Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them!

[Alpha]

Recently Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert cartoon, wrote a blog post in support of something called "men's rights". He made arguments (to be explained shortly) that establish that there are men-specific gender issues which are ignored, despite the high regard given to feminist advocacy. Adams was reported as saying that he considers himself a feminist -- as long as that means equal consideration of both genders, not one at the expense of attention to the other.

This is where things get complicated, but they are not what I am trying to get at in this thread, so I'll make them small and include them for the sake of accuracy.

In his blog post, Adams then said that men's rights advocates (MRAs) are "a bunch of pussies". He dismissed their grievances (without actually rationalising this response). He then went on to explain men's attitudes to women (generally not bothering to argue against feminist causes) by comparing women to the mentally disabled and children (who, apparently, cannot understand rational argument, so a man doesn't try). So he managed to both dismiss MRA and be some kind of anti-feminist (not a misogynist, as some feminist bloggers have accused him of being) all in one go.

He copped much flak for his comments, and withdrew the blog (though he explains that it was because he was misunderstood. Which he was. My newspaper told me that Adams was a men's rights advocate. Which he is not -- cf. the "pussies" comment. Among other hyperboles -- cf. the feminst bloggers calling him a misogynist.

I have found one sympathetic feminist blogger. Which was cool up until I read a line that said "As a woman, however...", and then decided to inform me that men's rights issues should not be on an equal footing with feminist causes, as it leads to "an absurd eye-for-an-eye mentality". Which is really, really infuriating. For one, it proves the point of MRA that feminist issues are held in higher regard than men-specific gender issues. Secondly, the simple idea that a woman should dictate how men are permitted to go about championing their own causes suggests that some 'feminists' simply haven't learnt the basic rationale for feminism itself.

Unfortunately, by suggesting that feminists cannot have opinions on male rights issues means that I, as a male, am dictating how females should go about championing their rights. This makes my brain hurt. Though I'll go on record and say that women are entitled to champion men's rights, just as men are allowed to champion women's rights; that is, I don't totally agree with the above. Never take my words at full face value.

That aside (I found it interesting, and didn't want to make any misleading statements about Scott Adams), the question I want to pose in this thread is whether or not the championing of feminism has marginalised masculism.

Sorry, what's that Google Chrome spell check? 'Masculism' is not a word? How about 'masculinism'? Huh, that doesn't do it either? Much as Google Chrome is refusing to acknowledge my vocabulary, the issue of men's rights have, in my opinion, been systematically denied.

What are some examples? Well, in my own three years at university, taking a broad range in papers in everything from Religious Studies to Statistics, Geology to Asian Studies, I have never had a class in which there are equal numbers of males and females. Rather, in every single one of my classes, there have always been more females than males. Indeed, it is the case across my entire nation, and, as far as I am aware, all Western nations, that women outnumber men by at least a 3:2 ratio (60% female, 40% male) --- indeed, in my own institution the disparity is greater than this (though there are of course sectoral variations, with science having more men than women, for instance).

What's more, my university, like many others, has a Women's Studies programme, but not a complementary Men's Studies one. There is a concern within the men's rights movement (MRM) that Women's Studies neglects gender equality, and instead teaches feminist ideology. Thus, we see feminists who argue that Men's Studies programmes are redundant, stating that academia throughout history has focussed on men by default. I do accept the validity of this argument up to a point, especially with the consideration that, throughout history, most academics have been men. The question then becomes whether or not it is possible for male academics to be gender neutral. I'd say they have been able to, as most courses throughout history have not even dealt with gender; how can men propagate a male ideology without considering gender at all?

Boys are more likely to drop out of school than are females. Boys have been shown to perform worse on 'end of year' examinations than females -- despite this, such examinations continue to be the primary method of the formal recording of educational achievement.

That's just in the area of education, which is, personally, the most visible and obvious case of men's issues being marginalised.

So what are some other issues. For one, Mensactivism.org argues that men are portrayed as more violent than women. It doesn't come flat out and say that men and women are equally likely to be victims of abuse (I maintain wholeheartedly that women are sadly and clearly more likely to be victims of domestic abuse), what it serves to highlight is that violence against men, by women, is never mentioned. Indeed, a man who mentions that he is harmed by a woman is likely to be considered weak, and shouldn't even bring it up. Likewise, violence by men against men isn't considered a gender issue at all, and receives no treatment as such, and no support to address it as such.

Indeed, violence against men is often considered humorous. This is where the image at the top of the page begins to make sense: Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia!.

"The T-shirt was designed by company founder Todd Goldman, who started David and Goliath in 1999 with "Boys are Smelly" T-shirts. It now features clothes with a variety of slogans, such as "Boys tell lies, poke them in the eyes!" or "The stupid factory, where boys are made". "Boys are stupid ..." has evolved into a successful object for merchandise, which includes all types of clothes, mugs, key chains, posters and other items."

What if the t-shirt read, "Blacks are stupid, throw rocks at them?"

"San Francisco Chronicle columnist Jane Ganahl ridiculed Sacks' efforts in an article saying, "Shut up and get a life, already". .... Ganahl argued that the T-shirts are perceived as harmless fun by children and that sexism against women is a far more widespread and substantial problem in United States' society."

I agree with Ganahl. Violence against women is a far more substantial problem. However she completely misses the point. The problem with this t-shirt is that it perpetuates the complete absence of consideration of men-specific gender issues. If women's issues are afforded so much attention, why are men's issues ignored? Why is it funny to throw rocks at boys?

What about parenting issues? In the area of abortion, men's input is marginalised. If a pregnant woman does or does not want an abortion, that is the end of the matter. And I do support this. However, is not a child equally the product of a man and a woman? Hypothetically, if a woman becomes pregnant, and the man wishes for the child to be delivered, and the woman does not, the man has no standing at all. Similarly, if a woman becomes pregnant, and wishes to carry the child to term, what the male thinks is irrelevant, as the child will be carried to term. The male who is not willing to be a parent is thrust into this role, and legally obliged to pay child support.

Social issues? What would you think of a woman who wishes to participate in areas associated with male social norms? Perhaps you would congratulate the powerful woman for doing as she wishes despite the stigma. And rightly so. But what of a male ballerina? A man who often cries and reveals emotions? Are they not often the victims of ridicule? (Here, I am utilising gender stereotypes, but not promoting them. Women are not emotional wrecks. However, is it not true that men are considered to be beyond emotion? A man crying is a considered a greater form of weakness than a female crying, yet I believe both genders have the same predisposition to emotion.)

Employment? It is plain as day that men are far more likely to be employed in physical labour, which suggests disproportionate exposure to noise, dust, hazardous chemicals, etc. According to Wikipedia, and it is perfectly logical in light of the above, men constitute 94% of workplace fatalities (USA, 1994 data).

---------------------------------------------------------------

None of the above is to suggest that women's issues are unimportant. Women have entirely legitimate grievances -- domestic violence, abortion rights, and pay equity are probably the most obvious.

My point is that the championing of women's issues, while completely meritorious, neglects complementary issues for males.

Harking back to Scott Adams, he muses (in the part of his blog post where he appeared to seriously consider the MRM), that men raising such issues may be considered 'whiny'. Do you consider this post 'whiny'? Do you think I am being a 'pussy', being 'weak', by voicing this opinion? If you do, I think you should reconsider. The very notion that men's rights do not deserve attention serves to illustrate the primary grievance of men's rights -- that they are ignored.

Women are not the only gender with valid rights issues that deserve to be placed on the social agenda. Women are not the only sex that have advantages to share.

Am I a feminist? Yes.
Am I a masculinist? Yes.

Masculism, in my opinion, complements feminism. Both movements -- in their 'pure' forms -- seek to correct gender discrimination. However they approach this, rightly, from the perspectives of the relevant gender. However when one movement is championed and the other ignored, we risk over-emphasis, and the creation of hostility.

[BDub2277]

Thumbs up for the post, super interesting read. I'll just drop a quick comment about your reference on universities. I'm in the same boat as you only x10 at my university we are looking at a full out 3:1 odds with 75% female and 25% male. I think that most debates focused on by feminists have nothing to do with anything below the workplace/salary level. It is obvious that up until graduation and "the real world" women and men are performing and succeeding at relatively the same level, whether it be in school, part time jobs, or other areas of life. Where the disparity is you touched on and I already mentioned, the workplace, where it is once again obvious that men come out to be the winners.

This is where it becomes touchy for someone like Scott Adams trying to make a statement that supports men's rights. No matter what he says, or how well he words it (in this case wording not so good) there is 'X" group out there that is going to rip him to shreds for being insensitive, sexist, etc, etc.

So I'd have to say yes feminism definitely dwarfs masculism. Although since according to most men already have the higher positions this is to be expected, and I support it being that way.

[Sinister]

There is a lifetime of possibilities for why this is happening. I can't say I feel victimized or persecuted... I have been treated equally and when I haven't I was easily able to shrug it off. I also have treated everyone equally. Are there really people who hold a misandrist attitude towards men? Naturally. Does that mean that there should be a masculism movement?

I wonder. For every reaction there is an opposite and equal reaction. This movement for masculism is relatively new to me. I may even go so far to point out that the TFF spellchecker regards "masculism" and "masculinism" as misspelled words, whereas feminism is correct.

*shrugs* Equality is more of a goal, isn't it?

-Sin

[Alpha]

Well, yeah, Sin. I'd be lying if I said I personally felt discriminated against in any way. I'm not oppressed, and I'm pretty sure I don't oppress anyone directly (though what I buy may do so... e.g. coffee, diamonds).

So perhaps this is whining? Though the concept of equal attention to gender issues is what I'm getting at. I read something in the newspaper not so long ago that celebrated female school achievement, and their higher attendance and performance at university than males.

The article was not at all concerned that fewer males achieve at school, or go on to higher education. The article was framed in a way that suggested 'good news for girls, so good news all round!'. Realistically, it's a situation that requires rectification for males, but the issue simply isn't recognised.

I can imagine the feminist uproar if the numbers of males in tertiary education outnumbered girls by the same extent as the reverse is actually true. But we hear nothing. I find that interesting, and concerning.

[SOLDIER #819]

This is in regards to Alpha's comments on things like violence against women or men and how one may or may not be prioritized over the other.

While I feel do that most people do push for gender equality, we continue to maintain ideas of how men and women normally act or even should act in spite of this. That is, even as the gap in academic level or economic standing continues to close and we're able to say that any individual person has an increasingly similar starting point, when we get down to the basic character traits that the "man" or "woman" should have, we don't think all that differently from a few decades back.

We're pretty progressive in my neck of the woods, but I don't think we're quite at the point where we simply judge people as people. We still reference norms and stereotypes that we've learned from our parents, media, etc. and compare them to individuals we encounter. So if a man cries often the general train of thought is more likely to be that he's "emotional, for a guy", or that he's "like a girl," rather than them simply saying that he's just an emotional person. As we become older the stereotypes become more complex and varied, but the result is about the same. Even if we strive for equality in some aspects, deep down most of the world probably isn't about to accept being completely equal. The opposite is probably more encouraged. There is still a push for men to be masculine and for women to be feminine despite that gender roles in more practical areas of life continue to blur.

[Heartless Angel]

I absolutely agree with you Alpha. Most men probably donn't care about alot of things that masculism would support, the ones that do are shut down, because society sees these complaints from a man as weakness. Feminism is not a blow against sexism, it's just turning it in the other direction. If you want to strike against sexism, what needs to be advocated is equality, not favoritism for one side or the other. Now men probably don't need as much to maintain that equality, since society has almost always been to some extent patriarchal, but that doesn't mean we can ignore the few things we do want or need.

[Sinister]

Interesting, are you saying that society has pressured and is pressuring men into overlooking obvious male-targeted sexism as status quo? I'm not suggesting the idea is ludicrous. Actually only perceived societal 'norms' would be very able to do that...pressuring an entire gender into becoming inured of some possibly offensive act. It's happened before.

But then, as my philosophy is, I'm not really concerned with most social problems. So, I suspect the cause and effect is different in my case.

-Sin

[Heartless Angel]

In fact I'd say male targetted sexism has been integrated and accepted as a norm for so long, that a majority of men don't even care about it anymore, and advocate it themselves. Alpha suggesting that this thread would sound like whining is a prime example. If a girl had made a thread talking about anti female slogan t shirts or something like that, we'd have the feminists here in full force supporting her, yet when a male makes a thread suggesting this possibility I'm forced to say, if I were to hear a guy complaining about shirts saying throw rocks at boys even my own natural reaction would be, "Wow dude, don't be a *****, it's a shirt, man up and deal with it". I'd be willing to bet most men have in some way accepted male targetted sexism as so normal and even acceptable, that we'd see the occasional person who would be hurt by this and complain about it as weak or whiny.

Social issues aren't my cup of tea either just so ya know lol.

[Sinister]

Then my question, similar to the "if a tree falls in the forest" chestnut, is if men have gotten to the point where they no longer care, isn't that sort of transcendental? Kind of a desirable state, really?

I mean, if we really don't care anymore and there are no repercussions... Then why agonize? It's more just marginalia. I think(imho) that men are more covetous of an equivalent to the feminism movement, then feel persecuted. I.e., they feel excluded more than persecuted.

-Sin

[Heartless Angel]

Oh I wouldn't say it is a huge problem since for the most part we aren't concerned, but on the rare occasion we are, we need to be heard out just as much as any female would demand to be in a similar situation. Our movement wouldn't want much, but when we want something, our requests have to be taken just as seriously as a feminist's in the interest of equality, which is really what started the feminist movement, as well as most other civil rights movements around the world.

[Unknown Entity]

Before I go on, I want to make it clear that I'm not a feminist or masculinist - I'm not even going to add the word to my dictionary. From my experiences, most of the "nice" feminists just end up objectifying themselves which I find hypocritical, and the hardcore, "I HATE MEN" ones are a right "cheerful" bunch. I just believe, quite simply, everyone deserves equal rights and opportunity regardless of gender, sexuality, religion, race, etc, and fighting for a side or two will never change that.

That made me sound very naive (again, probably), but I will always understand that everyone has different needs (funnily enough, we had a debate about this in the course I'm doing today).

I remember watching a video with a previously mentioned before feminist, and there's a part when a very skimpy waitress who worked in a biker bar flaunted herself at a bunch of bikers, and then got all upset when one pushed her on the snooker table against her will, and forced himself on her. While I'm completely against that sort of behaviour, wasn't she kind of asking for it? Sure, she didn't give consent for that, but she was certainly giving consent for something. Talk about being all bark and no bite... anyway. Why put yourself in a dangerous situation like that? I can't remember quite what I said, but it was along the lines of "Stupid girl pretty much brought that on herself," and this girl got furious with me, and while I understand somewhat why, she never let me explain myself or get my opinion across about it because she was too busy pausing the video and explaining feminists to me, and that I should think about being one.

One of my more closer friends, who's a feminist, ranted at me when I told them that I didn't vote last year. I got an earful of "The Suffragettes went through so much to get you the vote, and you're not even voting?!" I argued back that it's my right, as a human being, to choose whether I wish to vote or not, and that in my opinion, my vote isn't going to make a difference against the millions of other votes which will undoubtedly **** my life up anyway.

Pretty much why right there I dislike modern feminist movement. ANYWAY.

What are some examples? Well, in my own three years at university, taking a broad range in papers in everything from Religious Studies to Statistics, Geology to Asian Studies, I have never had a class in which there are equal numbers of males and females. Rather, in every single one of my classes, there have always been more females than males. Indeed, it is the case across my entire nation, and, as far as I am aware, all Western nations, that women outnumber men by at least a 3:2 ratio (60% female, 40% male) --- indeed, in my own institution the disparity is greater than this (though there are of course sectoral variations, with science having more men than women, for instance).

Females do better in single sex schools, according to a study a few years ago, and I think it was males do better in a mixed sex environment than in single sex-education (with women still being better). Women also outnumber men in the entire world. It's not like we can get males to produce more Y chromosomes to even the number. That probably has nothing to do with the ratio, but then I don't really think not having an equal amount of boys and girls in a class is anti/pro-anything. When I was at college, there was twenty-one people in my class when we started, and three of us were girls - and we three girls were there from start to finish with only guys dropping out. 7:1 ratio. That's incredibly outnumbered.

What's more, my university, like many others, has a Women's Studies programme, but not a complementary Men's Studies one. There is a concern within the men's rights movement (MRM) that Women's Studies neglects gender equality, and instead teaches feminist ideology. Thus, we see feminists who argue that Men's Studies programmes are redundant, stating that academia throughout history has focussed on men by default. I do accept the validity of this argument up to a point, especially with the consideration that, throughout history, most academics have been men. The question then becomes whether or not it is possible for male academics to be gender neutral. I'd say they have been able to, as most courses throughout history have not even dealt with gender; how can men propagate a male ideology without considering gender at all?

The guys had their football team at college, and there was nothing for girls to part-take in, despite the girl who got through into the council saying she'd have one put in place.

Equal opportunities doesn't mean treating everyone fairly, but meeting everyone's needs. If females do better at school than males, then maybe universities will invest more time and money in making sure that they have the utilities to study in, and the support they need to succeed. If more men want to play football than women, the university will invest time and money into a team. So why not invest time and money into a male study group, or a female's football team? If there's a call for it, it'll be done.

I can see right now that my examples are going to give me shit from a few people, but it's just how it seems to me - I'm not necessarily agreeing with it, but it's an idea.

In fact I'd say male targetted sexism has been integrated and accepted as a norm for so long, that a majority of men don't even care about it anymore, and advocate it themselves. Alpha suggesting that this thread would sound like whining is a prime example. If a girl had made a thread talking about anti female slogan t shirts or something like that, we'd have the feminists here in full force supporting her, yet when a male makes a thread suggesting this possibility I'm forced to say, if I were to hear a guy complaining about shirts saying throw rocks at boys even my own natural reaction would be, "Wow dude, don't be a *****, it's a shirt, man up and deal with it". I'd be willing to bet most men have in some way accepted male targetted sexism as so normal and even acceptable, that we'd see the occasional person who would be hurt by this and complain about it as weak or whiny.

Women just can't take a joke, amirite?

KFC getting women to hand out flyers or whatever wearing pants with "Chicken lickin' good!" or whatever the hell it was written across their ass, I can see why there'd be an uproar. Men wouldn't get asked to wear those bottoms. A top with "Does this top make my boobs look big?" written across the bosom is a tad on the objectifying side if you ask me, because it's just going to make people read it and "look at your boobs", but I see the humour - if women are going to think it's cool and buy it, then there's no call for an argument, really. Men could wear a top like that, and it'd still be funny. But "Chicken Linkin' Good!"? Nah, it'll never happen.

And the way I look at it, there's always some jackass to invent something that will upset someone because of their sex. I say ignore it. =/

[Heartless Angel]

Women just can't take a joke, amirite?

Though I generally avoid saying things like that myself, I have absolutely no problem agreeing with it when you say it for me =P.

And the way I look at it, there's always some jackass to invent something that will upset someone because of their sex. I say ignore it. =/

That's my stance as well, but I don't speak for everyone unfortunately.

[Alpha]

I just believe, quite simply, everyone deserves equal rights and opportunity regardless of gender, sexuality, religion, race, etc, and fighting for a side or two will never change that.

I believe that too, but the difference in our perspectives, as I see it, is that I want to make it explicit, or we won't ever see it become a reality.

I remember watching a video with a previously mentioned before feminist, and there's a part when a very skimpy waitress who worked in a biker bar flaunted herself at a bunch of bikers, and then got all upset when one pushed her on the snooker table against her will, and forced himself on her. While I'm completely against that sort of behaviour, wasn't she kind of asking for it? Sure, she didn't give consent for that, but she was certainly giving consent for something. Talk about being all bark and no bite... anyway. Why put yourself in a dangerous situation like that? I can't remember quite what I said, but it was along the lines of "Stupid girl pretty much brought that on herself," and this girl got furious with me, and while I understand somewhat why, she never let me explain myself or get my opinion across about it because she was too busy pausing the video and explaining feminists to me, and that I should think about being one.

I really don't want to make you feel as though you have to be a feminist, or that your perspective is 'wrong'. Please don't interpret anything that way, ever -- but I agree with this girl who got antsy at you. If this waitress was put in a situation beyond her consent then, by definition, she was not asking for it. It's like... say I'm walking around in a firing range, among the targets. Sure, it's pretty stupid, but the people holding guns should know better than to continue shooting. Where this analogy breaks down however, is that there are restrictions on walking among the targets of a firing range. There are no rules on how a woman or man chooses to dress. However I dress has no bearing on what someone may do to me against my will (consent).

One of my more closer friends, who's a feminist, ranted at me when I told them that I didn't vote last year. I got an earful of "The Suffragettes went through so much to get you the vote, and you're not even voting?!" I argued back that it's my right, as a human being, to choose whether I wish to vote or not, and that in my opinion, my vote isn't going to make a difference against the millions of other votes which will undoubtedly **** my life up anyway.

The right to vote is not an obligation to vote. Unless you live in Belgium. Then you have to.

Females do better in single sex schools, according to a study a few years ago, and I think it was males do better in a mixed sex environment than in single sex-education (with women still being better). Women also outnumber men in the entire world. It's not like we can get males to produce more Y chromosomes to even the number. That probably has nothing to do with the ratio, but then I don't really think not having an equal amount of boys and girls in a class is anti/pro-anything. When I was at college, there was twenty-one people in my class when we started, and three of us were girls - and we three girls were there from start to finish with only guys dropping out. 7:1 ratio. That's incredibly outnumbered.

That is outnumbered, but on the aggregate, women are outperforming and out-representing men in education. You appear to not consider this problematic. Well, is it problematic that men outnumber women in government in every single country in the entire world? Not to mention boardrooms. There isn't a single country with approximately the same number of men and women in public or private executive positions. I find this concerning -- what is it about men that makes them more suitable for positions of power? I say that there is nothing, and therefore there is no possible justification for this situation. It is inequitable, and I think it should be explicitly addressed.

Similarly, what is it about women that makes them more suitable for higher education (currently -- it has, of course, not always been the case)? Again, I say nothing, so we should address the situation by encouraging men's participation and achievement by whatever means. Why did we reach gender equity in education, then reverse the situation and then not even care that the situation was reversed?

...Sorry about picking your post apart like that. I don't like doing it, but it's easier when I'm feeling lazy.

[Rowan]

Feminists are a pest. How can you take a stand against an entire sex when its the individuals that are making the decisions. Do feminists think guys get together and discuss ways to belittle women in the world? They make me sick. 'Feminism' implies the action to make 'womens rights' known throughout the communites they dwell therein and beyond. What the hell rights are they talking about that have to do with MALES. Wage equities are and should ALWAYS be based upon skill level, thats the way it is. I have never known a women to be paid less because she is a women, by a man who says "you are going to be paid less because you are a women." Gender related issues are irrlevant in this world as long as there will always be the individiual. The individial is the person who is responsible for themselves, and does not represent a whole. The whole being the Male gender which feminists have fussed up a whine about.

Domestic Violence is a problem, as previously stated, males tend to be stronger than women. Now, domestic violence comes from an inability to control ones emotions, in particular, anger. When this anger becomes rage, the man can lash out on a wife or daughter. This is domestic violence. But in the other scenario, in which a women attacks the man or son, this is also domestic violence. So when feminists chant and rave about domestic violence, they dont acknowledge the female aggressors.


There are numerous videos of these so called 'womens rights' groups making fun of/disrupting Mens rights groups.
sauce:
YouTube - Feminists Disrupt a Forum About Battered Husbands 1

Which just goes to show the complete ignorance of these groups (notice how im talking about feminists and not females?)
the problem is that their cause is hypocritical. They want their so called 'rights' yet they dont realise that what they are fighting for, women already have. I concur, many of these feminists have been abused in some ways by a man. But the last thing they should have done is formed a group to blame MEN.

What pisses me off is the way they present themselves to other females. Like they are proud strong people fighting for some worthy cause and trying to address problems whilst they point fingers at the wrong people. In the end, it could possibly give them more rights than a man.

Women already have the say in numerous different areas. As stated in earlier posts, rights to abortions, entitlements to property which wasnt theirs from divorce etc. I most certainly hope that this whole issue of rights will be decimated from the face of the earth and hope that everyone realises that LAW applies to human beings as a whole. And that domestic violence, pay rates etc, applies to the individual, reguardless of gender. This is how it is, anyone who believes differently is clearly deluded and/or a feminist.

[Kyreaan]

This reminds me of the feminist movement of the 1970's. There was an author who wrote sex help books and novels and caused a bit of a stir by people who were offended by education. People who think like perverts and must assume other people are as sick minded as themselves are disgusting to me. That should have been considered fraud. Anyway, it sparked a revolution in a time when women were already burning bras and going 'Hoo-plaa' with their picket signs as their weapons. It's like in the movie PCU with the group of feminist college hippies. Many different movements and group of women strong for women came out of the wood work.

Some used media in order to place their voice into a format for slapping the man up side his head. One of the first groups that come to mind are the Guerrilla Girls. These artists are one of the groups I studied in college. They still have a web site up as you can see. These guys are off the wall and probably good drinking buddies.

Another issue that comes to mind is the world of fight sports. This is something I would very much like to start training for again before I get too old. I could also take a shot at stuntman if given the chance, but I digress. The issue that comes to mind is the market and money surrounding women's MMA. Women in fighting it turns out do not make as much money as do the men in MMA. This is a ruff comparison of around $15,000 for win in women's fighting to an amount of $150,000 for win in men's cage fights.

Things in life don't appear fair it seems. It's like being shot down for something that you can prove is wrong and unfactual, but because of poor leadership and politics they force someone to live a farse and lie. Someone's answer one would think would be the system that was supposed to give them freedom and equality in the first place, yet force you to fight for it. If something doesn't fit into their perfect little box of reality, they either label you insane or just a liar. Public corruption sucks.

[Hyzenthlay]

I agree with BDub, very interesting. I'd honestly never even heard of Musculinsim, or whatever. I found it pretty damn informative. Like the others that have posted I'll add my two-cents.

It seems to me that the problem behind a masculinism 'movement' is that, primarily, it is men opressing men. If, like you stated, a Male takes up ballet it is generally the male gender that sees it as strange and pokes fun at it. I'm not saying that it is solely men doing so but I'd say it's the larger of two chunks. I'd also like to say that from experiance with the people I tutor females more readily defend themselves against ridicule. I dont mean that girls fight back or anything it's just something I've observed. I'll give you an example:

I had a female student that wanted to learn a song she'd heard. It's quite an unusual song, to say the least. I taught it her and she used it as part of her research into modern pianists. Fair enough. The part that is relevant is that when her friends came they walked in and listened to her play. Again, fair enough. Then I heard the girl, in the corridors, talking to her friends about the song. They were saying how it was depressing. She replied with 'I don't care, it was the most relevant thing to play'. I liked this response. The girls then went on to discuss how, even though it was depressing, the music was really well played.

I'll give you my second example to show comparison.

I had a male student when I first started that picked a classical piece to play as his grade 5. Note that he picked it. This boy slaved away for weeks perfecting it at his home and then came to present it to me. His friends sat in on this and I could see he was nervous. He played beautifully for the first minute or so. His friends started to laugh and it went downhill. He played on their laughter and threw his head around with a smirk. He missed keys and it went appauling. He failed the exam and went away. When the boy came back he wished to play the same piece to try to pass again. This time without his friends. He stated that he was embarassed to play it in front of his friends because they thought classical music was for old or gay people. Confusing to me but I accepted it.

Maybe I'm wrong, though. Obviously I'm not saying all people are like this but I do find it interesting. I do know girls that joke about eachother and poke fun, too. I just find, from work, that males seem to hide parts of themselves sometimes. Like they have a need to act in a certain way so they avoid embarassment or ridicule. They also seem more ready to state that something another male does is 'gay' or whatever simply because it shows emotion. It seems like a vicious circle.

Anyways. I agree with what you said. I'm all for the rights of both sex'. Especially in regards to outright bullying and harassment. It can be hurtful to anybody and people should do their best to defend both genders.

Hyz.

[Heartless Angel]

Ironically, the problem here is the same as it was for those who began the feminist movement. The roles society has given us, and the role we'd choose aren't always compatible. Many men are perfectly happy to play that role, much as some women were perfectly happy playing the role of housewives with little to no say in anything. Some are not, but we feel pressured by societal norms to fill those roles, even at the cost of our happiness.

Your example is actually a wonderful illustration of this Hyz. The guy wanted to play classical music, most likely because he enjoyed it. If I were one of the friends sitting there watching him, I certainly wouldn't have thought classical music was gay, nor would I have assumed my friend was gay for playing it, however I'd be hessitant to clap for him, because the guy next to me might think I'm gay for liking his performace. It's likely several other people in the room are thinking these same thoughts. So when one guy fills the role he's been assigned by laughing at the kid breaking away from the norm, we quickly join in, fill the role and laugh with him, maybe so we don't appear to be abnormal as well, maybe just to show everybody else that we're filling our roles as we're expected to. See, I'M definitely not gay, I'm LAUGHING at the guy playing classical music, I totally don't like that stuff! I'm a man!

It generally is the men who opress men, because being the opressor is a part of the role society has given us. It's alot like slaves being given the duty of keeping the other slaves in line, and it is one vicious cycle, because some of us have grown so accustomed to that role, that we like it, and would never oppose it, we'd even defend it against those who would. We forged our own chains, and we've worn them for so long, we no longer realize their function, and blindly continue to forge them, and place them on others, because that is the duty of those who wear the chains.

Though I can see the chains, and I'm well aware of their function, unfortuantely I'm among those happy to wear them. I like filling my role in society. So do others. As long as this is the case, unfortunately it is unlikely that societal role of men will change, and it will continue to enforce itself. Interestngly, I can only really see the cycle being broken by those not bound to it, women. Actually that doesn't seem to be too far off from my own observations, most guys who play classical music, or do other things that aren't considered part of the man's role without giving a damn what other guys think about it, do so because they're with a girl who appreciates that kind of thing, and gives them the support they want, but don't get from male friends.

Ironic then, that one of the many duties of the role, is to act as though we enjoy playing it, so those capable of freeing us from the chains never realize we want to be freed. Funny little world, ain't it?

[nickness89]

Equality is far too confusing for it's own good. I'm very passionate about this subject, and the same situations can be seen outside of gender.

I'm gay, and have lots of gay friends as you would expect, and I am sick of seeing gay rights constantly banged on about. Yes, gay rights is important to us, but I am more interested in having equality for ALL people, regardless of sex, race, religion, orientation, anything. My gay friends, including some gay people talking about rights in the media, constantly bang on about gay rights this, gay rights that ... but then everyday I see them discriminate other minorities. This extremely pi**es the hell out of me.

I think this is pretty much the same scenario you are talking about ... that feminists are fighting for women's rights, even though lots of feminists in turn discriminate others.

I say, every equal rights campaign should be made in an attempt for EVERYONE to have equal rights, and if we can't do that without the minorities arguing, then obviously this world will never ever have such a thing as "equality" (which it probably never will ... the world will always have minorities that will be discriminated).

EDIT: Main point = Lead By Example!!

[AshNStuff]

Recently Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert cartoon, wrote a blog post in support of something called "men's rights". He made arguments (to be explained shortly) that establish that there are men-specific gender issues which are ignored, despite the high regard given to feminist advocacy. Adams was reported as saying that he considers himself a feminist -- as long as that means equal consideration of both genders, not one at the expense of attention to the other.

This is where things get complicated, but they are not what I am trying to get at in this thread, so I'll make them small and include them for the sake of accuracy.

In his blog post, Adams then said that men's rights advocates (MRAs) are "a bunch of pussies". He dismissed their grievances (without actually rationalising this response). He then went on to explain men's attitudes to women (generally not bothering to argue against feminist causes) by comparing women to the mentally disabled and children (who, apparently, cannot understand rational argument, so a man doesn't try). So he managed to both dismiss MRA and be some kind of anti-feminist (not a misogynist, as some feminist bloggers have accused him of being) all in one go.

He copped much flak for his comments, and withdrew the blog (though he explains that it was because he was misunderstood. Which he was. My newspaper told me that Adams was a men's rights advocate. Which he is not -- cf. the "pussies" comment. Among other hyperboles -- cf. the feminst bloggers calling him a misogynist.

I have found one sympathetic feminist blogger. Which was cool up until I read a line that said "As a woman, however...", and then decided to inform me that men's rights issues should not be on an equal footing with feminist causes, as it leads to "an absurd eye-for-an-eye mentality". Which is really, really infuriating. For one, it proves the point of MRA that feminist issues are held in higher regard than men-specific gender issues. Secondly, the simple idea that a woman should dictate how men are permitted to go about championing their own causes suggests that some 'feminists' simply haven't learnt the basic rationale for feminism itself.

Unfortunately, by suggesting that feminists cannot have opinions on male rights issues means that I, as a male, am dictating how females should go about championing their rights. This makes my brain hurt. Though I'll go on record and say that women are entitled to champion men's rights, just as men are allowed to champion women's rights; that is, I don't totally agree with the above. Never take my words at full face value.

That aside (I found it interesting, and didn't want to make any misleading statements about Scott Adams), the question I want to pose in this thread is whether or not the championing of feminism has marginalised masculism.

Sorry, what's that Google Chrome spell check? 'Masculism' is not a word? How about 'masculinism'? Huh, that doesn't do it either? Much as Google Chrome is refusing to acknowledge my vocabulary, the issue of men's rights have, in my opinion, been systematically denied.

What are some examples? Well, in my own three years at university, taking a broad range in papers in everything from Religious Studies to Statistics, Geology to Asian Studies, I have never had a class in which there are equal numbers of males and females. Rather, in every single one of my classes, there have always been more females than males. Indeed, it is the case across my entire nation, and, as far as I am aware, all Western nations, that women outnumber men by at least a 3:2 ratio (60% female, 40% male) --- indeed, in my own institution the disparity is greater than this (though there are of course sectoral variations, with science having more men than women, for instance).

What's more, my university, like many others, has a Women's Studies programme, but not a complementary Men's Studies one. There is a concern within the men's rights movement (MRM) that Women's Studies neglects gender equality, and instead teaches feminist ideology. Thus, we see feminists who argue that Men's Studies programmes are redundant, stating that academia throughout history has focussed on men by default. I do accept the validity of this argument up to a point, especially with the consideration that, throughout history, most academics have been men. The question then becomes whether or not it is possible for male academics to be gender neutral. I'd say they have been able to, as most courses throughout history have not even dealt with gender; how can men propagate a male ideology without considering gender at all?

Boys are more likely to drop out of school than are females. Boys have been shown to perform worse on 'end of year' examinations than females -- despite this, such examinations continue to be the primary method of the formal recording of educational achievement.

That's just in the area of education, which is, personally, the most visible and obvious case of men's issues being marginalised.

So what are some other issues. For one, Mensactivism.org argues that men are portrayed as more violent than women. It doesn't come flat out and say that men and women are equally likely to be victims of abuse (I maintain wholeheartedly that women are sadly and clearly more likely to be victims of domestic abuse), what it serves to highlight is that violence against men, by women, is never mentioned. Indeed, a man who mentions that he is harmed by a woman is likely to be considered weak, and shouldn't even bring it up. Likewise, violence by men against men isn't considered a gender issue at all, and receives no treatment as such, and no support to address it as such.

Indeed, violence against men is often considered humorous. This is where the image at the top of the page begins to make sense: Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia!.

"The T-shirt was designed by company founder Todd Goldman, who started David and Goliath in 1999 with "Boys are Smelly" T-shirts. It now features clothes with a variety of slogans, such as "Boys tell lies, poke them in the eyes!" or "The stupid factory, where boys are made". "Boys are stupid ..." has evolved into a successful object for merchandise, which includes all types of clothes, mugs, key chains, posters and other items."

What if the t-shirt read, "Blacks are stupid, throw rocks at them?"

"San Francisco Chronicle columnist Jane Ganahl ridiculed Sacks' efforts in an article saying, "Shut up and get a life, already". .... Ganahl argued that the T-shirts are perceived as harmless fun by children and that sexism against women is a far more widespread and substantial problem in United States' society."

I agree with Ganahl. Violence against women is a far more substantial problem. However she completely misses the point. The problem with this t-shirt is that it perpetuates the complete absence of consideration of men-specific gender issues. If women's issues are afforded so much attention, why are men's issues ignored? Why is it funny to throw rocks at boys?

What about parenting issues? In the area of abortion, men's input is marginalised. If a pregnant woman does or does not want an abortion, that is the end of the matter. And I do support this. However, is not a child equally the product of a man and a woman? Hypothetically, if a woman becomes pregnant, and the man wishes for the child to be delivered, and the woman does not, the man has no standing at all. Similarly, if a woman becomes pregnant, and wishes to carry the child to term, what the male thinks is irrelevant, as the child will be carried to term. The male who is not willing to be a parent is thrust into this role, and legally obliged to pay child support.

Social issues? What would you think of a woman who wishes to participate in areas associated with male social norms? Perhaps you would congratulate the powerful woman for doing as she wishes despite the stigma. And rightly so. But what of a male ballerina? A man who often cries and reveals emotions? Are they not often the victims of ridicule? (Here, I am utilising gender stereotypes, but not promoting them. Women are not emotional wrecks. However, is it not true that men are considered to be beyond emotion? A man crying is a considered a greater form of weakness than a female crying, yet I believe both genders have the same predisposition to emotion.)

Employment? It is plain as day that men are far more likely to be employed in physical labour, which suggests disproportionate exposure to noise, dust, hazardous chemicals, etc. According to Wikipedia, and it is perfectly logical in light of the above, men constitute 94% of workplace fatalities (USA, 1994 data).

---------------------------------------------------------------

None of the above is to suggest that women's issues are unimportant. Women have entirely legitimate grievances -- domestic violence, abortion rights, and pay equity are probably the most obvious.

My point is that the championing of women's issues, while completely meritorious, neglects complementary issues for males.

Harking back to Scott Adams, he muses (in the part of his blog post where he appeared to seriously consider the MRM), that men raising such issues may be considered 'whiny'. Do you consider this post 'whiny'? Do you think I am being a 'pussy', being 'weak', by voicing this opinion? If you do, I think you should reconsider. The very notion that men's rights do not deserve attention serves to illustrate the primary grievance of men's rights -- that they are ignored.

Women are not the only gender with valid rights issues that deserve to be placed on the social agenda. Women are not the only sex that have advantages to share.

Am I a feminist? Yes.
Am I a masculinist? Yes.

Masculism, in my opinion, complements feminism. Both movements -- in their 'pure' forms -- seek to correct gender discrimination. However they approach this, rightly, from the perspectives of the relevant gender. However when one movement is championed and the other ignored, we risk over-emphasis, and the creation of hostility.

I have to say this: when a child is conceived, it is NOT equally a man and a woman's doing. The woman has to go through a 9 month term, give birth, go through all that horrible mess. All a man has to do is ejaculate. So, if a woman doesn't wanna go through all that (which I can understand why she wouldn't) then that should be her choice.

[che]

I have to say this: when a child is conceived, it is NOT equally a man and a woman's doing. The woman has to go through a 9 month term, give birth, go through all that horrible mess. All a man has to do is ejaculate. So, if a woman doesn't wanna go through all that (which I can understand why she wouldn't) then that should be her choice.

Yeah, and you know what males have to do? Get you ****ing cheesecake because your hormonal fat ass can't get off the couch to get it your ****ing self because you're having a baby. What a croc of shit, you aren't even showing 3 months into it. What else do we have to do because what I said was really sexist and you couldn't get past that fact you ask? We have to ****ing work, because you let guys run the country (United States) and those guys who are divorced or will be single until they die won't let women work if they choose to while they're pregnant. **** pregnant bitches. Oh wait, they've already been.

[Hyzenthlay]

I have to say this: when a child is conceived, it is NOT equally a man and a woman's doing. The woman has to go through a 9 month term, give birth, go through all that horrible mess. All a man has to do is ejaculate. So, if a woman doesn't wanna go through all that (which I can understand why she wouldn't) then that should be her choice.

And be forced to pay child support? I don't at all think that's fair. I believe yes the woman does have the right to keep the child. The man shouldn't have to fork out cash because of this, though. It's structured more on the fact that the man can't make that decision that Alpha is talking about. Even if he agrees his say is somewhat invalid. The woman will get her way whatever he says. Then, even if he says no and she says yes, he will have to pay child support. If the man says yes and the woman no then the child is going to be aborted. There isn't any way around that and there's no role in life where this is reversed. I think I more agree with the fact that men shouldn't have to pay for a child they didn't want. Fairness and morality step in at some point. A baby is a big commitment and its fate should be on the head of the person who decides to keep it (whether that be both parents or not). It don't see it as simply as some girls see it. Most people say things like 'well you shouldn't have gotten her pregnant then'. I'm sorry but f*ck that. She had the chance to opt out and didn't so on her head be it. Both parties had plently of opportunities to use contraceptives not just the male. You've made your bed is my favourite saying. Hmmm... I'm ranting.

You get my point.

Hyz.

[nickness89]

And be forced to pay child support? I don't at all think that's fair. I believe yes the woman does have the right to keep the child. The man shouldn't have to fork out cash because of this, though. It's structured more on the fact that the man can't make that decision that Alpha is talking about. Even if he agrees his say is somewhat invalid. The woman will get her way whatever he says. Then, even if he says no and she says yes, he will have to pay child support. If the man says yes and the woman no then the child is going to be aborted. There isn't any way around that and there's no role in life where this is reversed. I think I more agree with the fact that men shouldn't have to pay for a child they didn't want. Fairness and morality step in at some point. A baby is a big commitment and its fate should be on the head of the person who decides to keep it (whether that be both parents or not). It don't see it as simply as some girls see it. Most people say things like 'well you shouldn't have gotten her pregnant then'. I'm sorry but f*ck that. She had the chance to opt out and didn't so on her head be it. Both parties had plently of opportunities to use contraceptives not just the male. You've made your bed is my favourite saying. Hmmm... I'm ranting.

You get my point.

Hyz.

I completely agree with this, and not just because i'm a male. I agree more with giving a child up for adoption than abortion, but if the female insists then that is what matters I suppose.

[AshNStuff]

Yeah, and you know what males have to do? Get you ****ing cheesecake because your hormonal fat ass can't get off the couch to get it your ****ing self because you're having a baby. What a croc of shit, you aren't even showing 3 months into it. What else do we have to do because what I said was really sexist and you couldn't get past that fact you ask? We have to ****ing work, because you let guys run the country (United States) and those guys who are divorced or will be single until they die won't let women work if they choose to while they're pregnant. **** pregnant bitches. Oh wait, they've already been.

LOL! I don't know why you're getting so mad. You don't have to do shit, really. You can even choose to walk out if you want. And what's the consequence for that? nothing. You don't go to jail or anything. & Some girls have to work. You're assuming that all men have good enough jobs to support a pregnant woman? not true, sometimes a girl has no choice but to work when she's pregnant if she wants to get the proper care for her child, etc. & you are also assuming that pregnant girls 'can't move off the couch'. It's not like it makes them paralyzed. Some of the most hardworking people I've seen are pregnant women. So stfu and calm down, you just look like a *****.

MERGED POSTS LOL

And be forced to pay child support? I don't at all think that's fair. I believe yes the woman does have the right to keep the child. The man shouldn't have to fork out cash because of this, though. It's structured more on the fact that the man can't make that decision that Alpha is talking about. Even if he agrees his say is somewhat invalid. The woman will get her way whatever he says. Then, even if he says no and she says yes, he will have to pay child support. If the man says yes and the woman no then the child is going to be aborted. There isn't any way around that and there's no role in life where this is reversed. I think I more agree with the fact that men shouldn't have to pay for a child they didn't want. Fairness and morality step in at some point. A baby is a big commitment and its fate should be on the head of the person who decides to keep it (whether that be both parents or not). It don't see it as simply as some girls see it. Most people say things like 'well you shouldn't have gotten her pregnant then'. I'm sorry but f*ck that. She had the chance to opt out and didn't so on her head be it. Both parties had plently of opportunities to use contraceptives not just the male. You've made your bed is my favourite saying. Hmmm... I'm ranting.

You get my point.

Hyz.

That's not what I was getting at, he was saying that the work put in to having a child is equal between the parents, which I disagree with. Not all the time, but I know a woman has to go through so much so get that child out of her body. And many pregnant women nowadays even work while going through all this.

YO DAWG YOU SHOULD USE THE EDIT BUTTON

That's not what I was getting at, he was saying that the work put in to having a child is equal between the parents, which I disagree with. Not all the time, but I know a woman has to go through so much so get that child out of her body. And many pregnant women nowadays even work while going through all this.

So, in turn, I think if a woman wants an abortion and a man doesn't.. then tough. I guess he'll just have to go knock up another chick. Again, this is just my opinion (I wish people wouldn't get so uppity)

[Heartless Angel]

The one inescapable fact of the matter is, they're in that situation (almost always) because they chose to be, or at least chose not to take appropriate measures to prevent it. When you do stupid irresponsible shit, there are usually going to be unpleasant consequences. The kid's half the father's as well, so he should definitely get a say in the descision. Doesn't really matter who has to do more work to bring the baby into the world, if the woman didn't want to go through all that, she should've kept her damn legs closed. If a man wants the baby aborted because he isn't ready for the hassle of being a father, and the mother wants the baby carried to term, the father has no say in the matter. Why? He's the one who's going to be legally obligated to pay child support in spite of him not wanting to have to take responsibility for his mistakes. What the Hell makes the woman so damn special that she doesn't have to own up to the same mistake when the roles are reversed? Nothing.

[AshNStuff]

The one inescapable fact of the matter is, they're in that situation (almost always) because they chose to be, or at least chose not to take appropriate measures to prevent it. When you do stupid irresponsible shit, there are usually going to be unpleasant consequences. The kid's half the father's as well, so he should definitely get a say in the descision. Doesn't really matter who has to do more work to bring the baby into the world, if the woman didn't want to go through all that, she should've kept her damn legs closed. If a man wants the baby aborted because he isn't ready for the hassle of being a father, and the mother wants the baby carried to term, the father has no say in the matter. Why? He's the one who's going to be legally obligated to pay child support in spite of him not wanting to have to take responsibility for his mistakes. What the Hell makes the woman so damn special that she doesn't have to own up to the same mistake when the roles are reversed? Nothing.

That's true. I wish they would base it on the individual, but I know they couldn't do that. Maybe there would be a mother who didn't want the kid because the father is such a **** or maybe one or both of them are on drugs. I know that when I lost my virginity it was because some guy took advantage of the fact that I was drunk, which I consider rape.. but at the same time it I know it was partly my fault, I wasn't even old enough to drink. I just know that had I gotten pregnant, there's no way I would have kept that kid. And I wouldn't have taken what he said seriously whatsoever, because he was the one who had a conscious mind at the time but still chose to go at it. Plus, it would have been considered statuatory rape.. since I was 16 and he was 19. I hate him...

[che]

That's true. I wish they would base it on the individual, but I know they couldn't do that. Maybe there would be a mother who didn't want the kid because the father is such a **** or maybe one or both of them are on drugs. I know that when I lost my virginity it was because some guy took advantage of the fact that I was drunk, which I consider rape.. but at the same time it I know it was partly my fault, I wasn't even old enough to drink. I just know that had I gotten pregnant, there's no way I would have kept that kid. And I wouldn't have taken what he said seriously whatsoever, because he was the one who had a conscious mind at the time but still chose to go at it. Plus, it would have been considered statuatory rape.. since I was 16 and he was 19. I hate him...

Nice story about rape. Good one. I hope you sleep better tonight after getting that off your shoulders. My apologies if you actually were raped, but I'm not buying it. If you actually thought you were raped you wouldn't casually talk about it like that, because it's a pretty serious issue. That's a topic for another thread, though.

So basically you think women have to hold 100% of the weight on their shoulders for abortion? I disagree. Yes, women carry a child in their bodies for 9ish months. That's the only part of pregnancy that is solely the woman's part. Even that isn't truly all about the woman. You seem to think men are irresponsible pigs who live off the fact that they don't have to carry a child in their womb, which is true in some cases, but you're kind of an asshole for assuming that it's 100% of all cases.

The responsibility of a pregnancy is equally both men and women's. The physical aspect is what causes the imbalance in the equality, but that doesn't rule the man out of being responsible.

ps: Heartless Angel, shut the **** up with the "she should have kept her legs closed" shit. Stop putting all the guilt on the woman for such an act. It's (usually) a mutual decision when people have sex. If you're going to say that, then when you get someone pregnant you didn't want to, I'm going to tell you that you should have kept your **** soft.

[RagnaToad]

The concepts people call feminism and masculism these days are equally ridiculous to me, if they only intend to improve rights for their respective gender. Making a distinction between equal rights for women, and equal rights for men is just downright absurd, in my opinion. If society should strive to treat both sexes equal, true feminism and masculism should exist in a way that they are essentially the same.

I do believe the feminist movement has served its purpose, but it is hypocritical (and foolish, really) to think that the only inequalities in society are damaging to women, and beneficial for men.

To answer Alpha's question: I do believe the feminism as we've seen it for decades, which was only concerned with improving women's rights, has made it difficult for people to consider gender equality as a whole, as something that affects both sexes.

[che]

The concepts people call feminism and masculism these days are equally ridiculous to me, if they only intend to improve rights for their respective gender. Making a distinction between equal rights for women, and equal rights for men is just downright absurd, in my opinion. If society should strive to treat both sexes equal, true feminism and masculism should exist in a way that they are essentially the same.

I do believe the feminist movement has served its purpose, but it is hypocritical (and foolish, really) to think that the only inequalities in society are damaging to women, and beneficial for men.

To answer Alpha's question: I do believe the feminism as we've seen it for decades, which was only concerned with improving women's rights, has made it difficult for people to consider gender equality as a whole, as something that affects both sexes.

Completely agree, well said. I'd like to see any sort of counter argument for this, because I don't think there is one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism

[Alpha]

That's not what I was getting at, he was saying that the work put in to having a child is equal between the parents, which I disagree with. Not all the time, but I know a woman has to go through so much so get that child out of her body. And many pregnant women nowadays even work while going through all this.

What? When did I say that? I like debating with people, but I hate when people attribute things to me that I DID NOT EVEN SAY and then use them against me. That shows no respect for my opinions, as you clearly did not read them.

Of course preganancy is more physically telling on a woman. And of course abortion is ultimately a woman's decision -- it is her body this person is being nurtured in.

My point is that while a woman has the ability (and arguably a right) to an abortion, a man has no ability or right to 'abort' his responsibilities to the child. (Unless you consider men running away and ignoring the woman and her child. Which happens, unfortunately, but I prefer to begin with the assumption that the vast majority of men and women are good people.)

On the contrary, a male is required to pay child support. He has no choice at all. If we're going to have abortions, they have to apply equally to both males and females.

That no such concept exists anywhere (to the best of my knowledge) actually demonstrates the crux of my argument. That male-specific gender issues have been ignored.

To answer Alpha's question: I do believe the feminism as we've seen it for decades, which was only concerned with improving women's rights, has made it difficult for people to consider gender equality as a whole, as something that affects both sexes.

ps: Heartless Angel, shut the **** up with the "she should have kept her legs closed" shit. Stop putting all the guilt on the woman for such an act. It's (usually) a mutual decision when people have sex. If you're going to say that, then when you get someone pregnant you didn't want to, I'm going to tell you that you should have kept your **** soft.

I agree.

And be forced to pay child support? I don't at all think that's fair. I believe yes the woman does have the right to keep the child. The man shouldn't have to fork out cash because of this, though. It's structured more on the fact that the man can't make that decision that Alpha is talking about. Even if he agrees his say is somewhat invalid. The woman will get her way whatever he says. Then, even if he says no and she says yes, he will have to pay child support. If the man says yes and the woman no then the child is going to be aborted. There isn't any way around that and there's no role in life where this is reversed. I think I more agree with the fact that men shouldn't have to pay for a child they didn't want. Fairness and morality step in at some point. A baby is a big commitment and its fate should be on the head of the person who decides to keep it (whether that be both parents or not). It don't see it as simply as some girls see it. Most people say things like 'well you shouldn't have gotten her pregnant then'. I'm sorry but f*ck that. She had the chance to opt out and didn't so on her head be it. Both parties had plently of opportunities to use contraceptives not just the male. You've made your bed is my favourite saying. Hmmm... I'm ranting.

Plus rep. This is exactly what I'm getting at.

[Heartless Angel]

ps: Heartless Angel, shut the **** up with the "she should have kept her legs closed" shit. Stop putting all the guilt on the woman for such an act. It's (usually) a mutual decision when people have sex. If you're going to say that, then when you get someone pregnant you didn't want to, I'm going to tell you that you should have kept your **** soft.

I see, you appear to be laboring under the delusion that my view isn't already exactly that. Or at least similar enough for the sake of the argument, obviously you can't control your boners, but you're fully capable of keeping it in your pants. When I do shit, I own up to it. If I knock up a chick, unless we managed to get a hold of some faulty contraceptives (in which case it was just a case of me gambling and losing which still makes it my responsibility), it's because I chose to. And in any case I'll take responsibility for my actions, because that's what a man does. I was responding to a statement that the woman was the only one with the right to decide because she had to go through the physical shit, which is something she can control entirely on her own by taking responsibility for her own actions, meaning if she ended up in that position when she didn't want to, it was in fact her mistake (excluding cases of rape, which I wasn't talking about at the time). In fact the very point I was making, is that a woman should have an equal repsonibility in stark contrast to your accusation that I was 'putting all the guilt on the woman', when in fact quite the oppositie was true. If a man makes the mistake, tough shit, he's legally obligated to pay the consequences whether he wanted to have a kid or not, meanwhile a woman who makes the same mistake is given the power over life and death to weasel out of it if she decides she doesn't feel like taking on the responsibilities of a parent. If you have a rebuttal to what I'm actually saying, I'd love to hear it, otherwise, kindly **** off.