Why is it that every man . . .

[cantdog]

I know I only read the first handful of posts following yours, its unfortunate that several, perhaps more, could not get what you were after.

Man as a gender has a great ego, a fragile ego. Man, as a gender, has historically had a great thirst for control over others. Women are at the top of the list. Next, it seems, would be nations other than their own. You're doing quite a bit of Biblical quoting, even from the writs of De Secretis Mulierum you will find easily recognizable religious overtones.

In truth womankind is no less or more inferior than mankind in terms of gender strengths and weaknesses. Its just that the strengths and weaknesses are different from gender to gender.

All that other crap is just what "the man" would like you to believe.

I disagree. Femininity is a state of being, where masculinity is essentially a performance. A man is known by his deeds; a woman can just be one. Neither is automatic nor easy if done with excellence. But to characterize all masculinity as defensive of a fragile ego is to mislead yourself.

What mismused is seeing in these quoted sources is not masculinity, but patriarchy. You, too. The thirst for control, the extension, essentially, of warfare into all aspects of society, this is patriarchy. It is currently in the ascendent. It was not always so. The Bible is the book of one of the second wave, the synthetic wave, of patriarchal religions. Of course it reads as it does.

 

[3113]

Alrighty. I can swallow that. Do you think you could site some references for that? Just the part about the origin of the Lilith myth. Believe me, I know that the Hebrews weren't always monothieistic. Because of all the points that you made about the vedry begining of Genisis and all that about the sons of Adam and Eve takeing wives "from the others". Some Jehova's Witness tried to convince me that it was their own sisters they were marrying.

Actually, one of the most interesting things is that the Dead Sea Scrolls, arguably the oldest version of the old testament we've got, implies that Judiasm not only originally believed that other gods existed (they're just not as good or cool as Yahweh, their god!), but that there was a feminine half to the divinity. I'm not sure if I can site the exact texts in this, but "she" is mentioned here and there in reference to God.

And Genesis contains a lot of "we" in it--which was explained away as the "royal we" which is pretty much putting the cart before the horse. "We" means "Us gods" not "We are not amused!"

Re: References to Lilith in the Bible--

Allow me to correct myself. There ARE references to Lilith in the Bible, but they are brief and seem to be references to a kind of demon that was probably Babylonian in origin. In most passages, she's referred to in an atmospheric way, like a creature haunting the moors in the setting of a ghost story, not as anything that plays a major role.

HOWEVER, the belief that she is Adam's first wife is nowhere in the Bible, and came about much later, sometime between the 8th and 11th century.

For specific references to when and how and where she's mentioned check out:
Lilith

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Actually, the best-researched answer to this is that your sources are not ancient enough.

Joe Campbell is the fella you want to read. It isn't easy, but it is fascinating once you get into the thing. It's a four-volume work, The Masks of God, but the answer to your question is in the first book. The older view was entirely matriarchal, and the deity the female principle, the generatrix of life. The male thing is a recent revolution, and it is NOT universal, even now. Primitive Mythology is the title. Some listings have it "The Masks of God: Primitive Mythology" Some list "Primitive Mythology" as the title and use "the Masks of God" as a subtitle.

I'd second this recommendation... fantastic stuff... and the shadow piece in culture is interesting, because if a society *seems* matriarchal, it is actually being driven by a patriarchal shadow, and vice versa... so we really have a matriarchal shadow driving our patriarchal culture...

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I disagree. Femininity is a state of being, where masculinity is essentially a performance.

hm... I don't know that I want to blend the archetype with gender itself... femininity and masculinity are, at their core, both states of being... they just look different, i.e. one passive, one active. Masculinity is laser-beam consciousness, cutting through, straight-arrow linear "beingness" (ugh, for lack of a better word.) And my comment about shadows plays here, too. The feminine *appears* passive, the masculine *appears* active... the shadows are the opposite. In a masculine/feminine pairing, it is interesting to think about who is really driving. The analogy of a man in a boat as the masculine, sailing the ocean, which is feminine, comes to mind...

p.s. Cant, I love your posts, they make me all tingly!

 

[Pure]

comment

i think 3113 has stretched or 'spun' things a bit, in claiming mention of Lilith in the Bible.

3113There ARE references to Lilith in the Bible, but they are brief and seem to be references to a kind of demon that was probably Babylonian in origin.


P: the one reference (Is 34:14) is debatable, since the word is not clearly a name, and 'lilit' may simply mean some kind of monster ("night monster") or demon, about whom no details are given--this is the decision of most Jewish and Xtian translators. NRSV does, however, go with "Lilith" capitalized as a name

the picture of her in Wikipedia, though, is certainly hot.

i'm not sure why existence of a female demon enhances the cause of women's equality, but it can certainly support a 'bad ass' feminism.

 

[cantdog]

I'd second this recommendation... fantastic stuff... and the shadow piece in culture is interesting, because if a society *seems* matriarchal, it is actually being driven by a patriarchal shadow, and vice versa... so we really have a matriarchal shadow driving our patriarchal culture...

Phyllis Schafly? Condoleezza?

 

[cantdog]

hm... I don't know that I want to blend the archetype with gender itself... femininity and masculinity are, at their core, both states of being... they just look different, i.e. one passive, one active. Masculinity is laser-beam consciousness, cutting through, straight-arrow linear "beingness" (ugh, for lack of a better word.) And my comment about shadows plays here, too. The feminine *appears* passive, the masculine *appears* active... the shadows are the opposite. In a masculine/feminine pairing, it is interesting to think about who is really driving. The analogy of a man in a boat as the masculine, sailing the ocean, which is feminine, comes to mind...

p.s. Cant, I love your posts, they make me all tingly!

I wasn't really including the archetypes, expressly. I know some young men who, despite knowing enough about themselves to know what proportion of masculinity to femininity makes them comfortable, are still confused about the practical side.

An unfortunate side-effect of feminism shows itself here. The role of woman has, we hope, moved somewhat, thanks to a lot of concerted effort by, largely, freethinking women and men. But the role of men seems to have been cast loose from some old moorings, and a man who is beginning the business of manhood wants something to tie to. Talking to them, I cast my remarks in the form I used here.

Their need for a guide to the practice of manhood is valid. There is more to it, as you say, and the archetypes are a good analogy to work from, discussing the deeper movements of the whole. Actually, we know and understand enough to have a reasonably satisfactory society, one which concentrates on excellence and allows room for actualization. One of the largest single reasons few of us can live this way is patriarchy. The problem of patriarchal thinking is in fact not too closely related to the natural expression of masculine excellence, and the two shouldn't be lumped.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I wasn't really including the archetypes, expressly. I know some young men who, despite knowing enough about themselves to know what proportion of masculinity to femininity makes them comfortable, are still confused about the practical side.

An unfortunate side-effect of feminism shows itself here. The role of woman has, we hope, moved somewhat, thanks to a lot of concerted effort by, largely, freethinking women and men. But the role of men seems to have been cast loose from some old moorings, and a man who is beginning the business of manhood wants something to tie to. Talking to them, I cast my remarks in the form I used here.

Their need for a guide to the practice of manhood is valid. There is more to it, as you say, and the archetypes are a good analogy to work from, discussing the deeper movements of the whole. Actually, we know and understand enough to have a reasonably satisfactory society, one which concentrates on excellence and allows room for actualization. One of the largest single reasons few of us can live this way is patriarchy. The problem of patriarchal thinking is in fact not too closely related to the natural expression of masculine excellence, and the two shouldn't be lumped.

I couldn't agree more with this. Men are more lost today, I think, than they ever have been... it's interesting that the feminine has instrinsic rites of passage(s) embedded in her DNA... menarche, menopause, birth, to name a few. The masculine doesn't have those bodily reminders, and I think men find themselves sorely lacking in rites of passage within our cultural context. I think, for the masculine, initiation and rites of passage are perhaps even more necessary to provide direction and guidance than for women. I don't know that most people see men as victims of the patriarchy, as well, but they are, I agree. In fact, I might argue that they are even more hurt by it than women are... because they are blamed for the patriarchy itself, as well... which is also a misnomer.

 

[cantdog]

Gives me a warm feelin to find you couldn't agree more, I have to say.

Women aren't the only ones who confuse patriarchy with manhood; a lot of men buy it, too, and think of feminists as the enemy in consequence. Feminism is the front line of confrontation with patriarchs making fools of themselves and slaves of the rest of us. I'm one, myself.

 

[3113]

i think 3113 has stretched or 'spun' things a bit, in claiming mention of Lilith in the Bible.

I didn't mean to stretch or spin on that point, but I didn't want to unilaterally say "No Lilith at all" in the Bible. You're right, though, that the references aren't to "Lilith" as we know her (aka, a single demonic woman). There aren't many of them, they might, arguably not be "Lilith" at all, and the definition is uncertain.

So is she in the Bible at all or not? I decided not to be absolutist about it, but technically, no, she's not in there.

 

[SophiaY]

A small side note: During much of the Medieval and Renaissance era there was a medical opinion that in order for conception to take place, a woman’s “vessel” had to be sufficiently hot – and the telltale was her having an orgasm. So, in some of the surviving literature there is the advice that a husband should make sure that his wife did have one. It died out as a theory sometime in the 1600's or so...

(Okay, among the nicer women I’ve dated in my wandering life, one was a social historian.)

Course that raises some interesting questions. What if that belief had become widely popular, would generations of women been happier? Would avoiding female climax be seen as a way of avoiding pregnancy? Would rape be viewed as consensual if the victim became pregnant? (Ugly thought!)

 

[Jailhouse]

Since time immemorial, men have always been considered the predominant sex, perfection, if you will, sexually, as well as every other way, and women . . . well, inferior?

From antiquity, Ariistotle and before (the bible even says Eve was made from a rib taken from Adam), males were males because they had sufficient "heat." Women were women because they lacked enough of this heat that it took to make men (ergo: inferior). Galen said:

"Now just as mankind is the most perfect of all animals, so within mankind, the man is more perfect than the woman, and the reason for his perfection is his excess heat, for heat is Nature's primary instrument."

On occasion, a woman could get too hot, and it caused her to become a man! Such was said to be a servant of France's King Charles IX.

Girls were admonished not to stretch their legs too far for fear of becoming a boy (you see, it was thought that since there was insufficient heat in women, the penis didn't drop, and thus the vagina was created -- it is an inverted penis).

Women were also said to produce semen (all that is a man is inverted in a woman, don't you see, though less so). Galen went on to say:

"Forthwith of course the female must have smaller, less perfect testes, and the semen generated in them must be scantier, colder and wetter (for these things too follow of necessity from the deficent heat)."

Women were ever like sexual vampires. De Secretis Mulierum (Women's Secrets), a medieval medical compendium still popular in the eighteenth century, warns:

"The more women have sexual intercourse, the stronger they become, because they are made hot by the motion that the man makes during coitus [well, they got that part right]. Further, male sperm is hot because it is of the sme nature as air and when it is received by the woman it warms her entire body, so women are strengthened by this heat. On the other hand,men who have sex frequently are weakened by this act because they become exceedingly dried out."

Other than that Eve was made by taking one of Adam's ribs, I won't go into what religion(s) say, other than as one preacher was recently said to have quoted, "Women are to remain silent in the church," or something like that, and dismissed a Sunday school teacher just for being a woman, never mind that she had taught for many decades.

Oh, and remember Liar's thread on how a woman should behave toward, and for her husband (whose problems were much greater than hers, etc.)?

Okay, so why is it that every man is first a woman ? Why is evey man ever made a woman first?

PW/OC.

I like tits.

 

[Recidiva]

I like tits.

You do not, you're totally gay. Stop trying to pass.

 

[geronimo_appleby]

Yawn...

Who gives a fuck?

Pass me a cider.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Not a fan of either matriarchy or patriarchy. Feminism is not a movement intended to represent my interests, so I view it with ambivalence. The moderates are okay and the radicals are enemies of freedom (probably Marxist-Leninists too). What does that leave for me? Militant individualism. Be yourself. If that's a manly man, a more effeminate man, a tomboy, or a girly girl, that's YOUR business and no one else's. An ideal society is one rich in such variety of personal choices. Don't worry, we'll survive without imposing a social ethic that crushes the human spirit.

 

[SeaCat]

Not a fan of either matriarchy or patriarchy. Feminism is not a movement intended to represent my interests, so I view it with ambivalence. The moderates are okay and the radicals are enemies of freedom (probably Marxist-Leninists too). What does that leave for me? Militant individualism. Be yourself. If that's a manly man, a more effeminate man, a tomboy, or a girly girl, that's YOUR business and no one else's. An ideal society is one rich in such variety of personal choices. Don't worry, we'll survive without imposing a social ethic that crushes the human spirit.

You, you heretic.

How dare you say anything that endorses individualism? Why if we were all individuals then what would we have?

You must learn to toe the party line, to dress as everyone else does. You must think as the majority does, you must be thin without being skinny and you must have just the perfect haircut and hair coloring. Your skin must be unflawed and your teeth whiter than white as well as straight. You must, absolutley must look down upon anyone who does not feel or look the way you do. We must all conform!

Cat

 

[Halo_n_horns]

i think 3113 has stretched or 'spun' things a bit, in claiming mention of Lilith in the Bible.

3113There ARE references to Lilith in the Bible, but they are brief and seem to be references to a kind of demon that was probably Babylonian in origin.


P: the one reference (Is 34:14) is debatable, since the word is not clearly a name, and 'lilit' may simply mean some kind of monster ("night monster") or demon, about whom no details are given--this is the decision of most Jewish and Xtian translators. NRSV does, however, go with "Lilith" capitalized as a name

the picture of her in Wikipedia, though, is certainly hot.

i'm not sure why existence of a female demon enhances the cause of women's equality, but it can certainly support a 'bad ass' feminism.

Actually the story of Lilith being removed and/or greatly changed in the Bible is a pretty well known fact. Its one of the great question marks on the Bible's purpose as something other than a means of control over the masses.

Lilith left the Garden of Eden because she refused to be anything less than an equal to Adam. She refused "God's will" and the will of Adam and was changed into a demoness for not returing and submitting to the wills of men, as the case would be.

Ergo, controlling women and making them subserviant to the male ego and its whims is part of the Bible's purpose no matter how anyone tries to argue otherwise.

 

[3113]

You, you heretic.

*Sigh* No, he's not. I go to a feminist science fiction convention every year and this is all they discuss all weekend. Achieving a world which accepts individuality rather than locking people into gender (or any other kind of) stereotypes. They unwaveringly support the rights of men to be as they wish to be, women to be as they wish to be, transgendered and gay to be as they wish to be.

Which makes it pretty ironic to hear Sev say: "Feminism is not a movement intended to represent my interests" because all such causes, that of racial equality, religious equality, women's equality, etc., ARE exactly that. Intended to represent the interests of the individual.

How can you, a proclaimed individualist, NOT admire and hold as your heroes women who wore bloomers even though they were stoned and villified. Women who tried to be doctors, even though they were crushed and abused by their collegues and the medical profession, not to mention the public at large? What greater individuals are there than these? And what about women who fought to vote, go to war, and, yes, be as sexually open and free as men--and suffering 100 times more for being that way?

Feminism has even, at its best, fought for the rights of men to be housekeepers, nurses, "moms," etc., rather than forcing men to be regulated to only "male" roles.

It's disingenuous of anyone glorifying individuality to dispariage such a group as not fighting for "your interests." And I include in that not just women's right's movements, but also the rights of any minority that has had to fight for its individuality.

We will grant, of course, that every group, however well intentioned, has its extremists who want everyone to walk lock-step. That these fanatics will, if allowed, use the club for their own prejudicial ajenda. But these extemists do not and should not represent the group or undermine its core values whatever those may be. In the case of feminisim, that was and ought to be individualism.

I don't know what other message you've been getting, or where you've been getting it, but as of 2006 the only feminist message I've heard was one that celebrated individuality and that for all genders, not just one.

 

[SeaCat]

*Sigh* No, he's not. I go to a feminist science fiction convention every year and this is all they discuss all weekend. Achieving a world which accepts individuality rather than locking people into gender (or any other kind of) stereotypes. They unwaveringly support the rights of men to be as they wish to be, women to be as they wish to be, transgendered and gay to be as they wish to be.

Which makes it pretty ironic to hear Sev say: "Feminism is not a movement intended to represent my interests" because all such causes, that of racial equality, religious equality, women's equality, etc., ARE exactly that. Intended to represent the interests of the individual.

How can you, a proclaimed individualist, NOT admire and hold as your heroes women who wore bloomers even though they were stoned and villified. Women who tried to be doctors, even though they were crushed and abused by their collegues and the medical profession, not to mention the public at large? What greater individuals are there than these? And what about women who fought to vote, go to war, and, yes, be as sexually open and free as men--and suffering 100 times more for being that way?

Feminism has even, at its best, fought for the rights of men to be housekeepers, nurses, "moms," etc., rather than forcing men to be regulated to only "male" roles.

It's disingenuous of anyone glorifying individuality to dispariage such a group as not fighting for "your interests." And I include in that not just women's right's movements, but also the rights of any minority that has had to fight for its individuality.

We will grant, of course, that every group, however well intentioned, has its extremists who want everyone to walk lock-step. That these fanatics will, if allowed, use the club for their own prejudicial ajenda. But these extemists do not and should not represent the group or undermine its core values whatever those may be. In the case of feminisim, that was and ought to be individualism.

I don't know what other message you've been getting, or where you've been getting it, but as of 2006 the only feminist message I've heard was one that celebrated individuality and that for all genders, not just one.

3113,

I am sorry that you misconstrued my tongue in cheek attitude towards his reply.

Yes I did call him a heretic, not because he goes against my way of thinking but because he goes against the way of thinking off too many who are out there. (Have you ever heard the term the Pot calling the Kettle Black?)

I do not attack people on this forum or any other. If I do have a question about a persons stance on a subject then I will P.M. them, I do not do so publicly. (As many here can attest to.) Often times it is nothing more than my not understanding what they said, or the manner in which they said it. Much like my comment here.

I do believe that my stance on a persons right to individualism is well documented here, to the point that it has become somehting of a joke among some.

Cat

 

[cantdog]

3113 wasn't talking to you, dude. She caught the sarcasm. She was excoriating Sev.

As you were, but more directly.

 

[cantdog]

I'm glad there are feminists with their eyes above the rut, 3113. You can still go to a campus and hear "feminist" vituperations about how war is intrinsic to masculinity, so that the entire gender should be locked up.

These people are not feminists as I understand the term, and I generally give them one good rant on it, about patriarchy and the difference, or about control and dominance and authority and the roots of them. Few and far between are the people with whom one argues who, once convinced, will publicly change their ideas in front of you. They may have integrated them by the time they next speak of the subject, but almost no one will confess themselves mistaken in the course of an argument. So, I can't say, really, whether or not I made much of a dent.

All the same, those ideas are currently out there, whether they are current in your fortunate circle or not, because a lot of women come to feminism by way of resentment. You have to start somewhere. It puts people off and leaves a false impression, though.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

*Sigh* No, he's not. I go to a feminist science fiction convention every year and this is all they discuss all weekend. Achieving a world which accepts individuality rather than locking people into gender (or any other kind of) stereotypes. They unwaveringly support the rights of men to be as they wish to be, women to be as they wish to be, transgendered and gay to be as they wish to be.

Which makes it pretty ironic to hear Sev say: "Feminism is not a movement intended to represent my interests" because all such causes, that of racial equality, religious equality, women's equality, etc., ARE exactly that. Intended to represent the interests of the individual.

How can you, a proclaimed individualist, NOT admire and hold as your heroes women who wore bloomers even though they were stoned and villified. Women who tried to be doctors, even though they were crushed and abused by their collegues and the medical profession, not to mention the public at large? What greater individuals are there than these? And what about women who fought to vote, go to war, and, yes, be as sexually open and free as men--and suffering 100 times more for being that way?

Feminism has even, at its best, fought for the rights of men to be housekeepers, nurses, "moms," etc., rather than forcing men to be regulated to only "male" roles.

It's disingenuous of anyone glorifying individuality to dispariage such a group as not fighting for "your interests." And I include in that not just women's right's movements, but also the rights of any minority that has had to fight for its individuality.

We will grant, of course, that every group, however well intentioned, has its extremists who want everyone to walk lock-step. That these fanatics will, if allowed, use the club for their own prejudicial ajenda. But these extemists do not and should not represent the group or undermine its core values whatever those may be. In the case of feminisim, that was and ought to be individualism.

I don't know what other message you've been getting, or where you've been getting it, but as of 2006 the only feminist message I've heard was one that celebrated individuality and that for all genders, not just one.

My understanding is that, in the case of the MODERATE faction, there is some overlap with individualism. However, it is first and foremost a movement for the rights of one particular sex. That's not to say that it is automatically evil. It's just that it doesn't represent my interests as such. Well, unless I happen to be one of those guys who wants to do certain things and some of the moderates are somehow championing that cause for any number of reasons. I see no reason to excoriate me for making a distinction between a gender-specific movement and the philosophy upon which my politics are based. Even though there is sometimes an overlap, there is enough of a militant, anti-individualist wing to predispose me toward some ambivalence. And it is still a movement focused on the rights of only one sex. That's its origin. I'm not condemning it for that, provided that it is not pandering to its radicals. I'm just saying that it doesn't represent me as a man.

 

[3113]

I am sorry that you misconstrued my tongue in cheek attitude towards his reply.

I know that, Cat. My apologies for catching you in the backwash there. My bad.

I'm glad there are feminists with their eyes above the rut, 3113. You can still go to a campus and hear "feminist" vituperations about how war is intrinsic to masculinity, so that the entire gender should be locked up.

Interestingly enough, at the last such feminist convention I went to, there was a panel on the military, including a male officer who was a very strong feminist and a woman who had worked with female soldiers. One woman in the audience did ask whether feminists ought to support soldiers as that seemed equivalent to supporting war which, traditionally, feminists do not support.

It was pointed out that even soldiers don't like war--and that being pro-soldier, meaning finding ways to make sure that soldiers lives are not wasted and that they, if they are put to good use and given the support they need to be peacekeepers and protectors, was a valid feminist ajenda. It was interesting to hear this panel as it showed a definiative shift and maturing of this view.

Young women in the military are offering feminism a new perspective on soldiers and on war and I think it's a good thing. Movements, like people, need to grow and change to survive. I suspect this is one of those growing periods and that we'll be seeing this maturation trickling down.

And it is still a movement focused on the rights of only one sex. That's its origin. I'm not condemning it for that, provided that it is not pandering to its radicals. I'm just saying that it doesn't represent me as a man.

And yet it benefits you as a man.

There are two things Feminism has always fought for, no matter what else it has championed (good or ill):

1) Reproductive rights for women. As a man who doesn't believe in monogamy, would you really like to go back to when women had no reproductive rights. No birth control, no abortions? This would mean that your sexual freedom would likely result in several bastards you'd have to raise and support.

How can this ajenda not represent you?

2) Equal pay for women. I assume the woman you're with works and that you have some reliance on her paycheck. Would you appreciate it if she was earning half of what she could earn simply because of her sex? That would affect you as much as her.

Again, how can this ajenda not represent you as well as her?

You show a misunderstanding of feminism if you don't know that it represents not just women, but their children and men who want to be other than stereotypical men as well. Consider what society would demand of you, as a man--the fascism of its expectations of you because of your gender, that you don't have to face thanks to feminism. Because of it, you are allowed much more leeway in your sexuality, in your choice of jobs, in how you want to dress and act than before there was a feminist movement.

You might as well say that racial equality has never represented you, and yet it has allowed you to have friends you would not have had, because without it you would have only been allowed to eat, sleep, and interact with your own race. Likewise religious equality, which allows you to explore other religions.

And if you ever have a woman doctor, a black doctor, an Islamic doctor who saves your life, or who found a cure you or your family needs--that also is due to such movements. Refuse to give these people equal rights, and you undermine the chance for us to have poets, leaders, scientists, etc. who could benefit us all.

I think that makes such movements, by default, represenative of us all, not just one group.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I know that, Cat. My apologies for catching you in the backwash there. My bad.


Interestingly enough, at the last such feminist convention I went to, there was a panel on the military, including a male officer who was a very strong feminist and a woman who had worked with female soldiers. One woman in the audience did ask whether feminists ought to support soldiers as that seemed equivalent to supporting war which, traditionally, feminists do not support.

It was pointed out that even soldiers don't like war--and that being pro-soldier, meaning finding ways to make sure that soldiers lives are not wasted and that they, if they are put to good use and given the support they need to be peacekeepers and protectors, was a valid feminist ajenda. It was interesting to hear this panel as it showed a definiative shift and maturing of this view.

Young women in the military are offering feminism a new perspective on soldiers and on war and I think it's a good thing. Movements, like people, need to grow and change to survive. I suspect this is one of those growing periods and that we'll be seeing this maturation trickling down.


And yet it benefits you as a man.

There are two things Feminism has always fought for, no matter what else it has championed (good or ill):

1) Reproductive rights for women. As a man who doesn't believe in monogamy, would you really like to go back to when women had no reproductive rights. No birth control, no abortions? This would mean that your sexual freedom would likely result in several bastards you'd have to raise and support.

How can this ajenda not represent you?

2) Equal pay for women. I assume the woman you're with works and that you have some reliance on her paycheck. Would you appreciate it if she was earning half of what she could earn simply because of her sex? That would affect you as much as her.

Again, how can this ajenda not represent you as well as her?

You show a misunderstanding of feminism if you don't know that it represents not just women, but their children and men who want to be other than stereotypical men as well. Consider what society would demand of you, as a man--the fascism of its expectations of you because of your gender, that you don't have to face thanks to feminism. Because of it, you are allowed much more leeway in your sexuality, in your choice of jobs, in how you want to dress and act than before there was a feminist movement.

You might as well say that racial equality has never represented you, and yet it has allowed you to have friends you would not have had, because without it you would have only been allowed to eat, sleep, and interact with your own race. Likewise religious equality, which allows you to explore other religions.

And if you ever have a woman doctor, a black doctor, an Islamic doctor who saves your life, or who found a cure you or your family needs--that also is due to such movements. Refuse to give these people equal rights, and you undermine the chance for us to have poets, leaders, scientists, etc. who could benefit us all.

I think that makes such movements, by default, represenative of us all, not just one group.

Interesting comeback. However, would you say the same of a group that was founded specifically to defend the rights of men? Would it represent you? It sounds like you would, and if so, you would be admirably consistent. Just a question.

You certainly make valid points. However, that is somewhat indirect. And only if speaking of the moderate branch, not the "kill the men and cut off their nuts" crowd. I was speaking of ambivalence, chiefly because of the primary goal of the women's movement, which is still focused on the rights of women more than anything else. If in the process I happen to benefit as a more iconoclastic sort of man, that's all well and good, but it's a by-product. It's not the main objective of their movement. Men still need their own organizations, groups, etc. You get the picture. Especially since some in the feminist ranks are NOT about freedom (the man-hater faction).

Gay rights also helps me with that, but more directly so, since I'm bi. Just to give an example of a community of which I'm an actual member and direct beneficiary.

Again, I recognize the validity of the practical effect that you described, but it's not the PURPOSE of the women's movement. Just making a very precise distinction. Or just being nitpicky. Take your pick.

The paycheck and the lifestyle choices are more of a benefit than the birth control (though it does help, simply because I'm not rich yet). But I admit that you have a point. It would help if you acknowledge the validity of my distinction between such overlap and specific agendas to that effect.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I suppose, for the sake of clarity, I would prefer that there be an umbrella movement that embraces rights for everyone as individuals as it's specific goal, rather than trying to make men's rights an afterthought in a movement dedicated to advancing women's interests first (and in the case of the more extremist members, to the actual detriment of men).