Men are becoming more like Women

[Beckwin]

if they called it "egalitarianism" that would not have properly represented the initial problem.

the term also has become ingrained academically, with feminist ideas and critiques making important contributions to a variety of fields- art, pedagogy, literature, social sciences, etc.

but really, you could say that the civil rights movement had/has a focus on blacks and therefore is invalid.... or you could just not say something like that.

[Beckwin]

I'm having a hard time believing that a French socialist existentialist who campaigned for less government control on women actually proposed an authoritarian government that would not let women have children/not have the option to raise them. I'm not very well read on Beauvoir, but I do not buy your characterization of her stance here.

-----------

Averaging out, in the context of what you said, to be the same would indicate that more girls are in the more dangerous levels of low self-esteem compared to boys. This correlates with rates of eating disorders, clinical depression, and overall higher suicide rates. No one's saying not to help the boys who need it, but just that it appears there are more girls who need significant help dealing with legitimate problems.

[wipers]

We should play a free association game and see what feminism evokes from both men and women. Average them out write a five page paper and call it research.

[Kashka]

I'm having a hard time believing that a French socialist existentialist who campaigned for less government control on women actually proposed an authoritarian government that would not let women have children/not have the option to raise them. I'm not very well read on Beauvoir, but I do not buy your characterization of her stance here.

-----------

Averaging out, in the context of what you said, to be the same would indicate that more girls are in the more dangerous levels of low self-esteem compared to boys. This correlates with rates of eating disorders, clinical depression, and overall higher suicide rates. No one's saying not to help the boys who need it, but just that it appears there are more girls who need significant help dealing with legitimate problems.

De Beauvoir specifically said "there should not be a choice". The only way that there can not be a choice is for it to be enforced or impossible. It's certainly possible that women can stay at home and raise kids, so it would have to be enforced for there not to be a choice. Who's going to enforce that other than a governing body/women who believe their way is best? At any rate, the point is again that it's women who are just replacing men in forcing their ideals on women.

As for the averaging out, in school children, there is a negligible difference in terms of self-esteem if you accept that the highest answers, "always happy with who I am" and "Sort of happy with who I am" are good enough to constitute at least not having a problem with self-esteem. If you meant that my addition that women are more likely to suffer depression etc affects things, it would be good to keep in mind that a relatively low number of women suffer depression and that it is a fact that men are indeed far more likely to successfully kill themselves than women. This will come off as callous, but on the internet that's what happens; which is worse, suffering an eating disorder or suicide? Don't use the argument that suicide is not relevant because it's rare either. Around 100-400 women starve themselves to death in a year (National Health Statistics numbers, for the Eighties. I would imagine that now those numbers are even lower) compared to 33,000 suicides (National Institute of Mental Health, 2006).

The whole patriarchy oppressing women thing is bullshit. It ignores that men helped in the liberation of women, women have made significant gains even under the "patriarchy", that the women who are most likely to adhere to that train of thought are middle-class white women who themselves are priviledged and have been making gains in administrative ranks, professor tenureships, and just plain making gross amounts of money for their cause. It's also an intrinsically infalsifiable theory; anyone who criticizes it is just a victim of the patriarchy. It's nothing more than an extreme amount of smoke-and-mirrors and word twisting, and I bet a person could make a similar overarching theory that the Matriarchy has been keeping men in oppression all these years. Here, I'll try it out for three claims.

The entire reason men work is to persuade our matriarchal overlords that they are worthy of being considered for mating. Men endure the drudgery of low-satisfaction but high-paying, successful jobs to give women the fruits of their labor. 80% of purchase decisions are made by women (that's actually true).

Men are constantly "animalized" by a barrage of carefully placed sexual depictions of women in the mainstream media and art, intent to cause a loop of constant arousal to prevent them to see the matriarchal system. Fertility statues of ancient times are the precursors to modern day's submission by pornography!

In business the most important piece of equipment is not the one which can manufacture the most parts, but the "bottleneck" piece which regulates how many all machines can make as a whole. Men are the streamlined machines that can make as much genetic material as necessary, women are the bottleneck which limits production and is thus intrinsically most important, most looked after, and most protected. After all, who fights and dies in war but men, and for what cause but women?

If you disagree with me, it's just because you haven't been able to evolve out of the arousal loop to see the truth.

[Beckwin]

I think you don't understand the concept of patriarchy (and matriarchy). It doesn't refer to men and women respectively, it refers to systems of gender relations/expectations and power.

Of course men have been involved in feminism and advances for women; Beauvoir herself enjoyed and valued men in her life.

The entire reason men work is to persuade our matriarchal overlords that they are worthy of being considered for mating. Men endure the drudgery of low-satisfaction but high-paying, successful jobs to give women the fruits of their labor. 80% of purchase decisions are made by women (that's actually true).

The funny part of this and the rest of your sarcastic take on patriarchy/matriarchy is that feminism opposes all of it.

Again, mind-blowing.

Now, back to Beauvoir, the "there should not be a choice" could easily refer to the idea that one shouldn't have to choose between two static choices: not having children or not having a career/etc. There's nothing authoritarian about saying that choice should not exist. But if we want to play a quotes game, here's one with more explanation/context:

It was said that I refused to grant any value to the maternal instinct and to love. This was not so. I simply asked that women should experience them truthfully and freely, whereas they often use them as excuses and take refuge in them, only to find themselves imprisoned in that refuge when those emotions have dried up in their hearts. I was accused of preaching sexual promiscuity; but at no point did I ever advise anyone to sleep with just anyone at just any time; my opinion on this subject is that all choices, agreements and refusals should be made independently of institutions, conventions and motives of self-aggrandizement; if the reasons for it are not of the same order as the act itself, then the only result can be lies, distortions and mutilations.

[wipers]

I always thought men worked to support themselves and their families thanks for clearing that up.


Edit: The 1960's called they want their feminism ideals back.

[Seraph]

I think i need to restate the problem that "Feminism" has come to mean many things to different people. I think many people equate feminists with 'assholes' instead of 'equality' and that is very disappointing (but not completely undeserved). I think people definitely need to express their opinions and beliefs instead of saying "I'm a feminist" because at this point, I don't really think that tells anyone what you really believe. It's like saying "I'm religious". All you accomplish is starting a flame war.

[Kashka]

Again, there's more than one kind of feminism. One kind enjoys women being women, the other kind just hates men, and will go to great lengths to persuade everyone else they should too. It really isn't possible anymore to talk about feminism without mentioning which of these you're talking about. If you're unwilling to at the very least make this distinction, then we're stuck in a rut.

To anyone interested, I'm just gonna recommend Christina Hoff Sommers' books "Who Stole Feminism?" (this one's copyright 1994, so people might feel it's a bit dated. But it does a wonderful job of showing the character of the women's movement which does not represent women, but instead only speaks in their name) and "The War Against Boys" (2001). The second one I've found a few spots that I felt did not fully explore her premises, but overall for both books it is well written and very academic, at least compared to Kathleen Parker's "Save the Males" (2008) which is definitely more sensational. Sommers' books almost systematically go around destroying "gender feminist" (man hating) methods which caused the mess boys are in now whereas Parker is nowhere near as fixated on feminism itself.

Edit: In regards to de Beauvoir's quote, the only thing I can see to say is that the quote you listed occurred in 1963 whereas mine is from 1975. This could be a reflection on the increasing divisiveness in feminism at the time driving her there, or it could simply be that the quote I listed was from a dialogue, and perhaps may have been aggravated in some way by the other party, Betty Friedan. de Beauvoir's quote I listed was a response to Friedan voicing her belief that women should have the choice to stay at home to raise their children if that was what they wanted to do. Other than that, all I have to say is that I used that quote as an in to enter the discussion, and I don't really think it's that important overall. I just wanted to show that there are two feminisms and used that as an example because I felt it was "loud" enough to get attention.

[Seraph]

Again, there's more than one kind of feminism. One kind enjoys women being women, the other kind just hates men, and will go to great lengths to persuade everyone else they should too. It really isn't possible anymore to talk about feminism without mentioning which of these you're talking about. If you're unwilling to at the very least make this distinction, then we're stuck in a rut.

Then why not talk about equality without having to put labels on it? Just mentioning the 'F word' at this point will just get people riled up.

[Beckwin]

Fun fact: googling the original Beauvoir quote you posted only returns anti-feminist pages.

Anyways, you're trying to focus on a small number of feminists who don't have much significant mainstream influence in order to, despite what you say, discredit feminism at large. It's kinda like the folks who spend a lot of time and energy tearing down Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to make veiled attacks on Affirmative Action, social programs, etc. Or, like the Limbaughs and Dobbs who constantly reaffirm that they don't hate Mexicans, spend most of their discourse related to that group talking about criminals destroying the country and siphoning all of our money.

[wipers]

I think this is a good discussion it is just very hard for a man to talk about feminism I think. Well for some men at least. I feel like by being a man I'm automatically put under the microscope. I guess it is the whole "white male guilt" syndrome where everything is blamed on us. I'm not saying to feel sorry for white men but when you get attacked by women it makes us feel uncomfortable.

[Kashka]

I would object that some of the figures whose ideas I am attacking are more important than you realize. Specifically, Susan Faludi, Carol Gilligan, Gloria Steinem, David and Myra Sadker, and others who think like them. These individuals have had a hand in such things as a 360 million dollar Equity in Education Act, have had their findings and works quoted by people like Vice-President Biden, have managed to help force schools and workplaces to adhere to ever more expansive interpretations of Title IX and other things. They or their ideals are represented in government and academia. One of the specific problems is that they are a minority and don't represent women, but wield an inordinate amount of power.

These are people that have had and do have a hand in trying to resocialize America into their ideal. I don't think these are minor figures, but they should be.

[alt]

Sorta touched on before. But there are different versions of feminism. And they have differing view points on certain issues. Might be good to clarify what type of feminism you are referring from here on.

[Kashka]

...I just googled the de Beauvoir quote I originally posted and the first three articles I see are all in the same camp as me, lambasting radical feminism. The fourth search result is my own goddamn post on page 3.

[Ksandra]

I think this is a good discussion it is just very hard for a man to talk about feminism I think. Well for some men at least. I feel like by being a man I'm automatically put under the microscope. I guess it is the whole "white male guilt" syndrome where everything is blamed on us. I'm not saying to feel sorry for white men but when you get attacked by women it makes us feel uncomfortable.

I like that you posted this. It's kinda interesting (again not statistically speaking, just mostly my own experiences). Often I find that when men do open up a lot of times they dream of the old-fashioned ideals vs. modern ones. But they've been taught that to think that way is sexist and wrong, so often don't ever mention it. This again is something I find a problem. There is nothing wrong about dreaming/wanting of having a wife who wants to stay at home and raise the kids. And I think it's silly that some guys feel they can't admit it freely that this is what they desire.

[aduidarnenye]

These are people that have had and do have a hand in trying to resocialize America into their ideal. I don't think these are minor figures, but they should be.

Don't a lot of different groups try to do the same in different ways to different ideals?

[aduidarnenye]

I like that you posted this. It's kinda interesting (again not statistically speaking, just mostly my own experiences). Often I find that when men do open up a lot of times they dream of the old-fashioned ideals vs. modern ones. But they've been taught that to think that way is sexist and wrong, so often don't ever mention it. This again is something I find a problem. There is nothing wrong about dreaming/wanting of having a wife who wants to stay at home and raise the kids. And I think it's silly that some guys feel they can't admit it freely that this is what they desire.

Except the "old fashioned ways" (i.e. nuclear family with male breadwinner and female housewife) as I've mentioned, aren't actually that old. They only date from 1950 onwards. Previous to that there were a lot different models on how families were constructed, usually involving extended families. And women usually had some kind of work outside the home, or at least involving producing goods for the home.

You can dream about having that all you want, but the reality is, women are required as an economic workforce. This is not new, it doesn't date from the 1960s feminist theory origins. It always has been.

[Ksandra]

Except the "old fashioned ways" (i.e. nuclear family with male breadwinner and female housewife) as I've mentioned, aren't actually that old. They only date from 1950 onwards. Previous to that there were a lot different models on how families were constructed, usually involving extended families.

so? just cause I call it old doesn't mean it's wrong because it's from the 50s

[edit] you're arguing semantics and that changes nothing.

[aduidarnenye]

I'm not arguing semantics. "Traditional family values" implies something a lot older that lasted a long time, rather than a single decade in the middle of the last century. I'm trying to point out you're giving something a worth or a value that it did not actually have.

[Kashka]

Don't a lot of different groups try to do the same in different ways to different ideals?

I have to admit any lobbying group does fit into that. My main gripes though are that they have a disproportionate amount of power for their numbers, use misleading statistics to generalize claims which haven't gone unnoticed (all while chanting they are "silenced" in the patriarchy), and do not represent the group they claim to.

I believe that these women are exploiting men's good intentions and sincerity, while simultaneously patronizing women. I don't subscribe to the patriarchy system because I believe that men in general do love and celebrate the women in their lives, and would rather have a partner in marriage than a servant. To claim otherwise is offensive to men, offensive to the women who love men, and divides the sexes. This is the internet though, so if I'm wrong I'll know in like 5 minutes.