Men: are you a feminist

Great post!

Not really a sign of masculinity.
For some, like my father, wanting to protect rights of women and wanting them to have equal opportunities sprung from having a daughter. Doesn't mean he has given up pistols for a skirt.

New end.....run for the hills, brother....

Wow!

I get this mental image of a complete fucked-up topic; Runaway Train and the Dragula video all at once.

Yes Hazel, thank you for proving that you were, indeed, mutilated exactly as you defined. Why do so many men have such a hard time believing their penises have been mutilated? I'll never understand it. It is so crystal clear in light of every human right we hold valuable.

Anyway... I believe in equal everything in public but I draw the line on private matters. Girls joining Boy Scouts or men's clubs (or vice versa) is right out for me. Sometimes the sexes need to be among their kind. Oh and get the female sportscasters out of the male locker rooms. That's just silly. How many men do they allow into women's locker rooms? That's not equal in my book.

Feminism went from something noble to a complete train wreck once it was hijacked by the radicals and reached its apotheosis of absurdity with the likes of Germaine Greer. She's done for feminism what PETA has done for animal rights and it's a shame.

A straight guy calling himself a feminist is just hoping a woman hears and that it will lead to him getting laid.

Some guys will say that stupidest shit if they think it'll get them pussy.

This thread just reminded me of "Girl Day" in third grade, haha. It was pretty much a day dedicated to girls, and the boys had to do whatever they said. I'm not entirely sure if that's how the day was supposed to have gone, but that's how our teacher (Mrs. Malik) enforced it.

So pretty much all day girls were dropping shit off their desks and telling guys to pick it up. Some girl purposely dropped her pencil and told me to pick it up and I said "no", and got yelled at by the teacher.

I think that's taking feminism a little too far :P

Let's see if we can get this train back on track.

Interesting question. Why isn't this based on a continuum like some people insist sexuality is. Most men aren't so polarized in their thinking on this issue. If a man does not consider himself a feminist does that mean he is a male chauvinist pig? I think not. There are probably a great many men who fall somewhere in between.

For the record, I answered the poll with an affirmative.

I should probably have read through some of the thread before voting, but what the fuck...I live on the edge.

None of us should forget the context in which all the "liberation" movements of the 1960s and 70s arose. There were grave social injustices that needed addressing if society were to keep itself from mass disintegration and revolution. Extreme times called for extreme measures.

And there were extremities on both sides. The fact that some of the more strident, militant feminists did a brilliant job of alienating anyone with whom they disagreed turned the word "feminist" into a pejorative is sad.

And although the names "Greer" and "Steinem" live on in a kind of historic infamy, the names of the hateful, strident, insecure chauvinists seem to have slipped away.

Sometimes an extreme idea, with the patina of time, actually turns mainstream and understandable. Take the idea of "Ms", for instance. There was a time when the nature of a woman's identity was defined by whether or not she was married.

Who today would seriously presume that a woman's "availability" should be so apparent that it should be reflected in her title?

And as to the concept that "feminism" equates to "exclusionism", my same example applies. Women have the option of deciding for themselves whether or not their marriage status is anyone else's business: neither "Miss" nor "Mrs" have withered and died from lack of common usage. But neither is "Ms" now presumed to be a battle-cry or an extreme stance.

I also have no problem with words like "chairperson", which was coined in my adulthood. At the time, it seemed revolutionary and was widely derided by many. Now...not so much.

These few words are proof that, in the big picture, the feminists got it right.

But there's another thing to consider that all those "liberation" movements seemed to have misunderstood: many "equality" proponents still do.

Equality of opportunity does not equal equality of results. We are all unique individuals with strengths and weaknesses, and none of plays on a level field. Advantage is a relative term: to a certain extent, we all have some advantages, just like we all have disadvantages.

I celebrate diversity to the same degree that I insist on everyone's right to equal opportunity. But I still find some people loathsome, and I don't expect everyone to succeed to the same degree.

honestly? I think it was a defense mechanism. She was a fat girl living in a thin girl's body. She was 250+ lbs most of her life. Never been in a relationship longer than a month, felt she had been raped every time she had sex, because the guys pressured her too much... she really plain doesn't like men, due to past experience as a very heavy woman, and is incapable of letting one get close. It really saddened me. She was hiding her misandry behind the name of feminism.

She said it (feminism) was big part of her, but she was very opinionated about everything. (kind of why I liked her actually)

But it does:


Is something cut off? Yes! The very word itself, circumcise, indicates that something is being cut off.

Is something being permanently destroyed? Yes! The foreskin is removed. It cannot (yet) be regrown to what it was before it was removed and it is either sold to cosmetics or drug companies or destroyed.

Is something made imperfect? Yes! The penis will bear scars. It will no longer function as it was designed to. The penis will not be as it was created.

I stand by my interpretation of the word.

I'm not saying your (or mine for that matter) penis isn't great, doesn't look or function well enough to please you or others. If you like being circumcised then more power to you, but circumcision is a textbook definition of mutilation.

Or, you can have a mature discussion about these sorts of possibilities, come to a consensus, and take preventive measures before opening your legs.

It's a two way street.

I would not have sex with a woman who would elect to have an abortion if she became pregnant by me. I don't like the idea of someone killing a life I helped to create and I don't want to hate someone that much.

I think most men support feminism in terms of supporting equality for women and proper thought in society for the needs of women. But I also think that many men - perhaps most men - feel that the concept of feminism is sometimes used to create and perpetuate systems which disadvantage men, and are contrary to ideas of equality and fairness.

Examples I have seen recently:
* In the workplace a middle-aged professional woman turns on the waterworks and gets favourable treatment over a man who didn't feel able to burst into tears.
* In the workplace a "local" decision is made (applying outdated stereotypes) that when drawing up rotas to use a building accessed down a poorly lit path only men should ever be asked to take the unpopular 5pm-6pm slot because it is not safe for women.
* Women-only swimming sessions in a municipal swimming pool (which means women have more hours a week than men in which they can use the pool).
Women are playing an old-fashioned, weaker-sex gender card to get preferential treatment - but are expecting to be treated equally.

We (in the UK) have a real push towards 50:50 allocation of jobs to women and men in occupations which are clean, nice, professional. This despite a retirement age for women which is 5 years earlier and many women electing to take time out for child care - ie there being more men than women in the workforce. But in dirty jobs (eg garbage collector) there is no drive towards 50:50, and such jobs are effectively a male ghetto.

Feminism will be happening when 50% of our garbage collectors are women. And 50% of our soldiers. And 50% of our road sweepers.

I don't find your argument persuasive by any means.



No, I was referring to definition 2, "To cut off." exactly as you posted it. I altered nothing.

At what point was I irrational? I simply illustrated the definition as you provided it. At no time did I make an appeal to emotion until the last paragraph of which the definition was not the subject.