. Now imagine that actual male life is a level seven. And imagine that actual female life is a level three-and-a-half. Those 3.5-ranked females are trying to claw their way up the ladder towards equality, panting with exhaustion, exhausted and flagging and grimacing in pain, and the male level 7s are gazing down at them, saying "Hey, what about us? Shouldn't you help us reach level 10? Why aren't you talking about the difficulties we're having getting there?"
Do you see why many feminists feel that "what about dudely issues" complaint is a bit problematic?
Now, if you're a card-holding MRA, I'm sure the major point of disagreement are those rankings - you might feel, hey, woman are at 7.5, men are at an 8 (or, more likely, you think women are way ahead of men because you've been duly armed with the typical MRA roster of the ten issues they've been able to scrape together - suicide, custody, life expectancy, "the boys crisis", divorce, the draft, Women's Studies, various health issues, pension in some countries, Homer Simpson, etc) - but you're not gonna convince feminists of that, so perhaps it's a lost cause for you. To you, feminists not donating their time, effort, and space to the concerns of people who have substantially more access to power, resources, space, voice, etc is hypocrisy. To feminists, it would be bad math.
In other words, your whole argument that feminists don't care about equality because they don't devote enough attention to male issues hinges on the idea that there isn't a massive power and privilege discrepancy between men and women, and we'll never get to a point about agreement about that.
It certainly doesn't help that the roster of "what about teh menz" issues are also focused predominantly on white, Western, middle-to-upper-class, heterosexual, cisgendered dudes.
Lastly, is there something dire preventing you from writing a community post about, say, male suicide? Misconceptions of fathers as lesser parents? The struggles of some men to express emotion or companionship?
Hahaha. Very well, very well. When I read your answer I am not sure if you actually read my post so let us recap. I disagree with that:
>>feminism is not only about promoting women's rights over men's, but rather, making everything equal. reverse sexism makes me just as angry when i see it as sexism against women, because any kind of sexism hurts us all and hurts our cause of fighting to be equal.>>
Because that is something I can not see feminism is doing. I am not saying (predominandly white middle to upperclass cisgendered heterosexual ;-P ) women should not have a movement concerned with women´s rights, I am saying you shouldn´t say you are about fighting inequalities men face as well.
You ask why I am not starting a community post about mens topics. I can tell you, it is because feministing as any other feminist site is not the right place for such topics or as the feminists at the feminism101 blog put it:
>>No one is saying that discussions on men and masculinities shouldn’t go on. It is absolutely important to have dialogue on men’s issues, including discussions on violence done towards men. The thing is, a feminist space — unless the topic is specifically men’s issues — is not the place to have that discussion and neither are spaces (feminist or otherwise) in which the topic is specifically focused on women’s issues.>>
On your despair-o-meter, I reject the notion that you can judge about the life of different human beings simply via sex. For example I doubt an upper class white college girl is actually closer to despair than an one legged male war veteran living on the streets.
you shouldn´t say you are about fighting inequalities men face as well.
I think it's fine for some feminists to say that their work in breaking down gender roles is likely to fight inequalities men face. I don't think many feminists claim, however, to hold male struggles in equal focus. I don't think feminists are as deceptive about their interest in male issues as you seem to think they are.
I reject the notion that you can judge about the life of different human beings simply via sex.
My measure isn't a real one. I'm using it analogously to demonstrate the discrepancy between women and men overall. Obviously if I were to actually construct a measure it wouldn't be a ladder, but rather a kyriarchical matrix of oppressions. But it seemed a little early to trot that out.
Well, one can just look at the answers on this thread to reach a conclusion. My favorite answers are the one explaining that discrimination against men is in reality discrimination against women (men are not seen as worse nurturers but women are seen as better nurturers) and the ones that it is not women´s job to fix that. Oh the use of shaming language (against Lyndon) is also a highlight...
"I bet no woman ever touches this looser....hahahaha"
A kyriarchical matrix? Is that a real word. I guess you have profound information to be able to judge how dispaired certain groups of people are. If you are willing to share, I am willing to read. The double amount of despair women are having in your view must certainly come from somewhere.
First, I really don't understand his point. Is wanting to say that women should get back to the kitchen? Or perhaps he just want to say (mockingly) "Neener-neener-neener, you aren't as happy as you thought you would be. *sticks tongue out* " And this is journalism?
Second, his ending sounded like a lot of whining. "In survey after survey, men report that they resent the demands of work and that they wish they could have more time with their growing children. Yet the law continues to discriminate against fathers in the provision of time away from work to care for children."
So, it's feminism's fault that men dont fight for the laws that discriminate against them? Men are in the power position to get fair laws passed. WTF are they doing if this issue is so important to them?
Lastly, these are some interesting thoughts on choice and happiness . I don't necessarily agree with all of their interpretations, but I think they are the start of some good ideas and discussions.
I think he's just stating that what feminism has brought women hasn't necessarily made women happy.
I'll state right now that I'm one of those unhappy women. All I've ever wanted was to be a SAHM in my own home. Well I can't do that. To do that, hubby would have to be earning over $100K pa himself. In the Australian Public Service, that means Executive level. Hm.
hellotwin: How much of women not being in politics is simply a lack of interested women, though? I work in IT, and I see that all the time - women just aren't that interested in working on computers. And it's entirely possible that Australia's next PM could be one Julia Gillard, currently the Deputy PM.
"I think he's just stating that what feminism has brought women hasn't necessarily made women happy.
I'll state right now that I'm one of those unhappy women. All I've ever wanted was to be a SAHM in my own home. Well I can't do that. To do that, hubby would have to be earning over $100K pa himself. In the Australian Public Service, that means Executive level. Hm."
So what?
You're not entitled to that kind of lifestyle.
Your quarry lies with capitalism, or you know, life in general.
Because, gee, it sure sucks to have to put some effort into keeping yourself alive.
"I imagine Lyndon waking up every night in a cold sweat because of a reoccurring vagina dentata nightmare."
I laughed so hard at this, I cried.
"The thing is, pieces like this don't make me mad any more - they light a fire under my ass."
I generally feel the same way -- but there are still those days when, for whatever reason, I'm already feeling like things are so wrong and so utterly insurmountable...those days when words like his can still have the power to break me down a bit, before I muster the sense to snap out of it.
Thats no laughing matter. Manyplaces it is the mainstreamview of feminists. Time for a poll. How many of you admit to being a feminist, if they want a 2nd date that is ?
I hear ya! Although most people know that I'm a feminist, it's still not easy for me to talk to non-feminists about my beliefs, even though they have no trouble talking about theirs. It's almost like feminism by default is scary, wrong, and unpopular (at least the term is) and therefore you have to prove something before they take you seriously. But I am growing, and I believe in what Jessica says in her book, "Full Frontal Feminism", that if a guy's not okay with you being a feminist up front, why bother?
I mean seriously, my life is too short to waste it on guys with this kind of attitude. But I do wonder, how much is it our responsibility to educate the men in our lives? I wonder if sometimes it's not akin to smacking your head against a brick wall after a while.
Well we will just have to go for the nerdy guys and leave the jocks for the other women.
It's the Daily Mail, what's new? I'm not even from the UK and I've learned that outright, unapologetic misogyny (along with racism and classism) is the par for the course in the Daily Fail.
The things I find most disturbing in this article are these;
1)It doesn't point out the same trend of women being less and less happy over the last several decades is also true of MEN. Of course, even had he brought it up, the author would have just made it into a whine-fest about how hard life is on men, rather than drawing any meaningful conclusion about how people, as a society, are generally less happy largely as the result of being over-worked and over-stressed, and women are hardly immune to this larger trend.
2) He points out and comes so close to seeing the point here:
"the intolerable consequences that were bound to result for women if they were expected both to contribute substantial earnings to family life and, at the same time, be solely or even chiefly responsible for child-care."
..and yet doesn't even seem to *entertain* the possibility that maybe men should be devoting more time to their children, but instead merely insists that this is all the fault of those damn women wanting to work.
This one in particular has always bothered me. I've always thought it would be really great to live in a society where 40 hours a week of work could support a family, whether it was 40 hours by a man, 40 by a woman, 20 each by 2 adult partners of any sex or gender - whatever. That used to be enough (at least, according to popular and possibly inaccurate ideas about history) and we are now more productive than ever before - why isn't it enough anymore? Bleh.
Oh, I thought of a third thing.
3) "they could do us all a big favour by stating, unequivocally, what they have decided it is they want"
Hmm... why don't women just do this? Could it possibly be because like men we are all individuals, with our OWN wants and needs and don't plan our lives as one giant 3-billion person block? Could it be that different women want different things out of life? Could it be that we have our own ideas about life, politics, feminism and gender roles as individuals and can't really be treated as one giant single entity? Nah. That can't be it. Must just be wishy-washy.
I actually agree with the main point of the article. Not all the arguments & details, but I definitely think that feminism hurt women more than helped.
Womanist Musings says it perfectly, like always:
http://www.womanist-musings.com/2009/06/dont-call-me-liberated.html
Why are you here, again?
Anyway, that was an article written by a guest writer.
The article was rightfully called out for the deluded, entitled, essentialist crap that it was in the comments section.
The guy who wrote the linked article said "You would never think it if you listened to feminists, but the truth is that every one of those benefits has been advanced and secured for women by men"
Yea, right.
When I was harassed and discriminated against at my workplace no man stepped forward to help me, including anybody in the union. (No woman either, for that matter) The men in my union couldn't have cared less that I was being discriminated against. I wound up fighting for myself at the Human Rights Tribunal (which I mostly won against my employer) and now onto the BC Supreme Court soon. Even our Collective Agreement, written by men, discriminates against women.
Fighting gender discrimination is a lonely battle that women usually engage in by themselves.
Unfortunately, most women usually accept the status quo, fearing 'rocking the boat', even though it's the women themselves who are screwed in the end.
And some men think we women now have it made, whatever that means, but those men don't live our reality. Fighting for equality in this patriarchal world is a never-ending battle.
The guy who wrote the article doesn't have a clue.
J. J. v. SD43 & CUPE 561
http://forums.uncharted.ca/about1120.html
The Duluth Model has been repeatedly mentioned, so I had to reply.
While the Duluth Model has been criticized in recent years, it hasn't been disproved. There is a growing body of literature stating that you can't possibly treat domestic violence as you would mental illness or addiction because those models just don't work in this context. Battering is not an illness, nor an addiction. The reason those models came into play is because clinicians trained to diagnose started doing BIPs.
The studies that show that women instigate violence in relationships equally don't take into account the three most vital pieces of power and control motivated IPV: the context, the intent, and the effect. If you're talking about situational couple violence, then the results are more equal. (The "I'm mad so I'll throw this shoe" variety.) When you separate those instances from the ones who are in a context of threats, isolation, and control of everyday life activities, we are looking at a population where intervention inline with the Duluth Model works. (The "I'll throw this shoe to show you what I'm capable of" variety.) It is inherently an exploration of the need for power and control, rather than the cognitive-behavioral models we use for mental health. We're talking about domestic terrorism, which is much more commonly perpetrated by men toward women.
Sigh...no I commented on the wrong entry...let us continue from here on (if you choose to answer):
And now we are at what I called being selective in what stereotype is worth fighting, before.
The Duluth Model pretty much ignores
- male victims of DV
- mutual violence
- every other theory made about the resons of DV which there are far more than the one (Patriarchial violence) which is supported by feminism
Do you think that not recognizing a signifcant (depending on what you think "much more common means") amount of DV victims because of their sex is a good thing?
And speaking of "not taking into account" I assume you are talking about CTS-studies here (which are interestingly often used by feminists as well). Do you take into account what 30 years of CTS-studies have found out?
Oh I am answering you second post as well here, as there is some connection between those and to make it easier to answer those in one post.
It doesn´t surprise me that the suicide rate of abused persons is higher than those who were not abused, but I must admit I am always seeing estimates careful. I am interesting in reading the source though if you have a link at hand.
What you said about male-rape victims is something I would 100% agree with. What surprises me is that it contradicts with your opinion on male victims of DV imho. I see those have a hard time coming forward and the Duluth Model helps to reinforce the stereotype that women can only be victims while men can only be perpetrators, which doesn´t sound like the feminist ideals of helping victims of abuse no matter what kind of genitals they have.
I am not sure about organisations in the USA but sadly in my country (Germany) if you work with male rape victims (Zartbitter e.V.) or house male victims of DV (2 male DV shelters here) you won´t receive state funding.