[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Thing is, which area do men receive poorer treatment than women? I know the family courts are brought up a lot but thats not based on sex, it goes on who does the majority of childcare...which just usually happens to be the woman in most cases...so yes, women get custody in most cases. Like, if me and my husband divorced tomorrow, he would 'get the kids' because he gets up with them each morning, he takes them to school, he does most of the childcare.

Now if we were a more 'traditional' (read old fashioned ) family where I did the childcare and he worked, then I would probably 'get them' and would also generally get child support awarded (which is for the kids, not the parent)

Obviously if there has been abuse or something then who does the bulk of the childcare is disregarded though so that the kids are safe. But our family courts (not sure about in other countries, am talking about the UK) are definitely not this 'award custody to the female' type thing. Its about disrupting the childrens lives the least.


I am all for fighting for things where men are actually genuinely disadvantaged. Just it seems, I cannot actually think of one of these areas. I don't think anyone should be treat more or less favourably because of their sex. Though there are some areas of life where sex matters (things like sports, prisons...anywhere where biology is important)

I don't mean in terms of laws I just mean in general life that if there is an instance of it then I'd consider it to fall under the same thing of gender inequality. I don't think I've ever been discriminated against for being a man so it's hard to give examples lol, in fact I'd say I've probably benefited from sexism to a degree as a lot of men probably have at some point or another, but I'm speaking more generally that sometimes there are instances of it, I suppose one example could be that some people don't take male victims of domestic abuse seriously. Or if you have an employer that prefers female employees then of course it's an area where women are more disadvantaged broadly speaking, but if there is an instance of it happening the other way around then I'd consider it to still be an individual example of sexism, and I'm just saying that when it happens it should be considered part of the same problem, rather than being dismissed for being less frequent. Like it's not one side vs the other, if feminism is about equality then theoretically we should treat all issues that may arise from gender inequality the same.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

I don't mean in terms of laws I just mean in general life that if there is an instance of it then I'd consider it to fall under the same thing of gender inequality. I don't think I've ever been discriminated against for being a man so it's hard to give examples lol, in fact I'd say I've probably benefited from sexism to a degree as a lot of men probably have at some point or another, but I'm speaking more generally that sometimes there are instances of it, I suppose one example could be that some people don't take male victims of domestic abuse seriously. Or if you have an employer that prefers female employees then of course it's an area where women are more disadvantaged broadly speaking, but if there is an instance of it happening the other way around then I'd consider it to still be an individual example of sexism, and I'm just saying that when it happens it should be considered part of the same problem, rather than being dismissed for being less frequent. Like it's not one side vs the other, if feminism is about equality then theoretically we should treat all issues that may arise from gender inequality the same.

Ah right yeah I get you. The male victims of DV thing is definitely a huge issue actually. Male victims of sexual assault also...mind any victim of sexual assault seems to be rubbished and disbelieved or the very disgusting 'well at least you were not raped, could have been worse'

Anecdotally among friends (not reporting and official treatment, just friends supporting friends), male victims of DV seem to elicit more sympathy and such. Where female ones get the whole 'what did you do to provoke him' kind of treatment. I do understand that this is not necessarily going to be true across the board though. And the social experiment videos that do the rounds every now and again show definitely sex bias against men. Like, the woman can kick the **** out of a bloke in public and people ignore it, but a man raises his voice and people intervene.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

"No one" fails to understand this? I'm not saying that anyone on this thread has, but the claim that "no one" fails to understand and especially that "no one" is incensed and combative is clearly false.

The rest of it, is simply a case of you trying to to dismiss my opinions of this "women's only subject" because I'm male. Which is sexist, divisive and unequal, whether that fits the narrative or not. You're supposedly seeking equality whilst promoting exclusion, it's ridiculous.

ROFL.

Just like when it comes to asking run-of-the-mill white people to know their place when it comes to things they can never fully understand (aka black racism), that’s racist is it? What position are women in to be sexist?

Is there really a power injustice and oppression of straight white men in society for you to accuse a female of being sexist or do you just get high off throwing around silly reverse labels?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Redway

ROFL.

Just like when it comes to asking run-of-the-mill white people to know their place when it comes to things they can never fully understand (aka black racism), that’s racist is it? What position are women in to be sexist?

Is there really a power injustice and oppression of straight white men in society for you to accuse a female of being sexist or do you just get high off throwing around silly reverse labels?

I have literally no interest in engaging with this, sorry.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I have literally no interest in engaging with this, sorry.

You still found the energy to reply though. Anything that facilitates your sense of white male entitlement.

All of what you’re saying’s like saying black people shouldn’t lead topics about black racism in the same way that white people shouldn’t. You can live in a bubble or drop the affected political correctness and admit that you can’t fully understand what you haven’t experienced on a personal level.

[Vicky.]

I used to be one of those who said reverse racism was a thing and such. Its quite embarrassing looking back. I would say that black people were just as racist as white, if not more. I never really understood power imbalances and class analysis and such until recently.

I was also one of those who would berate the black lives matter movement with the 'surely ALL lives matter' rubbish This was not even too long ago. I believe at one stage I also asked why there was not straight pride too.

[Crimson Dynamo]

not that stale pale white male TS using his white privilege to stink out da feminist thread?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Redway

You still found the energy to reply though. Anything that facilitates your sense of white male privilege.

All of what you’re saying’s like saying black people shouldn’t lead topics about black racism in the same way that white people shouldn’t. You can live in a bubble or drop the affected political correctness and admit that you can’t fully understand what you haven’t experienced on a personal level.

A discussion doesn't need to be lead or dominated to be constructive one between sets of people with varying understanding of the topic. If the only people permitt d to discuss a topic are those who already understand it then there is no need for discussion in the first place.

In your case, however, the issue is more simple;

Any point that you may have is so deeply buried under (not even very passive) aggression, righteous anger, sarcasm and general irrationality that it simply isn't worth engaging with. I'm afraid you might start posting crying-laughing emojis at me. "rofl".

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I used to be one of those who said reverse racism was a thing and such. Its quite embarrassing looking back. I would say that black people were just as racist as white, if not more. I never really understood power imbalances and class analysis and such until recently.

I was also one of those who would berate the black lives matter movement with the 'surely ALL lives matter' rubbish This was not even too long ago. I believe at one stage I also asked why there was not straight pride too.

And apparently you now don't know the difference between personal and institutional -isms or that the impossibility of most institutional -isms doesn't negate personal -isms in any way, shape or form. Have fun with that.

[Vicky.]

I will, thanks

Obviously class analysis is pretty useless when applied to singular people as its...class analysis and not about individual people inside that class. I think we have gone over this before actually..and I think it turned out you disagree with class analysis fullstop?

[Redway]

My heart bleeds for all the straight white men who face daily discrimination, it really does.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Redway

My heart bleeds for all the straight white men who face daily discrimination, it really does.

still, at least you are not bitter

[Redway]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

still, at least you are not bitter

Look at this guy.

[Underscore]

Originally Posted by Redway

Look at this guy.

You come to expect it off people like him on here - just ignore.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Redway

My heart bleeds for all the straight white men who face daily discrimination, it really does.

I feel like I'm going to regret continuing to respond, but I feel like I have to point out that you're not doing anyone any favours with this? You're eroding the points of those you probably consider yourself to be on the side of, and you're not effectively arguing against anyone who you probably consider yourself to be "against".

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

"No one" fails to understand this? I'm not saying that anyone on this thread has, but the claim that "no one" fails to understand and especially that "no one" is incensed and combative is clearly false.

The rest of it, is simply a case of you trying to to dismiss my opinions of this "women's only subject" because I'm male. Which is sexist, divisive and unequal, whether that fits the narrative or not. You're supposedly seeking equality whilst promoting exclusion, it's ridiculous.

You posted the term "fails to understand", I quoted it. I mean people discussing this here and now, the people involved in this discussion, the other people, and myself, reading your posts.

How many times have I, and other women on here said that we are not against men, we don't want them excluded, of course we need them as allies in this... but we don't need them to dictate the debate. I don't see what's sexist or divisive about that.

[Underscore]

Originally Posted by Livia

How many times have I, and other women on here said that we are not against men, we don't want them excluded, of course we need them as allies in this... but we don't need them to dictate the debate. I don't see what's sexist or divisive about that.

As a male radical feminist, I absolutely agree which is why even though I'd love to be involved in something like the Women's Equality Party I wouldn't be.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I feel like I'm going to regret continuing to respond, but I feel like I have to point out that you're not doing anyone any favours with this? You're eroding the points of those you probably consider yourself to be on the side of, and you're not effectively arguing against anyone who you probably consider yourself to be "against".

The only people I’m against are people who think they can 100% understand things they’ll never experience and chuck around reverse labels whenever they’re called out on it.

Key’s In the word experience. The idea that white men experience sexism on a meaningful scale’s laughable. It might exist according to the dictionary but in reality it’s not even close to being the same thing and you know it. Just like casual black-on-white racism wouldn’t be taken as seriously because it’s nowhere near close to being in the same league.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Which isn't a bad thing at all of course but young girls should be socialised the same way to feel like their voice is important

You have hit the nail on the head Niamh.

My mother was an absolute nightmare, but she would never be dictated to, by any man (or woman for that matter), we were all brought up in the same stance.
Respect authority but remember you are everyone's equal.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

You posted the term "fails to understand", I quoted it. I mean people discussing this here and now, the people involved in this discussion, the other people, and myself, reading your posts.

How many times have I, and other women on here said that we are not against men, we don't want them excluded, of course we need them as allies in this... but we don't need them to dictate the debate. I don't see what's sexist or divisive about that.

Well no, but initially the suggestion seemed to be that it should be the alternative (women leading the debate) which is where I disagree, and disagree on a completely fundamental level because I don't personally believe that debates should ever be lead at all. As soon as a debate is lead or restricted in any way it stops being a debate and becomes a soap box. I can fully appreciate that there were probably agenda-driven men trying to shift the conversation for selfish reasons. But I also appreciate that a cause - any cause - can easily be hijacked and wrecked by what some might call extremists... Though I would suggest the opposite. Often they are hijacked by "casuals" who have zero complex understanding of any issue, are not focused on progress, and simply see a "fight to be won"... And I'm sad from convinced that these days those people are in the minority. That certainly doesn't just apply to feminism, but it does apply.

There's a rhetoric that goes around that's just false... To put it in an extreme way... The suggestion that Average Jane necessarily understands more about feminism than an experienced male sociologist is just nonsense. Likewise; suggesting that Bob Next Door necessarily understands more about male mental health issues than an experienced female psychiatrist. And a whole spectrum in-between.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Underscore

As a male radical feminist, I absolutely agree which is why even though I'd love to be involved in something like the Women's Equality Party I wouldn't be.

The WEP are an utter joke tbh. They refuse to even define the word 'woman'. Its impossible to fight for the rights of women without being able to say what a bloody woman is If you refuse to see sex, you cannot see sexism.

It gives me a bit of rage tbh, such a great premise but...fell flat almost instantly.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by smudgie

You have hit the nail on the head Niamh.

My mother was an absolute nightmare, but she would never be dictated to, by any man (or woman for that matter), we were all brought up in the same stance.
Respect authority but remember you are everyone's equal.

I think for me, having 3 brothers and being the only girl helped with this, I'd be damned if I was going to allow myself to be treated differently to them

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Redway

The only people I’m against are people who think they can 100% understand things they’ll never experience and chuck around reverse labels whenever they’re called out on it.

Key’s In the word experience. The idea that white men experience sexism on a meaningful scale’s laughable. It might exist according to the dictionary but in reality it’s not even close to being the same thing and you know it. Just like casual black-on-white racism wouldn’t be taken as seriously because it’s nowhere near close to being in the same league.

Who is claiming to 100% understand anything? And why does not having 100% understanding of an issue exclude anyone from engaging in a discussion? And what is the point of a group of people with 100% understanding of an issue discussing that issue with each other?

Also, who has claimed that its in the same league and why does that matter when discussing acceptability? Flicking someone's nose isn't in the same league as slapping someone in the face, which is a million miles from stabbing someone in the stomach. Does that mean it's OK to go up and flick someone on the nose, or slap them in the face, "because you didn't stab them in the stomach"? Is it wrong for them to be annoyed about it "because they'll never know what it's like to be stabbed"?

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Well no, but initially the suggestion seemed to be that it should be the alternative (women leading the debate) which is where I disagree, and disagree on a completely fundamental level because I don't personally believe that debates should ever be lead at all. As soon as a debate is lead or restricted in any way it stops being a debate and becomes a soap box. I can fully appreciate that there were probably agenda-driven men trying to shift the conversation for selfish reasons. But I also appreciate that a cause - any cause - can easily be hijacked and wrecked by what some might call extremists... Though I would suggest the opposite. Often they are hijacked by "casuals" who have zero complex understanding of any issue, are not focused on progress, and simply see a "fight to be won"... And I'm sad from convinced that these days those people are in the minority. That certainly doesn't just apply to feminism, but it does apply.

There's a rhetoric that goes around that's just false... To put it in an extreme way... The suggestion that Average Jane necessarily understands more about feminism than an experienced male sociologist is just nonsense. Likewise; suggesting that Bob Next Door necessarily understands more about male mental health issues than an experienced female psychiatrist. And a whole spectrum in-between.

Intellectual snobbery which in itself is discrimination.

So-called experienced sociologists and psychiatrists often get it wrong which is why so many get let out when still dangerous and go to kill people. Personal experience, instinct and intuition is every bit as valuable as reading books and following policies and procedures.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Well no, but initially the suggestion seemed to be that it should be the alternative (women leading the debate) which is where I disagree, and disagree on a completely fundamental level because I don't personally believe that debates should ever be lead at all. As soon as a debate is lead or restricted in any way it stops being a debate and becomes a soap box. I can fully appreciate that there were probably agenda-driven men trying to shift the conversation for selfish reasons. But I also appreciate that a cause - any cause - can easily be hijacked and wrecked by what some might call extremists... Though I would suggest the opposite. Often they are hijacked by "casuals" who have zero complex understanding of any issue, are not focused on progress, and simply see a "fight to be won"... And I'm sad from convinced that these days those people are in the minority. That certainly doesn't just apply to feminism, but it does apply.

There's a rhetoric that goes around that's just false... To put it in an extreme way... The suggestion that Average Jane necessarily understands more about feminism than an experienced male sociologist is just nonsense. Likewise; suggesting that Bob Next Door necessarily understands more about male mental health issues than an experienced female psychiatrist. And a whole spectrum in-between.

Yes a male sociologist may know more about feminism that Average Jane, but I’m not sure that he'd know more than sociologist Jane, And if he was that experienced, he would expect to (I’m not going to say lead the debate, more) set the agenda. Wouldn’t he feel that there would be enough female sociologists just as qualified?

Men have set all the agenda for so long now, and we’re only really at the very beginning of the rise to real equality. So I’m disappointed that men want to be setting this agenda too, and if a woman doesn’t agree, then she’s being divisive and sexist.