And we all need to be reminded of this periodically.

*All* of us.

I do think that women could make politics irrelevant; by a kind of spontaneous cooperative action the like of which we have never seen; which is so far from people’s ideas of state structure or viable social structure that it seems to them like total anarchy — when what it really is, is very subtle forms of interrelation that do not follow some heirarchal pattern which is fundamentally patriarchal. The opposite to patriarchy is not matriarchy but fraternity, yet I think it’s women who are going to have to break this spiral of power and find the trick of cooperation.

This.

"The opposite to patriarchy is not matriarchy but fraternity."

Wash, Rinse. Repeat.

My mom male-bashes a lot, and calls it "feminism." I always have to remind her that she has 5 year old and 9 year old grand SONS and a husband, and that she would do well to remember that when she is bashing an entire sex.

That is like saying the opposite of white is not black, but grey.
Or the opposite of up is not down, but the middle.
Or the opposite of wet is not dry, but damp.

Real fraternity is what feminism is about. Equal human Rights for All, regardless of gender, race, skin color, sexual orientation, or anything else bigots use to classify and separate us with.

discussing ideas.

is what trying to replace "feminism" with "humanism" or something, tends to do. Specific advocacy on behalf of women is still necessary, because we still don't live in an equal society, let alone an equal world.

Why divide us into different groups and and find fault with anyone not in the correct clique?
You can work to correct the wrongs you see, your way, I'll work on the things I see, my way.

Why the animosity? Why the nit-picking with anyone not echoing the 'correct' talking points of the clique?
There are enough problems in this world, to go around for everyone. It is counter productive for everyone to be working on the same problems, at the same time and ignore everything else in the big picture, while it goes to ruin.

Maybe what you see as "animosity" is people who don't entirely trust that others are on the same side as them. And maybe they have valid reasons to feel that way, or maybe they don't, or maybe it's a little of both.

An example might help - say, for instance, that someone has a tendency to post right-wing talking points on economic issues (e.g. "up by the bootstraps," "food stamps create dependency," or related nonsense). Would you then trust that person to be firmly on the progressive side when it comes to issues of economic justice? I rather doubt it.

Last edited Sat Jan 4, 2014, 03:51 PM - Edit history (2)

I said and I will say it again - I am for
[center][font size="6"]EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL[/font size][/center]
That does not mean everyone is equal, nor that I said it was , or even implied it.
Stop twisting and purposely misunderstanding other people's words and posts for your own ends.

Going by your definitions, we'll win gender equality the day we win the war on terror. Your war has no clear end-game.

Equality is actually amazingly simple...every person is treated exactly the same. That's an equal society. And that needs to be the goal. When you advocate for only one side in perpetuity, you will never reach equality.

Not to mention calling it a "war" and comparing it to the (mostly spurious) "war on terror" - that choice of words seems telling to me.

Your version of "equality" sounds more like pretending inequalities don't exist - much like white conservatives advocating "color-blindness" - than actually addressing said inequalities.

And I myself am a man - how am I being "sexist" against my own gender when I acknowledge that we don't live in a perfect world?

Put it this way... If we actually lived in a gender-equal society, reproductive rights wouldn't even be in question, let alone under attack the way they are in many states. And Christian fundamentalists who consider a woman's life worth less than a dog's would not have their views catered to, or considered remotely mainstream.

Don't twist my words...

I am more of an egalitarian. My version of equality is everyone is treated the same way regardless of race, age, gender, sexual orientation, or economic class. I treat every person in life the way I want to be treated. That's just how I was raised. I do not advocate for one group of people over another. No one is better than anyone else. We are all born as human beings and that is what we should all be treated as such.

Feminism today...I dont know. By definition of the dictionary Im a feminist because I believe in gender equality. But in my view, feminists tend to advocate more for one gender over another. And that's sort of violating my personal beliefs. I understand that women have more disadvantages and more work needs to be done on that side of the equation. But that doesn't mean male issues should be ignored or depressed, which they frequently are in most feminist circles. Men and boys have problems in this country too. Men and boys are victims of gender stereotypes as well. Those issued are ignored because most feminists are fighting as if it's still the 1920s. Feminism was useful in that way back then because the patriarchy was much more powerful and easy to target. Today, it's fractured into little pieces throughout society. It's not so easy to target now. And it hides.

Women in my family were always quite strong and smart. Majority of them are liberal, voted for Obama, and support equality. But not a one of them would identify as a "feminist" if you ask them.

And there certainly are valid "men's issues" that need attention - though none seem quite so dire as the current attack on women's basic autonomy e.g. in Texas.

has been achieved? And if not, is it wrong of those who have not yet achieved equal treatment to work towards it?

You say that men and boys are victims of gender stereotypes but the issue is ignored and it's the feminists fault. A look at how this works in the word says you are incorrect.

Is it women who reinforce gender stereotypes when the guys are alone together? Is it women who want men to continue to play the anachronistic game in which the guy with the most power over other men wins? No, it is not. It's men.

So if you want those male gender stereotypes to be eliminated, blaming feminists ain't going to do it. That has to come from men. And when men really get down to the work of examining and eliminating the stereotypes that they impose on themselves, and ONLY when they do that, will true gender equality be achieved. But I'm sorry, feminists can't do that work for you. You've got to do it yourselves.

I imagine there will be an argument about "But that's what women want. They make us do that power thing." For a small subset of women, that might be true, but in the 70's, men wanted a housewife who was obedient and could cook. Women sucked it up, broke out of their generations-old comfort zone, and said, "We won't do that any more." It took a lot of guts, and created a lot of hardship for those women. It's time for men to do the same with their stereotyped roles. And just as men could not make it happen for women, women cannot make it happen for men.

So get on with it.

Living in a hypothetical gender equal society wouldn't negate the moral arguments some make regarding reproductive rights. So long as men can't gestate or lactate it's physically impossible to have equity between the sexes in regards to reproduction.

If one is convinced all life is sacred, what would make them more inclined to compromise in a theoretical gender equal society? Remember that you're talking about people who for the most part answer to only one ultimate arbitrator who does not compromise.

The debate is about how much more reproductive choice women should have than men. For men, parenting (forget reproductive) choice ends at ejaculation.

We can agree that erosion of women's reproductive choice is ill-advised without trying to make it comparative... because therein SHOULD lie madness.

And the argument you are making is "How much bias is necessary to create equality?". Like "How much violence is necessary to create peace?".

And remember that we're dealing with people who aren't necessarily orders of magnitude better than the Iranian mullahs, when it comes to their views on the status of women.

There's very little difference between men and women on the issue of choice. The difference in attitudes is primarily religion. That's why Catholic Justice Sonia Sotomayor put a stay on implementation of the ACA provision forcing employers to cover contraceptive care.

There's no argument that conservatives are harming our quality of life and infringing on our freedoms in just about every way. The question of the OP is whether feminists are looking out for the interests of men. They are not, benefit to men is incidental.

Which I've never believed in my life - even as a teenager I could perceive an alternative to the "macho" mentality.

... should be understood and emulated as men reinvent themselves and adapt to the realities of a changed society.

The unwritten rule that only men should be coal miners should be one of the first things abandoned.

Even if I might sometimes give the impression otherwise, I do think we (DU'ers in general) probably agree on the important stuff, or 90% of it anyway.

Or everyone's differences should be acknowledged instead of ignored and swept under the rug?

but I'd like to see some threads that weren't consumed with personality for a change.

I hadn't heard that one before. It summarizes the struggle beautifully. Glad you shared.

Just as Love and Hate come from the same frame, so does Patriarchy and matriarchy. The opposite of Love is not Hate, as the two are from the same emotional frame; rather the opposite of Love is Apathy/indifference.

When you put it like that, it sounds like *gasp* socialism.

I'm glad you shared it.

but changing the way those organizations function; there is too much infighting and jockying for power between them now. It's not a uniquely masculine trait to be competitive and to want to win at all costs, but it does seem more pronounced in men. Possibly more woman in power might change the culture to one where we work to solve problems rather than work to defeat our enemies.

Bryant

it's just women are better than men sentimentality.

Women are equal to men. That means a society run by women would have roughly the same successes and failures as a society run by men. There might be some subtle differences here and there. Some better, some worse, but overall, humans are humans, flawed, seduced by power, burdened by responsibility and extremely difficult choices.

"Governments that consist of very few women have hurried to recognize as women men who believe that they are women and have had themselves castrated to prove it, because they see women not as another sex but as a non-sex. No so-called sex-change has ever begged for a uterus-and-ovaries transplant; if uterus-and-ovaries transplants were made mandatory for wannabe women they would disappear overnight. The insistence that man-made women be accepted as women is the institutional expression of the mistaken conviction that women are defective males."

I'm not sure Germaine Greer is a good example for "pro men" feminism vis-a-vis her attitude towards some who happened to be born with a penis.

Thank you. That is one of my favorite Sinead O'Conner pieces. I didn't know who she was quoting, but I love the line "The opposite of patriarchy isn't matriarchy; but fraternity" strikes to my core and I hope that at some point get beyond "the battle of the sexes"

I believe something happened around 7-8 thousand years ago that changed the balance of power and gave males dominance...their God says so with the dominion over all the earth; and they took it literally so that "God" is a mean bully who keeps score. And it is our task to balance those scales; not with reverse dominion but through cooperation.

Feminism is actually good for men because the achievement
of its goals actually frees men as well, in so many ways.

"It frees men as well..." From being both the victim and victimizer..

in my life I have been surrounded by strong, independent women. Women that are capable of taking care of themselves, not depending on a man to do every thing for them. My wife is at least my equal, but probably my better.

On edit: I hate the term "better half". She is not half, she is whole.

.. "feminism" means a lot of different things to different people, then start paying attention. Some of them reasonable, desirable and right, some of them toxic and stupid.

Sadly, there are indeed a few toxic & suspect elements that have attached themselves to feminism; one of the worst offerders perhaps being the "all white people are racist/only whites can be racist" types that you typically see on tumblr and other such places(I've had to deal with a few of these types; they are NOT nice people, mostly. Some of them *are* white, themselves btw, as strange as that may sound). There's also folks out there who blame all men for rape culture, and people who just use feminism to be jerks in general (Diana Boston is a great example) etc.

But for any lurking skeptics out there, these jerks *do not* represent feminism as a whole! There are many noble feminists of all sorts from across the globe, from many ethnicities, from many belief systems, and even both genders(yes, you read this right, men can be feminists, too, and some are!), who truly are working to build a better world, who truly are trying to advance humanity. And I stand proudly with them.

I'm sorry ... If you hear "ALL white people are racist" or "ALL men (are responsible) for rape culture", you have sadly, and badly, missed what is being said.

Even I've made mistakes like that. It can and does happen.

Unfortunately, though, with that pointed out, there are a small number of people who really do think like that sadly. I've come across a few.

"ALL white people ARE racist" and/or "ALL men ARE responsible for promoting rape culture", or "SOME white people are racist" and/or "SOME men are responsible for promoting rape culture", or even "ALL white people CAN DO racist stuff" and "ALL men CAN DO STUFF THAT MAKES them responsible for rape culture"?

When you (we) read (the implied) "SOME" as "ALL" and/or argue around the idea that white ARE people are racist and men ARE responsible for rape culture, even if were talking about some, you (we) enable those that really are racist/rape culture promoters.

There are lots of men who are feminists and lots of women who aren't so much.

Best book I've read about this issue is "The Chalice or the Blade: Choices for our Future", by Riane Eisler
http://www.ru.org/71eisler.htm

The larger picture that emerges from this gender-holistic perspective also indicates that, contrary to popular misconceptions, male dominance and male violence are not innate. Clearly throughout history not all men have been violent. And today many men are consciously rejecting their stereotypical "masculine" roles -- for example, the men who are today redefining fathering in the more caring and nurturing way once stereotypically associated only with mothering.

In short, the problem in dominator societies is not men. It is rather the way male identity must be defined in male-dominant societies where, by definition, "masculinity" is equated with domination and conquest-- be it of women, other men, or nature.

Most critically, rather than being a peripheral, or what is in male-dominant systems the same, a "women's issue," the social construction of gender roles and relations is central to the kind of future we will have. The domination of the female half of humanity by the male half is a basic template for all forms of domination, conditioning children early on to consider such relations normal. A related dynamic is that values such as nonviolence, caring, and compassion can only attain social governance when those stereotypically associated with such "feminine" values are no longer subservient.

These are systems dynamics that those trying to push us back to the "good old days" when all women and most men still knew their place in rigid hierarchies of domination maintained by fear and force intuitively recognize-which is why for them returning women to their "traditional" place is a top priority. It is why for the so-called Christian right in the United States a return to the "traditional family" (a code word for a male-headed authoritarian family) is so critical - as it was for the Nazis when Hitler came to power and for the Iranian fundamentalists after Khomeini seized control. For in every case what we arc dealing with is a regression to a more rigid dominator society, which requires as a cornerstone for its foundations the domination of half of humanity over the other.

Seeing these battles in terms of 'dominator' vs 'partnership' cultures makes much more sense. It can apply to religion, economics, sex, etc.

And understanding how we have to see past our own filters and background 'programming' is key.

a little, and in the shift, everything came into focus. All the things that were so contradictory and confusing became clear. But it also made me aware that there very much IS a patriarchy at work and that it colors everything, and that before my perception shifted I was completely unaware of it.

It was like opening a closet door, and finding a ballroom in there.

And it's so much of our 'history' that we are unaware of the filters. It does color *everything* and understanding the actual root of it all (the dominator 'ranking') etc was a revelation.

To think, during the rise of the Woman's Suffrage Movement, when they had more reason to exclude men, woman were welcoming and inclusive.

Same thing inspires me about the Civil Rights Movement.

All must work together. Otherwise nothing but derision and thinly veiled insults will result. Like here on DU with certain cliquish groups that go out of their way to exclude anything not of their lock step, echo chambered responses.

We are paying equal premiums in healthcare now, yet women get more perks and will use the system more than men.

I also don't see NOW or any other feminist organization getting very upset at gender inequalities in other types of insurance where men pay higher premiums than women.

You must be joking.


I hope you're joking...

or, "One-Trick Pony" to be more accurate.

Perhaps we need a rule change. I get the idea of groups as "Safe Havens", but what I see is spill-over. Since the Gender Warriors can block each other from their respective groups it silences them, leaving GD as the only arena for blood-letting.

It appears to me that many on both sides actually crave this crude interaction rather than quietly discussing their issues within the confines of their respective Havens.

That leaves the rest of us, ie, those of us who are here for enlightenment and knowledge, unable to carry on a peaceful exchange without fear of collateral damage.

I've had 2 Hides resulting from Tactical Alerts. It seems that trying to suggest a cease-fire draws attack from both sides.


I've noted that the more emotional posters seem to lack interest in any issue that doesn't promise to allow them to gut the Others. I've rarely seen them post in other topics unless they see a way to insert their pet issues and high-jack the thread in flanking attacks on each other (hence, "One Trick Ponies).

It's highly disruptive. Since neither side has any possibility of convincing the other what we have is an adolescent war of attrition with both sides aiming to drive out the other through the Alert/Hide rules.

Responsible posters are thus forced to use Ignore or Trash to avoid the spread of shrapnel. I'm interested in gender issues, but, as a Noob I risk my posting privileges every time I post in a GI thread. I wonder how many valuable, innocent voices have been snuffed in these petty feuds...

Responded to myself accidentally.

they are women.

It's quite tragic, really, and we all must realize his hardship.

Both sexes can get ill or need preventive treatment. Good grief.

The OP says that feminism is also "pro-men." Yet there was nothing feminists pushed with Obamacare that can considered "pro-men." Women get free cancer screenings, access to domestic violence services, free contraception and family planning, etc.. men are not guaranteed to get any of that. Men have to get approvals for a lot of it while women have it guaranteed in the law. Yet men have to pay higher premiums anyway. How is that pro-men?

The idea that feminism is pro-men is laughable. It's not. Feminists are people who advocate for only women's rights and women's issues. That's fine...that's their business to advocate for whoever they want. But they dont have male issues at heart because they don't believe men are at any real disadvantage in the patriarchy. The only place some feminists are pro-men is in how certain gender roles restrict men. But overall, they dont really care.

I've been lectured by feminists on this forum that sexist against men is not even possible.

As to cancer screening, that should be available to both freely.

domestic violence services too, whatever that is. When it comes to health care, it doesn't matter how a person got the injuries they have anyway.

Women were the underdog, so I can see that men's issues may seem to be well enough off as far as getting attention, etc. It's like racism against white people. Maybe not impossible, but not having much affect. Like a first world problem.

Im not disputing that. But in terms of health, men have probably even more health problems than women do (the stats say 9 of the top 10 diseases effect men more than women). Yet the ACA gives a lot more money to "women's health issues" than issues for men.

The ACA makes everyone have coverage, so how does that give more money to "women's issues?"

If it's birth control, that's not a women's issue, it's an issue of both sexes - men benefit from this too.

It's like worrying about there being a black Miss America Pageant. Women were left out before.

By the same token we are always hearing how we are different, the one thing where we actually are different (maybe the only true thing) is in our reproductive systems. Women have a more complicated one. And they have both male and female babies. And men are fathers of babies. So men have an interest in women's health.

That office also wouldn't be a big major part of the ACA. It covers everyone. It's not leaving men out.

Until 100 years ago medical texts taught that women's reproductive tracts were inverted, malfunctioning male tracts. As a result the understanding of women's health and women's care is really in it's infancy.

-Safe, effective birth control for women is barely fifty years old. And both the safety and effectiveness could do with improving.
-Breast cancer wasn't even mentioned in polite company until about 40 years ago.
-There still isn't effective screening or treatment for many gynecological cancers.
-It isn't really understood why women are disproportionately effected by autoimmune diseases, let alone how to treat them.
-Drug research tends to treat women as an afterthought or a complication.
-Pregnancy care needs significant improvement, both in terms of access and being able to effectively treat problems.
-Likewise, infertility care needs significant improvement in terms of understanding of underlying issues and treatment effectiveness, cost and insurability.
-Basic anatomy isn't entirely understood! Really, in 2014!

There's a lot of catching up that needs done there!

How many years of disproportionate funding will it take until we are equal? Just curious....

each year from heart disease."

https://www.goredforwomen.org/about-heart-disease/facts_about_heart_disease_in_women-sub-category/statistics-at-a-glance/

Women live longer than men and if nothing else kills you, heart disease generally does. Under age 65, men are more likely to die from heart disease. There's a reason why women live 5 years longer than men.

Scroll to page 5 and look at the age adjusted male to female ratio for the 15 leading causes of death. The only one that's less than 1 is Alzheimer’s disease.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

There are about twice as many women over age 75. Nobody gets out alive and everyone dies of something. What's killing people at a younger age is what matters and for all the top 15 suspects but 1, men get the shit end of the stick, yet we are to believe this isn't a "demonstrated need" for improvements to comprehensive health care for men.

has zero credibility on the subject of feminism. It's stock whining from the MRA/Misogynist/Republican shelf.

Men aren't legally entitled to free STD screenings, domestic violence counseling or contraception because they are men and thus don't have free access to the list of perks to which women are.

All should be equal.

That being said, you wouldn't be one to say women are different and have to be more concerned with birth control and STDs than men do.

But it's politics, not biology that indicates that men have none.

The ACA is silent on the health care needs of men.

Some little office giving lip service to women doesn't overbalance that.

In reproductive matters, don't women have more to do with it, but isn't that in the interest of men too? Men want to reproduce too. It just doesn't affect them physically as much. But on the whole, wouldn't they want more attention paid to women's reproductive health?

As for the rest of it, it should be equal. If you are correct, it is wrong not to give men the cancer screenings they can get - prostate, etc.

but they are not free and subject to deductibles and copays.

Same with a vasectomy. As an unintended consequence, many couples are going to opt for the tubal ligation because it is free.

The easiest way to segment the population based on cost and use is to make everyone just pay for their damn selves. The more you segment based on usage/costs, the more you defeat the very purpose of insurance, which is to spread costs among a population.

Im using this as an example where feminism made a big stink out of health insurance premiums being unequal because it puts women at a disadvantage, while they ignore other forms of insurance where men are paying higher premiums than women.

Im not necessarily against the idea that everyone pays equal premiums

Unfortunately, we dont have that type of thinking and philosophy in this country. We can't even get a majority of democrats behind that idea otherwise it would have been passed in 2009. The insurance companies and corporations that run the industry are making too much money with the status quo.

Because I support single-payer, with premiums paid through taxes, I think there are good policy reasons to create the biggest insurance pool possible, and that means eliminating all rating criteria, including gender, age and smoker/nonsmoker.

One of my reasons for that support is because men get poor healthcare and consequently suffer shorter healthy lifespans. But the ACA not only shifts costs onto men, it is entirely silent on any of the health problems that they experience.

Men are mentioned in the ACA only in a context of a population to absorb the costs of newly mandated preventive care for women.

Please show me one thing about the ACA, one single provision which is benefits men, not incidentally but specifically.

The reason that women's insurance was more expensive than men's was because men underutilized the system by about 1/3. It was part of the reason that we die younger.

In fact men die younger of every preventive cause and have forever. A movement based on "fraternity" would have been compelled to do something about this.

that bothers the status quo types as all progressive movements do. Look how they responded to OWS - mocked it and dismissed it. Sadly, it has not even been 100 years since women fought and died for the right to vote! In some ways, we are still very very much stuck in the 20th century.

Those things are not Feminism and I have said as much many times.

As to your point, I agree.

I think its too easy for people to form personal biases against movements based on personal experience with individuals.

I also think it is quite easy for people to project their personal biases onto larger movements subconsciously.

We must remember our own principles are what they are and not as they are twisted to appear by some here, and we must not let that poison our own views on gender equality simply because we have run-ins with abrasive people here.

Thank you for the important reminder!

Universally applied-- goes without saying

There has been twisting done on both sides.

From time to time, we should remember that it was the things in common that drew us here to DU and that it is more likely than not that we have more in common with each other's viewpoints than we do with the vast majority of the rest of the US or other places.

I know who I am, but my own tendency towards defensiveness does not always put me in the best possible light.

There are plenty of people who call themselves feminists who don't have anything against men, who want a better life and respected rights for everyone regardless of gender.

There are some people who call themselves feminists, who might say they don't have anything against men, but the views they champion, the rhetoric they employ, isn't exactly male friendly.

And a rare few self-proclaimed feminists are openly anti-male.

Perhaps the latter shouldn't be called feminists, but that can lead to some messy "No true Scotsman!" problems.