Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Feminist MP scoffs at International Mens' Day watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Men have dominated the other gender for as long as Humans existed. Now we let them off the hook and look what happens. Unlike our ancestors we are way more peaceful and kinder, however, the power we gave to women is now abused. Feminism doesn't only justify misandrism it oppresses men's freedom of speech. However, you don't hear men *****ing about it because simple , men aren't *****es. Enuff said
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alesha1991)
    I think her comments about an 'International Mens Day' being like a White History Month or Able Bodied Day sums it up. No one's denying that there are issues which affect men more than women but the fact is that most positions of power & authority are still held by men so you can't really compare it to International Womens Day. The difference between feminism and the 'Mens Rights' movement is simple. The first is about campaigning for equality between men & women, the second is about justifying misogyny & whining about any criticism of male privilege. You only have to look at those comments by Fourteen Words & kakos_anthropos to see the sort of people the Mens' Rights cause attracts.
    And most hairdressers, beauticians and dancers are women- I don't hear you all trying to increase equality with men in these fields?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Alesha1991)
    I think her comments about an 'International Mens Day' being like a White History Month or Able Bodied Day sums it up. No one's denying that there are issues which affect men more than women but the fact is that most positions of power & authority are still held by men so you can't really compare it to International Womens Day. The difference between feminism and the 'Mens Rights' movement is simple. The first is about campaigning for equality between men & women, the second is about justifying misogyny & whining about any criticism of male privilege. You only have to look at those comments by Fourteen Words & kakos_anthropos to see the sort of people the Mens' Rights cause attracts.
    Let's play the anti-feminist card: Why do you assume they identify as men?!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    And most hairdressers, beauticians and dancers are women- I don't hear you all trying to increase equality with men in these fields?
    The top hairdressers and dancers are fabulously gay men, so men are still privileged!
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    The top hairdressers and dancers are fabulously gay men, so men are still privileged!
    Heterosexual men aren't! Clearly there should be a movement to increase the number of men in those positions and heterosexual men at the top!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Heterosexual men aren't! Clearly there should be a movement to increase the number of men in those positions and heterosexual men at the top!
    Maybe it's, dare I say, their choice that they don't want to do so?

    *feminist minds explode*
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    http://metro.co.uk/2015/10/30/mp-say...point-5471202/

    She says that "everyday is Mens' Day".

    Now I personally do believe that there is much work to do in bringing equality for men and women. But equality cuts both ways.

    There are real issues surrounding mens' lower life expectancy, that they often do the most dangerous jobs in society, and the hugely disproportionate suicide rate where young men kill themselves in astonishing numbers. There are real mens health issues like prostate cancer and depression.

    These deserve to be looked at, and this MP's response suggests to me that perhaps she sees this more as a kind of tribal fight; a matter of which "side" you're on.

    Having an international mens' day and focusing on male issues for that day is absolutely sensible and the right thing to do.
    I very much sympathise with her. I think it was more Philip Davies asking for it (he voted for the tampon tax recently) than the idea of actually looking at the issues faced by men in this day and age.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    Maybe it's, dare I say, their choice that they don't want to do so?

    *feminist minds explode*
    Time to continue the stupid feminist logic:

    Well that's only because society forces them down different routes and then stops them getting anywhere if they do chose the careers listed by the other poster!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Time to continue the stupid feminist logic:

    Well that's only because society forces them down different routes and then stops them getting anywhere if they do chose the careers listed by the other poster!
    WE MUST BREAK DOWN THE PATRIARCHY!

    Force young boys to wear girl's clothes! Shame mothers who quit their careers to take care of their young children! Paint our hair blue!
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    WE MUST BREAK DOWN THE PATRIARCHY!

    Force young boys to wear girl's clothes! Shame mothers who quit their careers to take care of their young children! Paint our hair blue!
    blue hair is fit tho
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a noble chance)
    This is a poor argument. What you are saying is that because men continue to dominate in high places, a day dedicated to raising awareness of the issues that face them is not as important or as justified as one for women. The implied premise seems to be that men continue to dominate in high places because society is still skewed in their favour; I completely reject this from the get-go. The only evidence I see for gender discrimination in the work-place is that in favour of women and against men - sexist intiatives like the all-female shortlist in parliament. The idea that our society is against women in this area no longer carries any truth at all and the fact that men continue to dominate in these positions is not evidence that it does.
    This analysis is, actually, incorrect. Ignoring the 'substantive claims' around whether or not workplace discrimination takes place, the formal argument analysis you're offering is incorrect. There need not be any form of negative discrimination taking place for men to hold the majority of positions of power - it could simply be that women don't want to go into these positions (or some such). I'm not saying I endorse such a view whereby there is no explicit or implicit workplace discrimination either individually or structurally; I'm merely stating that your 'refutation' isn't a refutation at all because you've improperly identified the argument and, in fact, created a straw man.

    Both genders have their own struggles and you cannot reasonably dismiss an equal spotlight on men's problems because an infinitesimally small minority of them dominate in investment banking and the cabinet; it's insane, and this misandristic attitude has only meant that while we become obsessed as a nation with banning pop songs and magazines that offend some women on the grounds that other women have chosen to objectify themselves, we are, beyond occasional window-dressing comments, completely ignoring the fact that a man is five times as likely to commit suicide.
    This is, again, a straw man. Firstly, International Women's Day isn't merely about highlighting singular women's issues (you've identified here, for example, suicide). Trying to compare a Men's Day to a Women's Day is like trying to compare LGBTQ* Pride to Straight Pride. Women continue to face higher levels of violence, structural and individual discrimination, lack of equal access to resources, etc. around the world that is a direct product of a history of gender structural inequality. Just like LGBTQ* Pride is directly related to the historical facts which led to the movement, Women's Day is directly related to the historical (and in some places, continuing) facts of women's struggles.

    Masculinity studies (the study of men, men's gender issues, etc.) is directly the product of feminism. Masculinity studies owes its methodology, its ideology, its terminology, etc. to feminism. Masculinity studies quite literally rely on the work of feminists. And, in fact, most academic specialists in masculinity studies would readily identify as feminists. The study of gender, structuralism, etc. that surrounds contemporary investigation into men's, women's, etc. gender issues owes much of its existence to feminism and, more modernly, queer theory.

    The view you're attempting to present here is one that isn't uncommon, and it's a view that is universally unfamiliar with the actual academic work in feminism, masculinity, queer studies, etc. that is currently happening in the academy.

    This is one of the central reasons so many men and women dislike contemporary feminism: it masquerades as a movement for gender equality, and in almost the same breath opposes genuine gender equality on the antiquated basis that men don't need any help because they are all under the wing of some vague 'privilege' that they never adequately identify. It is simply a sexist attitude.
    This is the 'simpletons view' of feminism. It's a straw man and the assertions you're making simply aren't are not, as a matter of fact, addressed at contemporary feminism. You're incorrectly attempting to criticize post-structural, radical and difference feminism. You've incorrectly taken the premises of these feminisms that women are different and thereby purely formal equality will not adequately treat men and women as they need to be treated to reach substantive equality, as a statement that men don't need help or face any issues because of their privilege. In fact, quite oppositely, many feminists maintain that men, while enjoying a position of structural power, also suffer at the hands of the very system which they are garnering power under and which they are, perhaps inadvertently, perpetuating. Just because you don't endorse a particular view does not give you license to misrepresent, either intentionally or inadvertently, that position and use that misrepresentation as grounds to attack that ideology.

    I may not endorse radical feminism, but that doesn't mean that I need to misrepresent it and attack it in the way that the 'simpletons view' of feminism does.

    Walk into any academy and sit down and have a rational discussion with any feminist.

    I think a great many people would switch your descriptions of each movement around. While I think they are both as unnecessary as the other, I would sooner associate myself with the latter group than the former, which in my experience is far more commonly made up of very angry, close-minded people making the same fallacious arguments, bent on achieving an illiberal and unmeritocratic equality of outcome and, as we see here, effectively rejecting the idea that men's issues should be engaged with on an equal level on the basis that all men are 'privileged' in society, without this supposed privilege ever being properly explained.
    Again, another display of the 'simpletons' understanding of contemporary feminism. No feminist in the academy would ever subscribe to 'illiberal' ideology - feminism itself is the product liberalism; without the foundation of liberalism, the ideology of feminism itself collapses. An illiberal feminism would itself be a contradiction of terms, and no academic published in any reputable journal would ever make such an absurd claim as to suppose or support such a contradiction of terms.

    As far as 'unmeritocratic equality outcome' is concerned, I take great issue with this conjoined criticism. There are plenty of arguments about liberalism and equality of outcome. Liberalism itself is an ideology which supports equality and is no way inherently at tension with equality of outcome, any assertion that it is, is actually an assertion made out of blind ignorance. Just like an assertion that 'liberty' and 'equality' are inherently at odds is an assertion made out of blind ignorance which fails to acknowledge or comprehend the meaning of the word 'liberty' as encompassing ancient, positive and capability theories of liberty.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Men's lower life expectancy is mainly thanks to this thing called biology, there's nothing to be done about it. To be fair we get ****ed over with periods, childbirth and menopause so it evens up really!
    Well, not quite true. Diet, looking after their own health, more risk taking behaviour, more dangerous jobs etc.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I think the guy who was in parliament arguing for a debate on men's issues raised some perfectly fair examples, and I don't see why time shouldn't be set aside for them.

    As for a 'men's day' in general... I think there is one. It's just that no-one pays any attention to it. Which seems to me to be fair enough. I don't pay any attention to it either. Then again, I don't pay any attention to women's day.

    (Original post by NYU2012)
    No feminist in the academy would ever subscribe to 'illiberal' ideology - feminism itself is the product liberalism; without the foundation of liberalism, the ideology of feminism itself collapses. An illiberal feminism would itself be a contradiction of terms
    Yes, it would be, if you defined your terms precisely as to make it so.

    This is just fiat.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    x
    Fascist communist and free market fundie academia was all very sophisticated too but it didn't exactly translate on the ground in real life did it?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Yes, it would be, if you defined your terms precisely as to make it so.

    This is just fiat.
    I disagree. Terms do not need to be defined at all, simply taken as what they mean. 'Liberalism' is founded on a belief in equality; feminism is founded on a belief in equality. An 'illiberal' feminism would be a contradiction of terms because feminism is founded on and relies on and buys into liberalism, specifically the equality aspects of it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Fascist communist and free market fundie academia was all very sophisticated too but it didn't exactly translate on the ground in real life did it?
    This isn't a refutation of anything I've stated. It's an empty statement here. Fascist, communist and capitalist ideology have all had large influence on how we think about economics and politics, to say it had no real life effect is ignorant. It's been part of the production of knowledge, and a necessary step at that.

    In relation to feminism, I could give you a radical feminist viewpoint that has altered English law within the past decade - see the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 S63. See also the Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2014. I may not agree with these regulations, but feminist theory has purchase power. Trying to refute it with the 'simpletons' model simply will not suffice; the theory has to be dealt with on its own grounds. I am against many of these regulations personally because I side more with the queer theorists and liberal feminists in these areas, but I can at least articulate that point appropriately and address the actual claims of radical or post-structual feminism.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    I disagree. Terms do not need to be defined at all, simply taken as what they mean. 'Liberalism' is founded on a belief in equality; feminism is founded on a belief in equality. An 'illiberal' feminism would be a contradiction of terms because feminism is founded on and relies on and buys into liberalism, specifically the equality aspects of it.
    Even if the content of 'liberalism' as usually understood in academic literature were totally settled and uncontroversial, that wouldn't change the fact that your argument is one of fiat in this context. The problem is that you are arguing about words rather than about meaning. If you really believe that you have satisfactorily addressed that poster's meaning I don't know what to say to you.

    Sticking rigidly to definitions like that, where they are not known to and/or accepted by all parties, is not an effective way to communicate. On the other hand, it is a very effective way to show people on the internet that you have read lots of philosophy books, so if that was your aim I congratulate you.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    International men's day.
    Lol
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Even if the content of 'liberalism' as usually understood in academic literature were totally settled and uncontroversial, that wouldn't change the fact that your argument is one of fiat in this context. The problem is that you are arguing about words rather than about meaning. If you really believe that you have satisfactorily addressed that poster's meaning I don't know what to say to you.
    I'm not arguing about words; I am arguing about meaning. These words have particular meaning, even if that meaning is debated at the penumbras. Feminism is a theory of equality that grounds itself in liberal theory. To claim that you can have 'illiberal' feminism is to misunderstand either (1) liberalism or (2) feminism. By definition, such a thing as an 'illiberal' feminism would be not feminism because it failed to meet the semantic validity requirements of being a token of the type 'feminism'.

    If you're unsure how words or statements relate to semantic validity requirements, then I don't know what to say to you.

    Sticking rigidly to definitions like that, where they are not known to and/or accepted by all parties, is not an effective way to communicate. On the other hand, it is a very effective way to show people on the internet that you have read lots of philosophy books, so if that was your aim I congratulate you.
    If people are unfamiliar with definitions of words or concepts, then they ought not to be using those words/concepts. Making an argument out of ignorance is a complete waste of everyone's time and is intellectually dishonest, or at the very least, intellectual laziness.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    If people are unfamiliar with definitions of words or concepts, then they ought not to be using those words/concepts. Making an argument out of ignorance is a complete waste of everyone's time.
    Then simply understand that you are not meaningfully engaging anyone, and that your posts are nothing but self-indulgent irrelevancies.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 3, 2015
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.