... Anti-racism as in "against all forms of racism" not "racism against whites", is what I'm assuming he's saying. A white-led group against racism, not allowing blacks to speak.
Similar to a woman-led group for "equality", that refuses to let men speak on their opinions or issues if they vary from said group's ideology.
Really, it's pretty obvious to see the point people are trying to make...
You just... Seem like you don't want to.
Edit: I may be missing something here, and he might, in fact, be speaking of a group solely against racism against white people, but it would be one under the guise of removing racism against all whilst not dealing with anything from another side. There are parallels, whether you like them or not.
Doubleedit: I actually do agree with basically what II said in the post below this one, though. Do we >need< a men's rights movement? No. But we also don't >need< a women's rights movement in the Western World.
Woman are the primary victims of sexism. Whites are
not the primary victims of the systematic racism that occurs in our culture. If he had said a black-led group against racism not listening or wanting to be around whites when they're talking about 'oh, but that guy called me a cracker!', that would be more apt of an analogy. It is in no way the same, as it was, except in the vaguest sense.
I see the point they're making. However, the problem is that calling it a double standard is an accurate statement; it's just that it's also a false equivalency. Do we need one anymore? No. We don't. Is it helpful, though? Yes. I don't see it as a woman's rights movement anymore, really; from my perspective, it's sorta merged with the LGBTQ identity movements to try and shift ideas of gender roles and stereotypes away by educating people. This is probably biased on my part as to my view due to being a member of the LGBTQ community, and I'm sure there's kooky people calling themselves feminists and I'm sure there's a branch of feminism working on women's rights. However, the only women's rights issues that aren't already almost entirely signed into law as far as I'm aware of is the current debate regarding abortion and perhaps some issues regarding rape. Everything else is just a symptom of corruption in the system and failure to follow through on said laws. So I view it less as a women's rights movement and more as a movement regarding cultural perceptions, which is where I'm coming from.
However, I also know that there is still a great deal of sexism against women in the world and hearing people say 'no there isn't, men are the ones being oppressed', when there's so very much data to prove them wrong, and they choose to look at the bits of data that could be misconstrued to support their argument, is frustrating on a very intense level. How many women are arguing alongside them? How many men are arguing alongside their opposition? It's not evidence in and of itself(FEMINIST CONSPIRACY BLARGHHGHG), but it's still quite telling, particularly when put together with the given data.
Also this was basically a response to both InsanityIncarnate and Lyeos. Sidenote: The problem regarding rape is the way it's handled in general, really; men's problems are dismissed, women's problems are blamed on themselves, the whole system is really fucked up and we basically live in a rape culture(Yes Means Yes, not just No Means No. And if they're drunk or high, it doesn't count even then. Not even if you are too.).
Let me state now, that I'm not an MRA and do not frequent any of their sites.
Are they inherently gendered issues, or are they issues caused by men, and felt by men?
So, you're saying something only counts as a gender-issue (for men) if you can show that it's directly caused by the other gender? I think that's a double-standard as we would never apply that to dismiss women's issues. Anti-girl bias in the classroom? Doesn't exist because the teacher is most likely a woman! Gender stereotyping your daughter by a single mother? it's not a "gendered" issue because a woman did it!
I think it's clear that this argument wouldn't fly for even a second if we were talking about girls. Gender roles are maintained by both genders, for both genders, and bringing in "but men did it to themselves" isn't a valid argument, nor is "but women did it to themselves".
Okay, allow me to ask you a question, Reelya.
How many men want to get rid of the image that men are big and strong and can accomplish things?
How many women want to get rid of the image that women are weak and emotional and can't be trusted to handle things rationally?
As well, I think you're a. being too literal, as gender stereotypes are fairly obviously inherently gendered issues(notice the word 'gender' in the phrase), b. failing to acknowledge the existence of a false equivalency(remember how women have been treated as little better than property for a long-damn time and only got the vote after World War I? Yeah.), and c. purposefully misinterpreting arguments in the hopes that if you dismantle the surrounding points the central thesis will fall apart too. Please stop.
I don't know enough about sexism in the education system to comment on that, but the question is;
is the teacher a woman, or only probably one? How many of their higher-ups are women? The principal? The Board of Education? The members of the state government that run the school system?
Let's look at the pay gap for single people. Ones without kids.
in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group.
Ah, but we can say "that's not discriminatory, because more girls go to college, thus increasing their earning capacity! It's all down to personal decisions, so it's not discriminatory!". Well, would it ever fly the other way around: is there any time that men earning more would be accepted as "non-discriminatory" because he made different decisions to a woman? i.e. more men choosing college majors that lead to high-paying jobs? If "going to college" is an equal and fair decision, isn't choosing a major also "equal and fair" or are things only "equal and fair" when they favor a particular side, and for everything which falls the other way it's "unfair"?
You people like to put words in my mouth, don't you?
I haven't really commented on the pay gap for a reason. It is, in fact, in some part caused by that. I never said that portion of it was unfair. Do I think we should shift the cultural paradigm so that we aren't constantly enforcing the idea of low-paying jobs on women's minds, or low-fulfillment jobs on men's? Yes. Do I think we should shift the cultural paradigm so that more men go to college? Yes.
Also, stop using so many quotation marks, it's making me imagine doing air quotes around each one and it's distracting. >_<
But also, look at how many women
do have kids, versus how many men do. I'm thinking the numbers will be fairly equal, somewhat biased towards women, but still.
My question will always be the why of it, the how of it, and the more specific details of it. In the same field, are the median pays equal? What about middle aged single men and women? What about couples without kids? What about single people with kids? What about couples with kids?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoubleStandardRapefemaleOnMale
You're right, this is a problem. Look at all the double standards regarding rape. They're all terrible. We live in a rape culture, and it's an awful thing. The point regarding women is the Schrodinger's Rapist, and the sheer amount of sexual harassment many women face and must be aware of. You've heard of Schrodinger's Rapist? Or how 1 in 6 women will be seriously sexually assaulted at some point in their lives? Yes, 1 in 33 men also will be. But it's not at the front of men's minds, when they're out and about. It's not something they have to worry about on a daily basis. It's really as simple as that; people, not just women, but people in general shouldn't have to live in fear of something like that. It's terrible.
Also, people, really, just ignore LordBucket. By this point,
everyone's noticing the dishonest way he's trying to do this, leading me to believe he's either a. trolling or b. 'one of the crazies', to avoid being too insulting with words I might have otherwise used. He's not trying to be honest or stay on topic or address any real points people make. He's trying to wrench the discussion around and act as though his issues are the only ones that matter. If we stop feeding him, he'll go away eventually.
Author
Topic: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles (Read 56635 times)