>humanitarianism
>equal / human rights activism
this argument, which is used often, is just where I will agree to disagree
also humanitarianism is a bit too general, as it doesn't focus on gender exclusively. that's pretty much my only gripe to it and i generally don't care about people's beliefs unless it's something i feel is wrong (rather than different from me. there's a slight difference)
I know what you mean, but this is virtually all cultures.
Well, American culture, which is what I am most familiar with, is trying to deconstruct this. Women aren't the ones in the house, men aren't always the one working, etc. There are countries where this is more prevalent (and often the ones where people will unanimously agree that feminism is necessary), and ones where there are really only remnants of a patriarchy and non-binary gender system.
Now I'm not an MRA because I think they have the same flaw feminism does, they focus on the issue from one side, and don't realize that these are issues caused by both genders which affect both genders.
My entire argument is that a lot of people misconstrue the idea of what a feminist is and assume that most or all feminists believe in female supremacy. Feminism is about both lovees, but not both sides of the gender spectrum. It may seem like inequality, but it's not. The existence of a patriarch indicates that masculinity is superior, and this patriarchy affects both males and females. By acknowledging this, I am trying to say that having an MRA is irrelevant because feminism does the same thing, but more (to answer your question of "And?")
Also, I realize that the way I wrote that rant made it seem as if it were directed towards you exclusively, but I meant to refer to the people who were posting on here in general, as a lot of people on the forums may not identify as MRAs, but they hold a lot of the same beliefs as them. This refers to pretty much all the times you said "I'm not an MRA," which you made clear in a past post. I'm 100% in the wrong here and I'm sorry.
Makes perfect sense.
this isn't sarcasm right
it sounds kinda sarcastic and just want to triple check
And ya lost me. What exactly is the "feminine perspective"?
If gender roles are superficial social constructs then that means that you can't really rely on "feminine" and "masculine" because these are changing and might not mean the same things to different people.
feminine perspective isn't actual jargon mind you but i'll try to explain the idea i was trying to phrase (I'm not good at communicating through text. Speaking is way easier for me)
It's obvious that there is an imbalance between the way the two groups (male and female) are treated and this has to be fixed. Feminists believe that the focus should be on the female gender (femininity), but MRAs believe the opposite. By a "feminine perspective," I meant to say that you have to focus on the lack of privilege the female gender has as opposed to the lack of privilege the male love has. I tried explaining it further, but then i deleted what i wrote intentionally because I think my thoughts are a little too cloudy at the moment to make it more clearer. I'll try again tomorrow if that one sentence wasn't enough (it's late in my timezone. i know it's a piss-poor excuse but this isn't an argument so i don't fell obligation to continue unless i have to)
Anyway, bad phrasing aside, gender roles are a superficial social construct that should be ignored, but that doesn't mean that the words masculine and feminine are changing. By destroying gender roles and the gender binary, society will replace them with something more of a spectrum. Masculine will still mean "strong, works, prefers practicality, unemotional, etc." and feminine will still mean "weak, takes care of children, prefers aesthetics, thinks with emotions, etc." But, the gender spectrum means that you can fall anywhere between the two, rather than fitting in only one (not to say you can't though). So, yes, I can still use masculine and feminine, even though their definitions are based on the gender binary. The spectrum is more of an extension to the binary to make it better, if that makes sense.
Honestly I think we need to take various traits from femininity and masculinity and combine to get more or less one set of ideals that we can then impose on both lovees equally. My issue with feminism is that it focuses more on making men more feminine rather than making women take more traditionally masculine roles (e.g. responsibility, honour, dominance, aggression, etc.) Honestly the "masculine" roles are what ruled sociality (read: "they won out") so it seems silly for the oppressed to want the powerful to stoop to their level, rather than aspiring to become like them.
I don't agree with you here. People should choose to feel as masculine or feminine as they feel they are supposed to.
And, feminists are
definitely in favor of placing women in masculine roles. Where else do you think "strong, independent woman"came from? I mostly highlight the opposite because the argument I'm trying to make is that feminists focus on men too.
Also, I don't think it's wise to see it as "The weak want the strong to be like them." It's more like "The weak want the strong to believe that they are strong. And if any of the members of either group feel more neutral, they should be allowed to without any stigma." No one is trying to enforce femininity onto men or masculinity onto women. They're trying to say that you're free to be somewhere in between without shame, and you're also free to be in either extreme.
>you people
Oh, that's nice.
again not entirely directed towards you and a bit rude on my part. sorry. Same goes for above, which I accidentally forgot to quote and don't feel like humoring it. I really wish that there was a less rude sounding way of saying whatever "ustedes" is in the spanish language. "You all" sounds choppy and kinda weird to me, and "You people" is a bit harsh sounding...
But, yeah, parts of my rant were directed towards different users who may side against me, and I realize that I'm replying to only you. Sorry again if this whole thing came out wrong.
anyway i'm not responding to anything else in that post because i have no objections to speak of really
The point i want to get across in the end, in addition to what I have made clear, is that feminism should be taken at least a little bit more seriously than it is, especially on this part of the internet. It shouldn't be seen as an "equally radical but the opposite movement" of the Men's Rights movement.
