Missed this first time round - At first I was going to say, I don't think feminists are fighting for the rights of Meryl Streep to play King Lear but then I thought, that'd be bloody epic! She'd be great! So no, maybe I'm not so convinced that there are types of acting roles that women can't play (lonely, divorced Dad looking for love, aside).
Emma Watson on Feminism
- Thread starter rcoobc
- Start date
This whole thread bar the slave bit, has been about why men should be feminists and feminism being about equality. So the answer to your question would be they don't have too but if you are making the claim that it is about equality and men should get on board with it then that would be the price for that support.
Why should there be a price?
I merely meant it was created FOR WOMEN specifically in a time when women had next to NO rights. I never said it was ONLY FOR WOMEN. I know plenty of men who are feminists and we welcome them with open arms because without men on board, feminism simply isn't going to get anywhere.
Feminists (in the true sense of the word) have never alienated men from any discussions.
And, like I said before, feminism is merely a branch of the equality for everyone movement, just like LBGT rights - they are just focused on a particular set of discrepancies.
Sorry but I don't see why the oppressed class needs to pull any punches to dance around the sensitivity of the oppressive class. People who think feminism is anti-men have a victim complex that they need to get over, especially when they (not personally necessarily, though this is often the case) are the oppressers.
Last edited:
Because this is politics and that is the way politics works. People want to know what you are doing about their issues otherwise they won't support you.
Nobody asks the Conservatives to campaign on behalf of the Labour party.
And why shouldn't it be called "Feminism" when it is specifically about achieving social, political and economical rights for "Females".
If men suddenly wanted to start a movement called "Masculism" that fought for a man's right to be vulnerable or sensitive and still be considered a man, then I would absolutely get behind that because I would recognise that it is a movement to broaden the definition of the word "Masculine".
Just as feminism is a movement to broaden the definition of "Feminine".
If men suddenly wanted to start a movement called "Masculism" that fought for a man's right to be vulnerable or sensitive and still be considered a man, then I would absolutely get behind that because I would recognise that it is a movement to broaden the definition of the word "Masculine".
Just as feminism is a movement to broaden the definition of "Feminine".
True, but this analogy would be about the people who vote Labour not the party. Those votes are contested by both sides by trying to put forward a case that your party is best for those voters. To do that they have to address the issues those voters have or they won't vote for them.
Perhaps a better analogy would be, nobody expects the gay community to fight for the rights of straight people.
Just read through the past couple of pages. Did Lothar get banned because of this thread?
I think he was banned for asking admin questions in the wrong thread.
It can be called whatever you want, I just think that in any movement relating to equality, it is contradictory to be focusing on one party or demographic.
Have different "equality" movements for men, women, children and anyone else just seems rather odd and redundant, and less powerful than a single, all encompassing movement of equality for EVERYONE.
If you have multiple single-issue organisations they will all naturally be competing for attention for their own narrow aims. Some will be more successful than others and that's when resentment creeps in and things get polarised.
There are too many issues for an all encompassing movement to actually work.
So it's not just feminism you have a problem with - you also think there shouldn't have been a black civil rights movement or a gay rights movement?
Have read this multiple times and still don't understand it. (Dumb broad).
Why wouldn't a particular movement focus on a particular demographic that doesn't have particular equalities? Why would suffragettes fight for the right for men to have the vote if men could already vote?
Its a bad analogy because no one is saying that there are valid anti heterosexual issues but it is right to ignore them because its a gay rights movement. If there were then I would argue that you have to settle them as well or you won't get the support of the heterosexuals.
I think parental rights discrimination is the other side of the equation which feminism needs to address because it is also the cause of most of the pay discrimination. You can't solve the equation on equal pay without dealing with fathers rights because they are interlinked at the point of human real world choice.
Wait, you want one worldwide movement for all oppressed people?
How can you focus on equality for one gender and not for the other? By definition, if you achieve your goal of equality for women, you will have achieved equality for men (due to the fact that they're now equal...)
In what ways are men fighting inequality compared to women?
How can you focus on equality for one gender and not for the other? By definition, if you achieve your goal of equality for women, you will have achieved equality for men (due to the fact that they're now equal...)
In what ways are men fighting inequality compared to women?
Basically we need a movement called which incorporates every social, political and environmental issue so that you don't alienate anyone and captivates everyone. The oppressed and oppressors will come together in one big circle jerk and save all of the problems of our time. It's foolproof. Let's call it "Save the World".
The fact that there hasn't been, historically, a similar & fully-fledged men's movement ends the argument.
What discrimination does a heterosexual white male have to face, in comparison?
But no one attached to feminism is saying anti-men issues should be ignored.
Prejudice against them if they watch Will and Grace. Mentioning no names here...ahem.
The way women are ill treated in some parts of the world even nowadays is sickening.
On a completely different and not as important note, it's rather wierd how lots of girls I know act as though they are superior to boys purely on the basis that they are girls. For example, if there is only one chair and two people (a boy and a girl), the girl expects the boy to let her sit.
Also, some girls these days (girls of my age - girls in college) think that they should be placed on a pedestal and think of men as inferior. Rather strange imo.
On a completely different and not as important note, it's rather wierd how lots of girls I know act as though they are superior to boys purely on the basis that they are girls. For example, if there is only one chair and two people (a boy and a girl), the girl expects the boy to let her sit.
Also, some girls these days (girls of my age - girls in college) think that they should be placed on a pedestal and think of men as inferior. Rather strange imo.
Aye, because the problems of white heterosexual men are insignificant. They all swig single malt whiskey while dropping their kids off at Oxbridge every semester
Lazy generalization is lazy. For me, the most insidious inequality is that of wealth. A woman with wealth (for example) has more power, influence, and rights than the average man.
Utter nonsense. If you want just one example, think of how the law discriminates against men when it comes to parental rights. If you father a child and you're not married to the woman you have absolutely no rights whatsoever to have any say in the child's upbringing or any right to contact with it. You do, however, have the responsibility of maintaining it.
I think the point being made was that white heterosexual men don't face any discrimination on the grounds that they're white heterosexual men.
I recently reached my 65th birthday and started receiving my State Pension. A woman born the same day as me has already been receiving her State pension for 5 years.
I wouldn't say they were out n out discriminated against but they certainly do face stigmas.
Stigmas such as being a stay-at-home father with a bread-winner wife or being more open about mental illness which is often seen as the opposite of "manning up".
Ah, when you word it that way fair enough then.
How the law views the custody of children in divorce cases?
True, but there's a very good chance you earned more than her anyway
For the average female CEO to earn the same as her male counterparts, she would need to work until she was 89.
You need to find examples unique to them. The whole domestic role thing is problematic for women and men.
The mental illness stigma is also fairly non gender-specific. Men might be accused of not manning up while women risk accusations of being hysterical or neurotic.
How is what I wrote nonsense? If you achieve equality between two groups of people, then they're equal. And that will include for the things that women can currently have an advantage over men (ie child care)
If she worked in the Civil Service for the same length of time as me at the same grade as me she would have earned exactly the same as me.True, but there's a very good chance you earned more than her anyway
For the average female CEO to earn the same as her male counterparts, she would need to work until she was 89.
Whoa whoa, I didn't mean to rile a few people lol
I was stating in comparison - everyone is discriminated against given the situation - feminist, black civil rights, gay rights face a more systematic discrimination and it highlights why it's impossible for there to be a unified equalisim because we all face different forms of discrimination
I was stating in comparison - everyone is discriminated against given the situation - feminist, black civil rights, gay rights face a more systematic discrimination and it highlights why it's impossible for there to be a unified equalisim because we all face different forms of discrimination
You wrote "By definition, if you achieve your goal of equality for women, you will have achieved equality for men (due to the fact that they're now equal...)"
How do you make it out that men are already "equal"? That's the nonsense part.
I think he meant that men enjoy more rights and have it relatively easier. Which isn't nonsense in the slightest. All we can come up with to counter are things like parental rights, which while an issue in its own rights and should be addressed, is insignificant compared to the issues women face.