Femen (the non thinking mans feminist) - What Do You Think Of Them?

I agree with the above point about third-wave feminism - they're using their boobs to get more publicity. If they were just another group marching through Ukraine we'd never have heard of them and their campaign, but instead it's gone viral.

Aren't you being intellectually dishonest in your analysis? How can you merely dismiss every men's right issue as a result of the patriarchal society?

A lot of these issues arise from our evolutionary positions. For example, what's our evolutionary purpose? Reproduction right? What kind of society where we? Hunter-gathers. Now, someone has to hunt and someone has to be a care taker. Men where more physically strong as well faster hence made sense for them to hunt. Females where the ones that give birth and have breast hence made sense for them to stay-at-home. Polyandry is also disadvantageous because there were no contraception and no definitive way to tell who is the father. Whereas, Polygyny isn't disadvantageous. The slut vs player thing comes from here. We just have to look at the animal kingdom and see male animals fighting over females. Hence, no surprise that us humans have developed similar form (i.e. males active, females passive).

The institutions that have fueled these behaviors like e.g. religion/governments have evolutionary foundations. You're forgetting that evolution predates these institutions. The churches didn't suddenly arbitrarily decide to give men X roles and women X roles.

Your argument/historical analysis doesn't affect mine at all. You say that religion/governments (i.e. ideology) have evolutionary foundations, then so does patriarchal ideology as well. Yes the problems might arise from evolutionary positions but they are upheld by patriarchal values. To restate one of your examples: a woman gives birth and have breasts but her work pays as much as her husband's (can hunt as much) and the child can be fed with infant formula, so there is no reason for the man not to stay at home.

Besides, arguments like "x sex is supposed to do y due to biological trait z" is irrelevant (unless it concerns pure muscle power) due to neuroplasticity. Basically the brain gets good at what it practices, be it taking care of children or managing a company, which means that feminine and masculine traits are upheld by the values of society and not biological factors. We have to move from genes to memes.

But, there was no infant formula previously. I'm merely saying that these patriarchal values didn't arise from a bunch of men gathering around deciding what ways they can benefit the most. Rather our evolutionary history. I agree with you though that there isn't no excuse to hold onto any current patriarchal values other than personal choice.

I still don't think it's fair to call any western society patriarchal. That's just bastardizing the term in my opinion. We may still feel the effects of the patriarchal society but we aren't one. Just like ex-soviet states feel the effects of their previous economic system yet don't adhere to it. Change comes with effect and effect doesn't render the change nonexistent.

Catherine Hakim does a lot of work on the "erotic capital" of women in the current system, interesting to see (whether you think it's good for feminism) these girls using their capital in this way.

Have you people heard of Hannah Minx? Shes a popular American Youtube based, well educated multi-lingual graduate woman whose claim to fame is that she has massive boobs. Some say she also teaches Japanese words. Point I'm making here is these women are using their bodies to gain attention, which is easy. Getting people to take you seriously after they've viewed you in this manner, is not. Like with Hannah Wagner (Her real name). Just read her viewer comments for proof.

The fact that there is a "third wave" of feminism and this is the representation of it tells me they've admitted defeat in their desire to level the playing field in the perception of women. At least when feminists were derided as "ugly butch lesbians", they could argue peoples vitrol towards them stemed from the fact they didnt fall in line with societies shallow, intellectually defunct, animalistic demands and they were true to their cause. I respected those feminists.

These women however, are just attention seekers and chauvanist sympathisers (my view since they only use models to protest) and their message will go over the vast majority of peoples heads. Their views simply wont be taken seriously nor will they do anything to advance womens rights.

I hope the fourth wave is more intelligent and principled.

You've completely missed the point. They're not trying to seduce men, they're showing that the naked body has other functions than seducing men.

You also say that feminists need men to achieve their goals, you do realise that some men are feminists and that some women aren't? Feminism needs everyone.

Finally do you think that the revolutionaries in France and the Black Panthers in the U.S should've just "sat down and used their brains" instead of actively showing their hatred towards a system that oppressed them?

And just so you know: feminism is pushing for equality.

I have never claimed that patriarchal values arose like that, I merely claimed that they are present now. Once again rendering your discussion on evolution superfluous.

What is then your definition of "patriarchal"? We cannot have a discussion if we don't have a common ground to stand on.

This I disagree on. I can't remember the last time I heard a feminist pushing for abolition of the presumption of female custody in divorce trials.

Neither can I remember them campaigning for male employment (more men then women in the lowest paid and most dangerous jobs); women talk about glass ceilings but it is men who are on the dirt floor.

Most importantly I've never heard any feminist group pushing for equal access to health services for men, despite the appalling life expectancy in comparison of men in the western world. The statistics on money spent on female/male cancers is alarming to say the least.

I do not believe a "fem"inist movement (clues in the name) can truly represent everyone in the same equal way. Quite simply, were a situation comes up (like the health example) where men are seen as disadvantaged it will be brushed under the carpet. Thus whilst the feminist movement exists their needs a masculist movement to counterbalance, a yin to its yang. Of course this is not at all ideal, as it only creates further divides. Which is why, like I said in my original post we need an "Equalist" movement.

Please provide evidence that there's presumption of female custody in divorce trials.

What's this got to do with equality? Are men forced to enter those jobs? Are women barred from entering those jobs? If no, then there's no problem. Equal opportunities isn't the same as equal representation.

You're purposefully manipulating data to fit your agenda. Do you realize that healthcare has to be utilitarian? Have you got any evidence that they invest more in female cancer because it's to do with females than it's do with curability, cost of equipment, etc?

Yeah, you don't seem to understand egalitarianism. Fighting for one equality i.e. women's right doesn't preclude you from believing in equality for all. Do you really think animal right's advocate don't care about human rights? They do but they're focusing on a cause they believe in more. You can't fight for every single issue. Hence, you have to focus on one and someone else focuses on another and someone else focuses on another etc.

Many US states have laws for the presumption of maternal custody. In the UK we have no legal presumption as such, but in practice the courts often act with a unspoken rebuttable presumption in favor of women. Unless proved otherwise (the mother having past criminal record or drug problems), in the majority of cases the courts will favor the mother. Its not legal doctrine, but it's how the courts work for the majority of the time. Its a bias, probably based on historical stereotypes of women being the caregivers.

Some 90% of single parents are mothers, even presuming cases where fathers choose not to pursue custody that is quite a high figure.

It may be a case of imbalances in the education system (girls consistently beating boys in grades-based measures), thus sealing their fate in employment.

You could say women aren't barred from top level jobs, instead they may have to work harder to beat stereotypes (in the same way a man might have to do so in "traditionally" female dominated employment; nursing, care).

Of course I understand it has to be utilitarian and statistics are unreliable in this area. I just feel cancer funding (in terms of the marketing) is largely driven towards breast cancers, I can't remember the time I last saw an advert or ribbon for bowel or prostate cancer (maybe they aren't seen to be as "glamorous" by the marketing team).

I am absolutely not in anyway shape or form suggesting we get rid of campaigning for breast cancer (because it saves lives), but we as a society (and cancer charities) need to step up and present other cancers to an equal level (to raise even more awareness of the diverse amount of cancers).

I'm talking more of feminist groups attacking the mens issues, or dismissing them; which is totally different then not having the resources to address them.

An example being Amnesty's "accidental" dropping of a short film about father's rights in Sweden (believed to be due to protests from a women's group). Its the censorship I'm against, fueled in my opinion by a false belief that rights have to attack or degrade the opposition, instead of working in unison to achieve each others equality (an extreme example being the Valerie Solanos type of feminist).

I'll say again, we need to work to achieve equality for all. Whether due to agenda or simply due to an innocent lack of resources the feminist movement are always going to prioritize women's rights issues.