McParadigm wrote:
I'll happy babble about opens source learning in the education topik. I much enjoy typing out over-long posts that nobody reads.
yeah, I just brought it up in here because I thought that open source learning might be a more balanced education model for both sexes.
Re: Masculism
Posted: Sun February 16, 2014 8:22 pm
by Jorge
Re: Masculism
Posted: Sun February 16, 2014 8:33 pm
by surfndestroy
theplatypus wrote:
It would be so much better if he had any facts. He sounds the exact same as those who worked against equality 50 years ago. Can't provide a single fact but works it as an entirely emotional based argument.
Re: Masculism
Posted: Sun February 16, 2014 8:38 pm
by McParadigm
He does sound like one half of a very involved Star Trek fan debate.
Re: Masculism
Posted: Sun February 16, 2014 8:50 pm
by Dev
the worst thing is that he admits that the men's rights movement as a whole isn't bad, but bases his judgment on the obviously flawed parts of "the movement" rather responding to the more interesting criticisms of feminism we are trying to make here.
Re: Masculism
Posted: Sun February 16, 2014 8:52 pm
by Dev
not that he is reading our thread but you get the sentiment
Re: Masculism
Posted: Sun February 16, 2014 8:56 pm
by Dev
I just want to see someone dissect the richly insane psycho-analysis broken iris put forth which at the very least was a creative feat.
Re: Masculism
Posted: Sun February 16, 2014 9:47 pm
by broken iris
Dev wrote:I just want to see some dissect the richly insane psycho-analysis broken iris put forth which at the very least was a creative feat.
You should see the shit I don't end up posting.
Re: Masculism
Posted: Sun February 16, 2014 10:09 pm
by Dev
broken iris wrote:
Dev wrote:I just want to see some dissect the richly insane psycho-analysis broken iris put forth which at the very least was a creative feat.
You should see the shit I don't end up posting.
All I can say is I am sorry for the reasons you don't end up posting it.
Re: Masculism
Posted: Sun February 16, 2014 11:54 pm
by Jorge
McParadigm wrote:Really tho
Women have represented better than 60% of college graduates for years, now...a trend based mostly on disproportionate drop out rates but now set to be extremized by a recent reduction in incoming male freshmen. Men are FIFTY percent more likely to die of cancer than women, yet the majority of cancer awareness and research donation efforts favor cancers which rarely or never affect men. The pacing and verbal heavy designs of our early education system far favor girls over boys, whose development times for language and reading skills put their most receptive ages for learning to read well after the point that we have stopped "teaching to read" and started "reading to teach." Young boys also take longer to process verbally supplied information. It's no wonder they become most of our in school behavior problems and represent the vast majority of our dropouts. And on that note, males outpace females in suicide rates, with numbers for teenage boys and divorced men particularly high, but one recent study found that 70% of media discussion on the subject centered around teenage girls.
Christina Hoff Sommers likes this post
Re: Masculism
Posted: Mon February 17, 2014 9:01 am
by Heathen
Anyone remember the name of that guy on the old board who wouldn't shut up about white men being oppressed? I think he might have been Canadian.
Re: Masculism
Posted: Mon February 17, 2014 9:05 am
by BurtReynolds
wtf do Canadians have to be oppressed about? Snow and polar bears are their only worries.
Re: Masculism
Posted: Mon February 17, 2014 9:13 am
by Heathen
BurtReynolds wrote:wtf do Canadians have to be oppressed about? Snow and polar bears are their only worries.
Indians
Re: Masculism
Posted: Mon February 17, 2014 1:50 pm
by broken iris
BurtReynolds wrote:wtf do Canadians have to be oppressed about? Snow and polar bears are their only worries.
Vancouver housing prices.
Re: Masculism
Posted: Mon February 17, 2014 2:15 pm
by broken iris
harmless wrote:But then, I'm not at all clear that you know what the goals of Feminism are anyway. If you did, you might stop pushing back against it.
Jebus freaking christ bro. Asking questions about Feminism and it's practical effects and goals is NOT the same as pushing back against it, it's part of trying to educate yourself about it. If you feel Feminism (or Intersectionality or some other social movement) is above reproach or critique, maybe because of who it benefits or whom it's advocates are, then we truly will never find common ground on this. I would also caution you that it is intellectually bankrupt and somewhat a moral hazard to stop asking questions and challenging advocates for change. Not because there aren't issues with how our society works or that things are good enough and we are better of with the status quo, but because history has shown that some of our worst mistakes started with the best intentions.
Re: Masculism
Posted: Mon February 17, 2014 2:55 pm
by harmless
There are reasons to critique everything, I agree. Feminism isn't a homogenous movement, and most people who criticise it think it is. Proponents of intersectionality tend to have many criticisms of mainstream feminism, and some outright detest it. So I don't appreciate the constant insinuations that I haven't done any research. If we don't reach a compromise that's fine with me; compromises aren't usually what I'm after.
Re: Masculism
Posted: Mon February 17, 2014 2:58 pm
by harmless
And yes, I do believe that serious attention to 'Masculism' is a pushing back against feminism. I've arrived at that conviction through research and personal experience; the idea that someone isn't open-minded enough just because they disagree with you is ridiculous, and that goes for both of us. We just disagree about what needs emphasizing and what needs de-emphasizing, let's leave it there. It doesn't make me a 'manhater' unconcerned with other people of my own sex.
Re: Masculism
Posted: Mon February 17, 2014 3:28 pm
by mookie
Ok. here's my illustration..
Sorry it wasn't timelier.
Within those two categories, the women in suits are annoyed they don't make s much as the guy in the suit, so #feminism
The women in the uniform doesn't give a crap how much the guy in the uniform makes. She wants to make what the woman in the suit makes.
Re: Masculism
Posted: Mon February 17, 2014 3:43 pm
by harmless
mookie wrote:Ok. here's my illustration..
Sorry it wasn't timelier.
Within those two categories, the women in suits are annoyed they don't make s much as the guy in the suit, so #feminism
The women in the uniform doesn't give a crap how much the guy in the uniform makes. She wants to make what the woman in the suit makes.
What you're talking about there is intersectionality, which acknowledges these shades and intersections between what people experience: women of colour, white women, disabled women, queer / trans women, poor women, working-class women, middle-class women, and women that hit every category. There's no such thing as 'just a woman', and there's no such thing as 'just a man'. Whoever drew this cartoon is making a cartoon (literally and figuratively) of what he or she thinks feminists are after. It's a valid critique of mainstream feminism, but not feminism in general. Intersectionality is really the only area of feminism that acknowledges poor, working-class, colour, queer, disability etc.
Re: Masculism
Posted: Mon February 17, 2014 3:45 pm
by harmless
Just as an example, I was talking with a couple of disabled women, campaigners for disability and feminism, on Twitter. They were rightly complaining that the 'glass ceiling' concept (how far women are able to get 'up the ladder' in business) is in no way relevant to them, since 70% of disabled people in the UK are not in work, because they can't work, or because they can't access work. For them, feminism needs to address that before the glass ceiling is even relevant. Intersectionality, when carefully applied, addresses their concerns and ultimately is a way of welcoming more people on board, not less (as mainstream feminism likes to claim).
