Feminism, Mens Rights and Other Nonsense.

[Kythia]

I am not sure why you are picking on this point, when I already said that it is simply "most" of the aid organizations that were women's advocacy groups.  I never implied that they were exclusively female-oriented.  This would likely provide an explanation, however, as to why male victims were being underrepresented in reporting.

Really?  I mentioned that it was being done by none female-orientated ones.  Two posts above this one.  Clearly your explanation doesn't work.  But this is woefully off topic, we should agree to disagree on it or take it back over to that thread.

[Kane]

So you've self-admittedly done little research, but hold yourself out as very informed?

I hold myself out very informed in equality issues. Not in MRA websites. I also hold myself very informed in feminism, my wife happens to be a strong advocate for the movement, and does a lot of writing for feminism. And no, we do not have arguments about it, we debate it occasionally, but tend to end up agreeing to disagree... It's not like our view in equality is different, it's that I don't think it should be called feminism.

A name that acnowledges the history of the movement and the valuable contribution of those who came before seems worthwhile to me. If people are going to reject the movement based solely on its name, they were never interested in seriously considering it in the first place. This is the clearest example of motivated stopping I've ever seen.

I don't reject most things feminism stands for, I've supported and will continue to support a lot of different movements started by feminism (Such as the afore mentioned' "man up!" campaing. But I will not keep going on about it. My opinion is that the historical value of the name does not outweigh the fact that the way it's named does give pshycological implications, that cause people to have a knee-jerk reaction to whatever is said in the name of feminism, without considering it. You can say what you want about it, but such psychological implications are important, and in the western world we live in, there is absolutely no need for the push for equality to be called feminism anymore, it is only counter productive. That is why it seems like picking sides to me.

Funny, I know a lot of sensible people who speak about some of the issues you cite and seek to address the problem, are part of an organized movement, and aren't branded as misogynist pricks. Quite the opposite. True, they don't do so under the banner of "men's rights", but that's because that label has been pretty much entirely coopted by misogynist pricks. Sort of like how, even if people are hard-left socialists in favour of a strong national identity and government, they're not going to call themselves "National Socialists", because the well's been poisoned there.

I get branded as a misogynistic prick almost every time I even mention that men do have some problems too, even when I'm not challenging feminism. I guess I discuss in the wrong circles. (Heck, I've even been branded as a misogynist prick in this thread at least once.)

Not terribly so, but it gets significantly higher marks than any MRA site I've ever seen.

Really? Because to me, that site is the worst enemy of anyone who calls themselves a feminist, with headlines like "Have you ever beat up your boyfriend, 'cause we have!" and "Objectification of men is good." and joking about male victim of rape perpetuated by a woman. Sounds like any MRA site you are describing, really.

Um. You may want to look again. My second link, the one discussing the elimination of gender gaps, was in a feminist journal. My first one, questioning the existence of such gaps, was from the UK Department for Education. Are you claiming that's a feminist movement? I note that you're not disputing my actual rebuttal - do you accept that, if boys are underperforming as you claim, then approaches that seek to eliminate any and all gender gaps address this issue?

The one discussing the elimination of gender gaps appears to be more focused about gender gaps in developing nations. And the second study I thought to be a study made by feminist movement, because you put it forward as such. And no, I'm not saying the approach is invalid. I'm not making a further comment, because this is not what I have an issue with.

In short, it seems you have a strong tendency to either ignore potential explanations for your data other than "Men are being shortchanged here!" or misread the data entirely. Please try again.

Frankly, I didn't read anything before posting the original post, those were simply things I could remember. I looked up the sources later. I admit they are not all entirely accurate, but there is enough data there to point that men do have their unique socio economic issues too, whether or not they are as severe as women's. It was nothing more, or nothing else than that, and I don't think you are trying to say that they do not, so I don't see a point in this part of the debate either.

It certainly makes them better than naked assertions, which is all I saw at time of writing, or shoddy interpretations of existing data.
Your OP said that there was "little talk of real equality", because feminists continue to call themselves feminists. Rebutted. As to the rest: How would you twist "equalism"? By demanding equal time and resources devoted to men's issues, when they aren't equal in scope. You know, exactly what I said I mostly see self-styled "egalitarians" doing.

Not equal time. Equal consideration. Big difference. You can't give equal time to something that is not equal in scope, but often when feminist movement goes to fix an issue, they only consider one side of the issue. Such as requiring a certain amount of certain gender to be working in a certain job. That's all well and good in an idealistic world, but reality should be that best qualified person would get the job. What we need is a change in attitudes, we need a change in how people are educated, in how they are raised, we need to understand that everyone is equal. The laws that promote one gender over the other need to go, we can't have them for men, and we can't have the for women.

Now the truth is this all seems incredibly difficult to solve, and we resort to solutions like. "Let's force a gender limitation." in the name of feminism. And all it does is screams. "Women can't get a good job on their own so we gotta give them an unfair advantage!" I know attitudes are one of the most difficult to change, but attitudes are exactly what we need to change now.

And why exactly do you think feminism pushes for equality, if not "for equality's sake"? You've provided sources that didn't say what you claimed they said, for the most part, so I stand by my statement.

It doesn't exactly matter, when the name gives you a psychological influence. All one might be wanting to do is equality for equality's sake, but when the name of the movement is 'feminism' then I'm sorry, but the psychological implication on that is to view women's issues with more importance. Yu might not do it, I might not do it even if I called myself a feminist, but a lot of people are going to do it.

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199753628.001.0001/acprof-9780199753628-chapter-12 Now if your own gender maes you biased, then why wouldn't a gender specifically named drive for equality do the same?

[Retribution]

*smiles* well this seems to be devolving into the black or white, with us or against sort of thing that I was saying our modern media tends to foster. And from where I sit this thread is illustrating that point. Complete with conflicting data and followed by the refusal of one side to accept the data of the other. It is any topic that is in the public eye given life IMHO.

Having said that and to get back on topic I think semantics is a lot of the issue. When one is a hammer most things look like nails. If your group has a feminist name then of course women's issues are going to be more relevant to them. If a group has a masculine name then men's issues will be their bread and butter. Like say the fact more women get custody of children during divorce because they are perceived as more nurturing. I forget who said that further up this thread, but I honestly find the whole premise to be stereotypical and prejudice to -both- men and women.

I honestly think a lot of the debate could be tended by a group called something neutral like "Equality" or what have you.  And what I think the real root of the issue is, is that most people feel like their own causes whatever they might be has more validity than the next.

[Valthazar]

But this is woefully off topic, we should agree to disagree on it or take it back over to that thread.

We'll continue discussion here:
https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=198715.0

[Avis habilis]

Think of it like this. Imagine you’re reading a Dr. Seuss book about a bunch of beasts living on an island. There are two kinds of beasts: Fleetches and Flootches. (Stick with me here! I love you!) Though the two are functionally identical in terms of intellect and general competence, Fleetches are in charge of pretty much everything. They hold the majority of political positions, they make the most money (beast-bucks!), they dominate the beast media, they enact all kinds of laws infringing on the bodily autonomy of Flootches. Individually, most of them are perfectly nice beasts, but collectively they benefit comfortably from inequalities that are historically entrenched in the power structure of Beast Island. So, from birth, even the most unfortunate Fleetches encounter fewer institutional roadblocks and greater opportunity than almost all Flootches, regardless of individual merit. One day, a group of Flootches (the ones who have not internalized their inferiority) get together and decide to agitate to change that system. They call their movement “Flootchism,” because it is specifically intended to address problems that disproportionately disadvantage Flootches while benefiting Fleetches. That makes sense, right?

Now imagine that, in response, a bunch of Fleetches begin complaining that Flootchism doesn’t address their needs, and they have problems too, and therefore the movement should really be renamed Beastism. To be fair. The problem with that name change is that it that undermines the basic mission of the movement, because it obscures (deliberately, I’d warrant) that beast society is inherently weighted against Flootches. It implies that all problems are just beast problems, and that all beasts suffer comparably, which cripples the very necessary effort to prioritize and repair problems that are Flootch-specific. Those problems are a priority because they harm all Flootches, systematically, whereas Fleetch problems merely harm individual Fleetches. To argue that all problems are just “beast problems” is to discredit the idea of inequality altogether. It is, in fact, insulting.

[Kane]

*smiles* well this seems to be devolving into the black or white, with us or against sort of thing that I was saying our modern media tends to foster. And from where I sit this thread is illustrating that point. Complete with conflicting data and followed by the refusal of one side to accept the data of the other. It is any topic that is in the public eye given life IMHO.

Having said that and to get back on topic I think semantics is a lot of the issue. When one is a hammer most things look like nails. If your group has a feminist name then of course women's issues are going to be more relevant to them. If a group has a masculine name then men's issues will be their bread and butter. Like say the fact more women get custody of children during divorce because they are perceived as more nurturing. I forget who said that further up this thread, but I honestly find the whole premise to be stereotypical and prejudice to -both- men and women.

I honestly think a lot of the debate could be tended by a group called something neutral like "Equality" or what have you.  And what I think the real root of the issue is, is that most people feel like their own causes whatever they might be has more validity than the next.

This is the exact point I've been making. In fact it's the only point I've been making, while being side railed to other debates that don't really matter.

As for the quote by Avis. It would be a good example if it actually was comparable to the situation here. That's like male problems merely harm individual males, when that is obviously not the case. There aren't many institutional roadblocks in western societies either nowadays.

Most of the problems of the 'first world' come from one thing, and one thing alone: Attitudes, and funny enough naming the movement 'feminism' is not going to help tohse attitudes to get better, quite the opposite.

[Retribution]

Quote did not work because it was a quote of a quote, but anyway: I do not agree with this premise plain and simple. The reason being I feel that when an issue affects pick a group, through discrimination it affects all of us. Therefore it is a problem of humanity as a whole even if one group is the specific victim of whatever injustice the groups around them are just as affected and devalued by it if by no other way than the skewed point of view they are raised with.

So trying to stay on topic I would say that issues affecting women are not women's issues per say, but are instead an issue for all of humanity. Agree with me or not that is the way I see things.

[Kane]

EDIT:  Further, your entire argument is based on the semantics of the word feminism.  I'm not sure dismissing counters with a breezy "semantics" is valid.  We are discussing semantics.

Wrong, it's based on the psychology of the word Feminism.

[Clorinda]

Kane, what you're talking about isn't "equalism" (or whatever term you're using), it is specifically "gender equalism."  Presumably equalism would be concerned with all sorts of issues of equality (economic, social, racial, national, personal) in addition to just gender.  So, should the movement not be named "Gender equalism?"  Already, you're arguing from a false premise, that your word is better than the word that already exists.

And, Retribution, yes, these are issues that influence all people, so all movements to end any sort of discrimination should all be called humanism because, really, all people are affected?  And movement that targets one problem is naive because all problems are interconnected?  Is that really your argument because it doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Florence]

This idea that 'feminism' has some anti-men connotation to it makes me think of a line from Mass Effect: "My sister started a dog shelter, but she loves cats too."

[Blythe]

Wrong, it's based on the psychology of the word Feminism.

I've been following this thread. I'd like to ask you to elaborate, please, on what you've brought up, the "psychology of the word Feminism." I've seen you mention it a few times, but you've been rather vague, and I'm honestly not sure what you mean. You seem to be using "psychology" kind of broadly.

[Ephiral]

I hold myself out very informed in equality issues. Not in MRA websites. I also hold myself very informed in feminism, my wife happens to be a strong advocate for the movement, and does a lot of writing for feminism. And no, we do not have arguments about it, we debate it occasionally, but tend to end up agreeing to disagree... It's not like our view in equality is different, it's that I don't think it should be called feminism.

And yet you're drawing a false equivalence between feminism and thing-you-know-little-about... why?

I don't reject most things feminism stands for, I've supported and will continue to support a lot of different movements started by feminism (Such as the afore mentioned' "man up!" campaing. But I will not keep going on about it. My opinion is that the historical value of the name does not outweigh the fact that the way it's named does give pshycological implications, that cause people to have a knee-jerk reaction to whatever is said in the name of feminism, without considering it. You can say what you want about it, but such psychological implications are important, and in the western world we live in, there is absolutely no need for the push for equality to be called feminism anymore, it is only counter productive. That is why it seems like picking sides to me.

If people are going to reject the movement just because "It's feminism!", then they were looking for an excuse to reject the movement. If they're going to support the movement, I (mostly) don't care what they call themselves - but you don't get to tell other people they're doing feminism wrong because they choose history and solidarity over something that has historically had problematic implications.

I get branded as a misogynistic prick almost every time I even mention that men do have some problems too, even when I'm not challenging feminism. I guess I discuss in the wrong circles. (Heck, I've even been branded as a misogynist prick in this thread at least once.)

It helps to establish a bit of distance between yourself and MRA talking points/buzzwords. and to discuss these issues respectfully, at the appropriate time. Most of the respectful and tolerant discussion of men's issues I've seen happens in feminist circles.

Really? Because to me, that site is the worst enemy of anyone who calls themselves a feminist, with headlines like "Have you ever beat up your boyfriend, 'cause we have!" and "Objectification of men is good." and joking about male victim of rape perpetuated by a woman. Sounds like any MRA site you are describing, really.

Nnnnot really. Jezebel has some serious missteps and flat-out fuckups, such as what you've described (and its parent company has some serious issues), but it also has some serious and respectful discussion, and a decided lack of active harassment-and-threat campaigns against prominent critics. So... again, false equivalence.

The one discussing the elimination of gender gaps appears to be more focused about gender gaps in developing nations. And the second study I thought to be a study made by feminist movement, because you put it forward as such. And no, I'm not saying the approach is invalid. I'm not making a further comment, because this is not what I have an issue with.

The second link, as I have said, is from a feminist journal. The first, the one questioning whether the gender gap exists, is from the UK Department for Education. I have already stated this. Why are you still confused?

If you didn't have an issue with it, why did you accuse it of failing to address the problem of boys' underperformance in education?

Frankly, I didn't read anything before posting the original post, those were simply things I could remember. I looked up the sources later. I admit they are not all entirely accurate, but there is enough data there to point that men do have their unique socio economic issues too, whether or not they are as severe as women's. It was nothing more, or nothing else than that, and I don't think you are trying to say that they do not, so I don't see a point in this part of the debate either.

The point is that, by and large, they don't actually say that. They say there is a disparity in certain reported numbers, and often fail to account for causes of those numbers other than "men are disadvantaged here". If they even say that in the first place. As an example: Did you actually crunch the numbers on the homelessness article, as I suggested? Did you notice that the child-abuse study claims the exact opposite of what you said it does?

Not equal time. Equal consideration. Big difference. You can't give equal time to something that is not equal in scope, but often when feminist movement goes to fix an issue, they only consider one side of the issue. Such as requiring a certain amount of certain gender to be working in a certain job. That's all well and good in an idealistic world, but reality should be that best qualified person would get the job. What we need is a change in attitudes, we need a change in how people are educated, in how they are raised, we need to understand that everyone is equal. The laws that promote one gender over the other need to go, we can't have them for men, and we can't have the for women.

I never said this is your position; I presented it as a rebuttal to your statement that "equalism" cannot be distorted or twisted. It can be twisted. It is being twisted.

Can you cite an example of a law in a first-world nation that promotes women over men, as opposed to ameliorating disadvantages faced by women as compared to men? Or are you trying to address a non-existent problem?

Now the truth is this all seems incredibly difficult to solve, and we resort to solutions like. "Let's force a gender limitation." in the name of feminism. And all it does is screams. "Women can't get a good job on their own so we gotta give them an unfair advantage!" I know attitudes are one of the most difficult to change, but attitudes are exactly what we need to change now.

So. Let's look at your example. As it stands, there is a documented bias against women in the workplace. Women's applications are given less consideration and are more easily passed over. Yes, we need to fight and eliminate that bias, but that's a very long-term project, and women are being hurt by it right now. What does an interim solution look like, if equal-opportunity policies as they exist are "an unfair advantage"?

It doesn't exactly matter, when the name gives you a psychological influence. All one might be wanting to do is equality for equality's sake, but when the name of the movement is 'feminism' then I'm sorry, but the psychological implication on that is to view women's issues with more importance. Yu might not do it, I might not do it even if I called myself a feminist, but a lot of people are going to do it.

Dodging the question. You claimed that feminism is not "equality for equality's sake". My question stands: What do you think it is, then?

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199753628.001.0001/acprof-9780199753628-chapter-12 Now if your own gender maes you biased, then why wouldn't a gender specifically named drive for equality do the same?

Because the causes cited for this are in no way linked to linguistics? Because this paper has no bearing whatsoever on the psychology of words? Because Sapir-Whorf is dead, dead, dead? Because, as that article notes, despite feminism being the driving cause of a lot of our examination of gender and gender roles, there is a decidedly pro-male slant to the bulk of the research? Pick one.



Retribution: Interestingly, your theory that oppression of one affects all of us, and that we all experience varying levels of privilege and oppression based on numerous factors including but not limited to skin colour, ethnicity, religion or lack thereof, gender, and sex? It already exists. Intersectional social justice is a thing. And it's a thing largely rooted in and advanced by intersectional feminism.

[Retribution]

Kane, what you're talking about isn't "equalism" (or whatever term you're using), it is specifically "gender equalism."  Presumably equalism would be concerned with all sorts of issues of equality (economic, social, racial, national, personal) in addition to just gender.  So, should the movement not be named "Gender equalism?"  Already, you're arguing from a false premise, that your word is better than the word that already exists.

And, Retribution, yes, these are issues that influence all people, so all movements to end any sort of discrimination should all be called humanism because, really, all people are affected?  And movement that targets one problem is naive because all problems are interconnected?  Is that really your argument because it doesn't make a lot of sense.

To some extent yes. Do not get me wrong I understand we all have our area of concentration I will use myself for example gun owner's rights and wildlife issues are my hot buttons. So of course in my personal case I concentrate on matters involving those issues more because simply put they are what I care about most. I get that.

But the point I was trying to make is sticking with feminism lets say that I think we all accept there is a discrepancy in wages between men and women.  Where the rub comes is the reason, the masculine perspective might say it is because there are more men in the work force. The feminine perspective  would counter that women who do the same job as men are paid less and hey while we are at it the fact that there are more men in the work force is discrimination as well.

I think both sides miss a large portion of the issue and that costs us all and is therefore naive for several reasons. First off as we are hell seeing in this thread when you light into someone on a topic they tend to dig in their heels and no real progress is made. Not to mention many have a just plain contrary nature and will take the other side for the simple sake of arguing.  This gets us no place fast because in the case above men are still earning on average more than women and no significant reforms are being passed because both sides have dug in their heels...it affects us all.  Keeping with my above example, each side of said coin has a legitimate point: from the masculine side more men are indeed in the work force, but some of them might very well like to be stay at home dads and our system is not really setup to encourage that.  From the feminine side there are indeed many cases of women being paid less than men for doing the same job and it is just plain wrong. But with both digging in their heels and fighting from their respective perspective neither legitimate problem is gaining any traction and therefore we all loose to some extent.

Now I am not sure how to fix this, but I hope that helps explain my stance to you some. But the older I get the more I swear that a lot of our problems are not as insurmountable as we think they are. We have just gotten all bogged down with the us against them mindset and it is leading to gridlock that does no one any good. I am trying to weed this sort of thing out of myself. For example in an election last Tuesday I voted for a candidate I never would have in the past because there are things I just plain do not see eye to eye with him on. But there are also places I like what he says, so take the good with the bad and in this case I think the good outweighed the bad. I feel like by accepting things such as this on the issue of feminism or whatever is the only way we are going to make progress as a human species on anything.

[Ephiral]

I don't think the lines are drawn quite where you think they are, Retribution. To use your example of men vs women in the workplace, and specifically how men would like more opportunities to parent: What group has been instrumental in campaigning for, and getting, paternity leave in a number of jurisdictions around the world?

This is a significant portion of what I've been arguing: The alleged "anti-male bias" in mainstream feminism? Doesn't exist. In fact, it does the exact opposite of existing. Feminism does a better job of championing men's rights than so-called "men's rights advocates".

[Retribution]

It honestly depends on which branch of the tree you are looking at Ephiral. For example my wife works for a women's advocacy group that I would say is not extreme. With her work with this group she works on many other equal rights causes. So yes, they are a perfect example of exactly what you are talking about.

On the other hand I do not think most would call an organization like NOW exactly male friendly. I know someone will probably produce a link to the contrary on this as soon as I post this and we could fling turd balls at one another all day. My whole point is that extremism in -any- form is bad for all of us.

[Ephiral]

...and feminism, as understood and practiced by the extremely overwhelming majority, is about as far from extremist as you can get while still doing anything meaningful. So why does it keep getting painted with that brush? Is the entire civil rights movement terrorist because there were some violent radicals there? Should gun-rights advocates all be dismissed as nutjobs because of a few hyper-radical militia groups? Or should we, perhaps, look at the main body of people who fall under a given banner, and dismiss or push back against the radicals as unrepresentative and harmful when they pop up?

[Clorinda]

Retribution, your example also seems kind of silly because the modern economic system is not justopposed to stay-at-home dads, but also opposed to stay-at-home moms.  It's not like the government is subsidizing families where the mother does not work and not subsidizing families where the father doesn't work.  There is no special "stay-at-home mom benefits."  Companies don't pay men whose wives stay home more.  So, really, it's not a gender issue because, economically, both are pretty much equally difficult.  Do you know what the primary economic difference would be?  It's harder for a woman to support a family than a man because women are arbitrarily paid less than men.

There is the social side, but as Ephiral points out, feminists are on the side of stay-at-home dads.  Further, our society does tend to support the notion of men doing the child rearing far more than in previous decades.  So, I don't get what the point is?  How are the examples of "Men would like to not work" and "Women should be paid equally for equal work" at all similar issues?  How do they make sense as complimentary?

Also, are they really "gun owners' rights?"  Aren't they rights that affect all humans?  They should just be called human rights, any other term sets up a dichotomy between gun owners and non-gun ownwers.  And are the "wildlife issues?"  They affect the whole world.  They're "world issues."  Now, do you see how silly that sounds?

[Retribution]

And this displays the point I was trying to make that if I do not completely agree with your PoV then I obviously must be your enemy that gets us no place. So we are going to have to agree to disagree here because there are a lot of issues on this point I will never see your way. As another example for years (it has since been changed) the Susan Kohlmen group did not allow men to participate in their Mother's Day run against breast cancer. If a mens group tried to have an all male Father's Day run against prostate cancer I suspect the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the injustice would me mighty, but I digress. And I doubt anyone will be calling the Kohlmen group radical anytime soon because they are not, but it still displays a double standard.

Denying that such things exist does not mean they do not exist and it is a problem for all people. Weather it be feminism or "rights that affect all humans" or pick your cause. For example I let my life long membership in the NRA lapse oh about 8 years ago because they were pushing some things I simply could not get on board with. However by and large I still support their stance, but that does not mean I refuse to acknowledge the inherent flaws.

And with that I am out.

[Kane]

*Snip*

You are correct in a lot of the points, and I'm not going to address most of them, for either I concde, or it's irrelevant to the discussion. Though I will have to note that Jezebel's discussions are anything but respectful if you pay attention to what's going on there. There are better feminist sources. Really.

Let's just package my argument to something more consumable, because these posts are stretching to a ridiculous size.

The main gripe I have with Feminism, is the name Feminism, and its psychological implications. I've been asked to delve deeper into this subject, so I will.

1.Word feminist suggests one's femininity -- by pledging allegiance to womankind, not synonymous with equality.

2. Only 24% of women surveyed in this study identified as feminists and 17% thought the word was an insult. The word carries a lot of negative meanings with it, alienating people from the idea. Many find it to promote feminity, rather than promoting equality.

3. Feminism, by dictionary definition is "advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men." While this is perfectly fine, it completely dismisses all mens rights whatsoever in the description, and this is what many will go by when describing themselves as feminists. Even if this wasn't how 'mainstream feminists' would describe themselves.

4. Feminism alienates men from the conversation. Not because feminists want to alienate men from the conversation, but simply because the name feminism alienates them. There is a deeper psychological issue here than. "Well that's just an excuse for someone who didn't want to know in the first place.) Here. If it was named 'maleism', and it was a men's movement to make everyone's life better, and it would mostly concentrate on women's problems, since they are more numerous, I'm pretty sure women would feel rather sceptical about it, just saying.

5. If I go somewhere and just say I want equality for all, that's what normally people will understand me to want. If I say I support feminism, people will automatically think I'm mainly concerned with women's rights. I am equally concerned with everyone's issues even if I spend more time with women's issues, as they are more numerous.

Women's rights are not a "feminist" issue — they are a human rights issue with enormous global ramifications.

[Florence]

3. Feminism, by dictionary definition is "advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men." While this is perfectly fine, it completely dismisses all mens rights whatsoever in the description, and this is what many will go by when describing themselves as feminists. Even if this wasn't how 'mainstream feminists' would describe themselves.

Fine. To prevent more debates like this. How about we all just start calling ourselves Rightsists. We support rights for things.

[Valthazar]

I think one of the critical conclusions from that source is that 14% of men refer to themselves as feminist at the onset, but when a definition of a feminist is provided, however, 58 percent of men say they are a feminist.

That seems to support an issue with the term itself, rather than ideology.

[Kane]

I think one of the critical conclusions from that source is that 14% of men refer to themselves as feminist at the onset, but when a definition of a feminist is provided, however, 58 percent of men say they are a feminist.

That seems to support an issue with the term itself, rather than ideology.

Amen.

[Avis habilis]

That seems to support an issue with the term itself, rather than ideology.

Or an issue with anti-feminists spreading fraudulent conceptions about what it means.

[mj2002]

Or an issue with anti-feminists spreading fraudulent conceptions about what it means.

The opening post of this thread contributes to this as well.

[Nadir]

Or an issue with anti-feminists spreading fraudulent conceptions about what it means.

Don't forget the media, because the only feminist most see are the insane, man hating ones