ms spock
VIP Member
I was on the forum where the word "selfie" was born, and now I am on the forum for this bright new word. :woot:
-
We are a multilingual website again. Read the notice about this.
-
Understand AI use at MyPTSD: all AI use is explained in our AI help page. AI use is by choice here. It exists if you want it, but does nothing unless you choose to use it.
Meninist Movement
- Post starter Hydrotroop91
- Start date
- Status
I was on the forum where the word "selfie" was born, and now I am on the forum for this bright new word. :woot:
rightkindofme
Diamond Member
Well I wasn't worried but I'll chat on the internet and say I think it is a bad idea. :D
D
Deleted member 1860
I was going to make an inappropriate comment about how meninists are just.....ahem......"inadequate" men, but I think I'll refrain. LOL
somerandomguy
VIP Member
I have no idea what "meninism" is - never heard that before, but it sounds like a spoof of the men's rights movement.
I think you guys are really confused about the current, ongoing, and endless gender wars on the internet. Actually, that's a GOOD thing because nothing is worse than what is known as the "Oppression Olympics" - the belief that YOUR gender, whether male, female, trans, or something else - has it the worst and is consistently being oppressed by other genders.
This would be bad enough if it were confined to the internet, but it's not. I have been hearing more stories about young men withdrawing from society because they are afraid women will accuse them of rape if they show any romantic interest at all. I have heard an equal amount of stories of young women who have been taught to become emotionally traumatized by nothing more than being romantically approached by a man they aren't interested in.
There is a whole generation of kids who are learning from what they read on the internet that the opposite gender is horrible and is actively trying to destroy them. It's very sad and before long these attitudes won't be confined to the internet. There have always been idiots who are ready to oppress people of other genders just for being that gender - and other idiots who are ready to scream harassment when there really isn't any - but it appears that it will be the normal attitude of upcoming generations.
I think you guys are really confused about the current, ongoing, and endless gender wars on the internet. Actually, that's a GOOD thing because nothing is worse than what is known as the "Oppression Olympics" - the belief that YOUR gender, whether male, female, trans, or something else - has it the worst and is consistently being oppressed by other genders.
This would be bad enough if it were confined to the internet, but it's not. I have been hearing more stories about young men withdrawing from society because they are afraid women will accuse them of rape if they show any romantic interest at all. I have heard an equal amount of stories of young women who have been taught to become emotionally traumatized by nothing more than being romantically approached by a man they aren't interested in.
There is a whole generation of kids who are learning from what they read on the internet that the opposite gender is horrible and is actively trying to destroy them. It's very sad and before long these attitudes won't be confined to the internet. There have always been idiots who are ready to oppress people of other genders just for being that gender - and other idiots who are ready to scream harassment when there really isn't any - but it appears that it will be the normal attitude of upcoming generations.
I don't think 'meninism' unlike feminism has something useful to contribute to society at large - or has done so far.
Besides, there already is 'meninism', it's called patriarchy. So basically no need for them. They want to call themselves a movement, but are they *moving* anything forward? They're not. So very much disregarding & not engaging when possible, they're not worth the hype.
Besides, there already is 'meninism', it's called patriarchy. So basically no need for them. They want to call themselves a movement, but are they *moving* anything forward? They're not. So very much disregarding & not engaging when possible, they're not worth the hype.
somerandomguy
VIP Member
I strongly disagree. There are men's issues that feminism cannot address that have nothing to do with patriarchy. However, when people think of people who advocate for men's issues (annoyingly called MRAs, or Men's Rights Activists), they generally think of misogynists.
If you think that it's unfair when the term "feminism" is only used for radical feminists who hate men, well, it's the same for men's rights activists.
Which begs the question which issues you're thinking of. And also begs another question, if they're exclusively men issues.
I actually wasn't passing judgment about feminists and 'type of feminist'. I refuse to get into respectability politics within any space I'm a part of, unless the issues are about generally human problems; I believe human rights are everyone's concern. Otherwise, *how* someone goes about their business, is their business; unless it's harmful or in my way in a way I'd have to concern myself with it, it's not my deal.
somerandomguy
VIP Member
Fair enough; I don't feel like arguing here. I suspect that you would be disinclined to see any men's issues I would bring up as worthwhile in any case.
Disrespect for men is one of my extreme touchy points. You set it off by using the P-word.
Last edited:
I consider myself a feminist. But I don't hate men and don't see why I should. I'm not quite understanding the men's movement, as they have so many rights. But there are some where I do not think the law is fair to them, such as custody battles. So there I understand fighting for rights.
Kintsugi
Sponsor
I was going to stay away from this thread, but it won't die off the New Posts page, so now I'm going to put in between 2 and 200 cents.
The ruling majority will never understand the equality sought by minorities unless a member of that majority can connect with a different minority demographic. For example, a black man has faced oppression due to superficial features, so he might be more understanding of gender oppression (for instance, I think Obama and Clinton both knew a mixed black man would win a race against a white woman before it was nearly coming to an end for Clinton).
Those who do not experience the oppression that emerges from superficial pieces of individual identity (gender, color, ethnicity) cannot fully empathize with the issues facing such minority groups without understanding that their very identity is a part of a controlling majority that will, as a system, protect its own interests by defending the status quo. The defensive reaction a majority has to minority power movements is absolutely normal and natural, because what is a systemic criticism is intinctively felt as an individual criticism.
When participating in Jane Elliot's Blue Eyes Brown Eyes social exercise, participants will typically rail against the system that is erected, i.e. that all blue eyed participants are stupid, selfish, needy, rude, immature, etc. and all brown-eyed participants are trustworthy, smart, capable, etc. Their protests are uniform across filmings of this exercise. "If I'm not a racist, why do I need to participate in this exercise?"
The point of the exercise is that you are participating in it, all the time. You are participating in a system that is built for some people to succeed with little effort where other people can only succeed while hurtling through endless obstacles made just to keep them down. The status quo of culture the world over is that light skin and masculinity are the goal, that is the gold standard, the passport to an easier life, the port of increased opportunity. If that opportunity is something you were raised having, you are not going to like it when it is diminished. More than that, though. It's more than that. Because the real crux of the issue is that you have to concede you have that opportunity, that it is inherent to you, that you participate in a system that is built to make you "better," and you are being asked to recognize that system and see it as abitrary.
Who wants that? Who wants to see their success as arbitrary? It sucks. I am a big-breasted, small-waisted, pretty, very white, blue-eyed girl. I have many achievements and did many prodigious things. I have lots of work experience, lots of professional skills, a lotta knowledge in my field. And yet, when I am hired somewhere, I know for a damn fact it is almost never because they think I'm qualified because of those achievements. They hire me because of what I look like, how I talk, how I dress, because of my socio-economic background. They don't give a shit about my degree.
If I were black, I would be screwed.
If I were male, I would get paid more.
This is the system we live in. I don't care if the majority toots its own horn. I don't care if I have less opportunity or less pay or get called cutiepie by people who are supposed to work for me. I just want majorities (including the ones I belong to) to understand that the system is made for them to win, and we all play some part in the game that perpetuates the standards which selectively bless and curse its constituents.
Edit for a postscript: Everyone gets screwed by this system, including the majority. They just get a lot more opportunity and will typically never see how this system that supports them is actually bad for them, too. But it's a bad game to play all around.
The ruling majority will never understand the equality sought by minorities unless a member of that majority can connect with a different minority demographic. For example, a black man has faced oppression due to superficial features, so he might be more understanding of gender oppression (for instance, I think Obama and Clinton both knew a mixed black man would win a race against a white woman before it was nearly coming to an end for Clinton).
Those who do not experience the oppression that emerges from superficial pieces of individual identity (gender, color, ethnicity) cannot fully empathize with the issues facing such minority groups without understanding that their very identity is a part of a controlling majority that will, as a system, protect its own interests by defending the status quo. The defensive reaction a majority has to minority power movements is absolutely normal and natural, because what is a systemic criticism is intinctively felt as an individual criticism.
When participating in Jane Elliot's Blue Eyes Brown Eyes social exercise, participants will typically rail against the system that is erected, i.e. that all blue eyed participants are stupid, selfish, needy, rude, immature, etc. and all brown-eyed participants are trustworthy, smart, capable, etc. Their protests are uniform across filmings of this exercise. "If I'm not a racist, why do I need to participate in this exercise?"
The point of the exercise is that you are participating in it, all the time. You are participating in a system that is built for some people to succeed with little effort where other people can only succeed while hurtling through endless obstacles made just to keep them down. The status quo of culture the world over is that light skin and masculinity are the goal, that is the gold standard, the passport to an easier life, the port of increased opportunity. If that opportunity is something you were raised having, you are not going to like it when it is diminished. More than that, though. It's more than that. Because the real crux of the issue is that you have to concede you have that opportunity, that it is inherent to you, that you participate in a system that is built to make you "better," and you are being asked to recognize that system and see it as abitrary.
Who wants that? Who wants to see their success as arbitrary? It sucks. I am a big-breasted, small-waisted, pretty, very white, blue-eyed girl. I have many achievements and did many prodigious things. I have lots of work experience, lots of professional skills, a lotta knowledge in my field. And yet, when I am hired somewhere, I know for a damn fact it is almost never because they think I'm qualified because of those achievements. They hire me because of what I look like, how I talk, how I dress, because of my socio-economic background. They don't give a shit about my degree.
If I were black, I would be screwed.
If I were male, I would get paid more.
This is the system we live in. I don't care if the majority toots its own horn. I don't care if I have less opportunity or less pay or get called cutiepie by people who are supposed to work for me. I just want majorities (including the ones I belong to) to understand that the system is made for them to win, and we all play some part in the game that perpetuates the standards which selectively bless and curse its constituents.
Edit for a postscript: Everyone gets screwed by this system, including the majority. They just get a lot more opportunity and will typically never see how this system that supports them is actually bad for them, too. But it's a bad game to play all around.
somerandomguy
VIP Member
I think we can all agree that some people get a lucky draw. I'm perfectly aware that as a white male, I am "normal" by society's standards and I benefit in many ways from this that those who are neither white nor male get to.
However, I draw the line at people saying that because I am a white male, I MUST oppress racial minorities or women solely by being a white male. That's an incredibly one-dimensional viewpoint and insulting to me as an individual. I prefer an intersectional viewpoint; hence I NEVER refer to "patriarchy" but only "kyriarchy."
Patriarchy didn't prevent me from being abused by my ex-wife. Some might argue that patriarchy is the reason that people don't believe that I was abused or might see me as less than a man due to being abused by a woman. However it certainly isn't a feminist issue, either, as feminists don't advocate for male victims/survivors of DV.
However, I draw the line at people saying that because I am a white male, I MUST oppress racial minorities or women solely by being a white male. That's an incredibly one-dimensional viewpoint and insulting to me as an individual. I prefer an intersectional viewpoint; hence I NEVER refer to "patriarchy" but only "kyriarchy."
Patriarchy didn't prevent me from being abused by my ex-wife. Some might argue that patriarchy is the reason that people don't believe that I was abused or might see me as less than a man due to being abused by a woman. However it certainly isn't a feminist issue, either, as feminists don't advocate for male victims/survivors of DV.
rightkindofme
Diamond Member
Depends on the feminist! There are actually pockets of feminists who are actively pushing for male survivors of DV/raper. We do exist.
I promise.
I promise.
- Status
Similar posts
Donation drives
Trending content
-
-
What Are You Feeling Today? Not Thinking, Rather Feeling! Can You Identify Yours?
- goingonhope
Comments: 34K -
-
-
-
