I took a gender studies class so you dont have to - General

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52062098]Feminism does acknowledge this. It's what "toxic masculinity" is. Their conception goes along the lines of saying "patriarchy includes gender norms for men as being unemotional, violent, etc. that wind up being harmful to men themselves." While there isn't really any reasonable group advocating directly for resolving men's issues right now, feminists do at the very least indirectly aim to resolve those issues since feminists nowadays are typically against gender norms.[/QUOTE] But that's not really [I]accomplishing [/I] much. There are problems for both sexes that are outside of gender norms, but they're swept under the rug because of whatever politics people are deciding to play that week.

I like how people try to say feminists only care about minor things. America and it's views are represented by a old man who boasted about sexually assaulting women and who's current government is doing everything it can to dismantle abortions. This guy is the face of America and who the whole world believes represents all Americans. Are you sure Feminists aren't worried about that or protest about all that? Are you sure they only care about dumb shit in colleges and video games?

This is why I say I don't agree with anyone on social issues, or at least anyone who wants to talk about it. There's never a good middle ground between "let's win people over by being as cryptic and inflammatory as possible" and "c'mon guys racism doesn't exist."

This topic always goes like "I hate it when feminists do/think this" "That's not what feminism is / that the vocal minority so your complaint is invalid" And so both sides remain entrenched in their views.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52060661]Imagine thinking that that is totality of the thought behind the statement.[/QUOTE] the video @ 1:35.

[QUOTE=Talishmar;52062646]This topic always goes like "I hate it when feminists do/think this" "That's not what feminism is / that the vocal minority so your complaint is invalid" And so both sides remain entrenched in their views.[/QUOTE] It's just such a quagmire to enter these arguments. We're not even arguing about the video anymore, which at its core was a means to vent her frustration about the courses that [I][b]she[/I][/b] took.

I'm taking a gender studies class now. We mainly read articles and discuss them in class. No one's opinions are shunned. Some of the content I learn is genuinely interesting, and some content I think it's quite ridiculous. I don't think the sample size of 1 is a good representation of all gender studies courses.

[QUOTE=FeartheMango;52062379]But that's not really [I]accomplishing [/I] much. There are problems for both sexes that are outside of gender norms, but they're swept under the rug because of whatever politics people are deciding to play that week.[/QUOTE] You said a whole lot of nothing aside from virtue signalling about your intellectual purity imo. And is there really nothing being accomplished? I'd contest that, there's been quite a cultural shift and broadening of gender norms, even if we just compare to a couple decades ago. Which problems are you referring to specifically? Most of the ones I hear people bring up (regarding men's issues at least like suicide, mental illness, etc) are related to culture. There are still exceptions ofc like reproductive rights tho. [QUOTE=Talishmar;52062326]And the conceptual opposite of "toxic masculinity" for women is "internalized misogyny". See the obvious double standard? Can you fathom why this makes men feel disenfranchised?[/QUOTE] These aren't the same things, actually, toxic masculinity is directly a critique of cultural portrayals of what it is to be "masculine" itself. Whereas internalized sexism is something on an individual level, when you personally take in those prejudices and begin acting upon them. And of course as demonstrated there, you can say internalized sexism instead since it is a more general term applicable to both. And then internalized misogyny/misandry if you're getting specific, internalized misandry for example can be said to be caused by a culture of toxic masculinity.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52062722]You said a whole lot of nothing aside from virtue signalling about your intellectual purity imo. And is there really nothing being accomplished? I'd contest that, there's been quite a cultural shift and broadening of gender norms, even if we just compare to a couple decades ago. Which problems are you referring to specifically? Most of the ones I hear people bring up (regarding men's issues at least like suicide, mental illness, etc) are related to culture. There are still exceptions ofc like reproductive rights [/QUOTE] I suppose I was referring moreso to Feminism as a movement, rather than Feminism as a study. I don't think that acknowledging and categorizing "toxic masculinity" is accomplishing much, in both the social or political sense. Are there any feminist groups lobbying for these issues (such as male reproductive rights, for example), as many other people in this thread have suggested? If so I'd genuinely be interested because I've done very little research on the subject. If not, then I feel that there isn't being done to accomplish much in the way of a movement that serves to help both sexes (which is what the post you quoted was about). Call it virtue signalling all you want, but I think that we shouldn't rally for one groups issues, while discrediting the others. Is that such a radical viewpoint to hold?

[QUOTE=FeartheMango;52062791]I suppose I was referring moreso to Feminism as a movement, rather than Feminism as a study. I don't think that acknowledging and categorizing "toxic masculinity" is accomplishing much, in both the social or political sense. Are there any feminist groups lobbying for these issues (such as male reproductive rights, for example), as many other people in this thread have suggested? If so I'd genuinely be interested because I've done very little research on the subject. If not, then I feel that there isn't being done to accomplish much in the way of a movement that serves to help both sexes (which is what the post you quoted was about). Call it virtue signalling all you want, but I think that we shouldn't rally for one groups issues, while discrediting the others. Is that such a radical viewpoint to hold?[/QUOTE] You'll have to define male reproductive rights for me, or at least give specifics For that, we often get into some very sticky complicated territory involving much more than just the gender dynamic. For example, one reason why it seems like men are fucked when it comes to being stuck with a kid (child support stuff) is because the state is indifferent to the parents, but are instead trying to give the best to the child.

Male reproductive rights being... right to... kids? Or right to not have to take responsibility for a kid you didn't want? Maybe? That's the only way I'm reading that.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52062829]You'll have to define male reproductive rights for me, or at least give specifics For that, we get into some very sticky territory involving much more than just the gender dynamic. For example, one reason why it seems like men are fucked when it comes to being stuck with a kid (child support stuff) is because the state is indifferent to the parents, but are instead trying to give the best to the child.[/QUOTE] I only brought up male reproductive rights because you used it as an example of a non social issue that would require attention. Regardless, I'm not trying to argue that. I want to know, whether or not feminism as a movement, is as impartial to sexes and their respective issues as others in this thread have suggested. And whether or not there have been real life efforts put forth to addressing them.

[QUOTE=FeartheMango;52062883]I only brought up male reproductive rights because you used it as an example of a non social issue that would require attention. Regardless, I'm not trying to argue that. I want to know, whether or not feminism as a movement, is as impartial to sexes and their respective issues as others in this thread have suggested. And whether or not there have been real life efforts put forth to addressing them.[/QUOTE] I'm p. sure I said that feminism indirectly addresses most mens issues that derive from culture. Not all issues will be addressed by that of course. I'll give you that for sure. One example I could come up with is circumcision. Which I do think should be illegal except for consenting adults (or at least 12-14.) And I will say that I don't really know of feminist activism fighting against circumcision. Activism of that is iirc done in single-issue organizations which feminists may or may not join if they care about activism for that issue.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52062938]I'm p. sure I said that feminism indirectly addresses most mens issues that derive from culture. Not all issues will be addressed by that of course. I'll give you that for sure. One example I could come up with is circumcision. Which I do think should be illegal except for consenting adults. And I will say that I don't really know of feminist activism fighting against circumcision. Activism of that is iirc done in single-issue organizations which feminists may or may not join if they care about activism for that issue.[/QUOTE] I may have read your first reply wrongly as feminism [I] acknowledging [/I] the issues, rather than addressing them. If so, I apologize. I do however think it's a bit weak to build your argument off the fact that Feminism indirectly addresses these issues. Why isn't there a direct answer to these issues that Feminism offers? (Be it through support of single-issue groups, as in the circumcision example you brought up, or through widespread lobbying, like with earnings inequality or domestic abuse--both topics which iirc are large topics in the feminist sphere) [QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52063014]'Feminism' isn't that unified, you're not going to get an easy answer for this. The type of feminism I subscribe to definitely tries to care equally for both sexes. But on FP, I don't find myself addressing male-centric issues as much, because the argument tends to be miles behind that stage. It often boils down to feminism's importance as a movement, rather than the actual issues the movement is trying to solve (something that's perfectly exemplified in this thread)[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Pascall;52063052]Any sort of movement is bound to be splintered into extremists and moderates. No one person can speak for a movement because it doesn't really work like that. Personally, I consider myself a feminist but I absolutely advocate for rights for men in terms of things that are actually necessary for both of us to live, free of arbitrary social norms and standards according to gender. There are some people who agree and some people who don't. But no one view or vision can really claim to speak for everyone within.[/QUOTE] Yeah, feminism is a pretty broad movement. But, at least in this thread, it seems like there's a general agreement that it's working to benefit both sides. What I want to nail down is how it's doing so, because I think it's supremely important to have a conversation about that, rather than the political side of it all. I'm genuinely interested in the movement, but I don't think I'd ever self-label as a feminist, because there's no clear cut example for what that label means.

It's really annoying for somebody like my self who sees some good points in truth in feminism to be washed away by every other extreme point. I've gotten lambasted for some of my opinions which i think are pretty moderate just because they're associated with views I don't agree with. I remember when I was looking into Anita Sarkesesian and thought she was talking absolute shite, but then I realized that maybe I agreed with one or two arguments just not the rest. Got shit stormed by the Anti SJW for being a "cuck feminist" and got shot stormed from feminists for being a mysoginist and not agreeing with everything.

[QUOTE=FeartheMango;52062883]I only brought up male reproductive rights because you used it as an example of a non social issue that would require attention. Regardless, I'm not trying to argue that. I want to know, whether or not feminism as a movement, is as impartial to sexes and their respective issues as others in this thread have suggested. And whether or not there have been real life efforts put forth to addressing them.[/QUOTE] 'Feminism' isn't that unified, you're not going to get an easy answer for this. The type of feminism I subscribe to definitely tries to care equally for both sexes. But on FP, I don't find myself addressing male-centric issues as much, because the argument tends to be miles behind that stage. It often boils down to feminism's importance as a movement, rather than the actual issues the movement is trying to solve (something that's perfectly exemplified in this thread)

[QUOTE=FeartheMango;52062883]I only brought up male reproductive rights because you used it as an example of a non social issue that would require attention. Regardless, I'm not trying to argue that. I want to know, whether or not feminism as a movement, is as impartial to sexes and their respective issues as others in this thread have suggested. And whether or not there have been real life efforts put forth to addressing them.[/QUOTE] Any sort of movement is bound to be splintered into extremists and moderates. No one person can speak for a movement because it doesn't really work like that. Personally, I consider myself a feminist but I absolutely advocate for rights for men in terms of things that are actually necessary for both of us to live, free of arbitrary social norms and standards according to gender. There are some people who agree and some people who don't. But no one view or vision can really claim to speak for everyone within.

[QUOTE=FeartheMango;52062989]I may have read your first reply wrongly as feminism [I] acknowledging [/I] the issues, rather than addressing them. If so, I apologize. I do however think it's a bit weak to build your argument off the fact that Feminism indirectly addresses these issues. Why isn't there a direct answer to these issues that Feminism offers? (Be it through support of single-issue groups, as in the circumcision example you brought up, or through widespread lobbying, like with earnings inequality or domestic abuse--both topics which iirc are large topics in the feminist sphere)[/QUOTE] Because they attack the causes of those problems, pretty much. Imagine if BLM had a really good list of police reforms, and put them all into place. They'd address police brutality / militarism for all by doing so even if it was driven by a group named "black lives matter." And they do have direct answers, it's not like the theory and analysis has forgotten men, it's just not often the focus of activism. That's the point of my earlier quip of it being a shame that there isn't any real intellectually strong and active group addressing men's issues directly. Or even a prominent group of male activists within feminism who speak directly about and do activism for men's issues. If I had to theorize on why there isn't one, it might be that in aggregate, those norms benefit men meaning there is much less of a drive/motive aside from reactionaries to get involved en masse. But iunno. I still "align" myself with feminist thought because I see it at present as being the most effective and viable path to improving these issues, doesn't mean it's a pill that'll right all gender imbalances within my life-time. And really even a pure "egalitarian" movement that analyzes culture and gender won't really give you an absolute answer on topics like circumcision and reproductive rights. It's probably better that certain things remain single-issue topics.

[QUOTE=FeartheMango;52062989]Yeah, feminism is a pretty broad movement. But, at least in this thread, it seems like there's a general agreement that it's working to benefit both sides. What I want to nail down is how it's doing so, because I think it's supremely important to have a conversation about that, rather than the political side of it all. I'm genuinely interested in the movement, but I don't think I'd ever self-label as a feminist, because there's no clear cut example for what that label means.[/QUOTE] Well, my idea is bringing the importance of gender roles down a notch. I believe the sexes have biological differences that would eventually lead to different standards anyway, but our current set of gender roles exacerbates those differences way beyond what I think is acceptable. The way we define masculinity and femininity doesn't have to be so strict. The thing here is that those definitions only exist in relation to one another. They're not in a vacuum, they're by all means comparative, if that makes any sense. What this means is that, by addressing, for example, the way women are expected to be more passive than men in dating/pick-up scenarios, you're incidentally addressing what's expected of men. Because of the relative (relativist?) nature of gender roles, breaking them down for one sex also helps loosen social expectations for the other. Which is also why I think coming at that same issue from a male-centric perspective is fine, too, just as long as you're not doing it with a "we have problems and women have NONE"-type attitude.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52063114]Well, my idea is bringing the importance of gender roles down a notch. I believe the sexes have biological differences that would eventually lead to different standards anyway, but our current set of gender roles exacerbates those differences way beyond what I think is acceptable. The way we define masculinity and femininity doesn't have to be so strict. [/QUOTE] And I'd agree with you. Believe it or not, this has been probably the most productive conversation I've had about this topic

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52063077]Because they attack the causes of those problems, pretty much. Imagine if BLM had a really good list of police reforms, and put them all into place. They'd address police brutality / militarism for all by doing so even if it was driven by a group named "black lives matter." And they do have direct answers, it's not like the theory and analysis has forgotten men, it's just not often the focus of activism. That's the point of my earlier quip of it being a shame that there isn't any real intellectually strong and active group addressing men's issues directly. Or even a prominent group of male activists within feminism who speak directly about and do activism for men's issues. If I had to theorize on why there isn't one, it might be that in aggregate, those norms benefit men meaning there is much less of a drive/motive aside from reactionaries to get involved en masse. But iunno. I still "align" myself with feminist thought because I see it at present as being the most effective and viable path to improving these issues, doesn't mean it's a pill that'll right all gender imbalances within my life-time. And really even a pure "egalitarian" movement that analyzes culture and gender won't really give you an absolute answer on topics like circumcision and reproductive rights. It's probably better that certain things remain single-issue topics.[/QUOTE] BLM is an interesting analogy. Similarly their image suffers from "fuck the police/whites" type of followers, but I think that's inevitable since the most core value of BLM seems to be black empowerment, just like feminism is at the core about female empowerment. Does female empowerment fix inequality? Very optimistic in my opinion. If the only source of problem is "men having too much power" you're bound to ignore cases where this isn't true at all. That's why I "align" as egalitarian and think "feminists" should too. That wouldn't get rid of problems overnight, but fixing these problems would be more productive without the female centric bias.