Then have individuals unite on specific issues, not on sets of issues.
Sometimes that happens, but the problem with that is, if your goal is equal rights for men and women, starting a pro-abortion organization doesn't translate well to equal pay or domestic violence or whatever.
So the best thing to do, if you want equal rights, is to start an organization for equal rights.
@Josef: It's not, the fault belongs to both of them. But there was a mistake there to start with, the consequences are just slightly more severe. That's unfair, but men still don't have it as bad as women, and shouldn't start a group devoted to solely their interests anyway.
edited 11th Jan '11 9:15:11 AM by Ultrayellow
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.You'd think so, wouldn't you? But as a matter of fact, that's not the plan. The plan is to work separately on different parts of the problem, with no cooperation between the two. In theory, that'd make things better, as they approached the same goal from two sides. In practice, the Masculist movement doesn't have nearly enough power on its own.
And very few feminists want to do much about discrimination against men.
edited 11th Jan '11 7:32:06 PM by Ultrayellow
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.If there was just one kind of feminism, feminists and masculists (at least the majority) might eventually be able to agree that "okay, we resolve these issues and then we're done and everyone's happy". That wouldn't mean equality had actually been reached (or if it had, that society might not move away from it again). Western mainstream feminism still frequently faces criticism since it tends to focus too much on the interests of straight/white/cis/able-bodied/middle-class women and forgetting about the others, and because of this there's a lot of discussion. I think that's a good thing - no one can see all the injustices other people have to deal with, or make objective decisions about which injustices are most important. Hopefully, many kinds of feminism instead of just one = feminism that isn't just about privileged people's gender-related issues.
Many feminists (I'm one) are for gender equality, which means they're against discrimination against men, but also maintain that ending discrimination against men is not a goal of feminism. I don't know how many feminists actively work to do something about the problems that men face, though.
"All right, so in some situations men may get discriminated against. Sorry that is that way. But most of these are partially your fault anyway (committing a crime, making a bad marriage, hitting someone, girl or not)" - Ultrayellow
Oh, and as for hitting someone, the reality is, women hitting men tend to be regarded more sympathetically than men hitting women.
There is something hypocritical about that; we just don't know on whose part.
"That said, there are serious issues that it'd be nice if someone dealt with (mostly abuse) although our culture will change over time anyway." - Ultrayellow
You can't rely on that to happen on its own, though. It needs to be CONFRONTED.
"I also have zero sympathy for people who want to be effeminate, but are unhappy they're being Mistaken For Gay. It's unfortunate that being effeminate is stereotypically tied to male homosexuality. But I have trouble sympathizing with homophobic people unhappy that when they express themselves, people leap to a mistaken conclusion that they, basically because of personal bigotry, find humiliating." - Ultrayellow
For what it's worth I don't recall any specific moments of being Mistaken for Gay myself, but the idea that it takes a bigot to be upset about it is just asinine.
"Many feminists (I'm one) are for gender equality, which means they're against discrimination against men, but also maintain that ending discrimination against men is not a goal of feminism." - Lavode
Fine, but confronting one form of discrimination while not confronting another based on similar logic is nothing short of hypocrisy.
All righty, then. Let's do this.
Yes, because nobody ends up in jail for crimes they didn't commit, and women never make a bad marriage.
Operative word there being most. And what do you mean about women? That was about men making a bad marriage. It's the woman's fault too, but she'll generally get the advantage in the courts, so I'm not talking about her.
I know. That was actually my point. Here, take a look at the thing you wrote directly below that.
To put it in simpler sentences, abuse is bad. Women abusing men is equally bad.
Why did you put that in Sarcasm Mode? Did you think it was funny? It makes you less deserving of a serious reply. However, may I ask you if your social circle is fairly intolerant? Because if not, it's a fairly laughable mistake. And so yes, I do think it takes personal bigotry. Not a lot of it, but some.
I hate doing quotes so much. Oh, well.
Edit: And it took me several tries, but I finally figured the darn quotes out.
edited 11th Jan '11 8:35:35 PM by Ultrayellow
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.... even if the cause is VERY strongly related, implied by the same logic, and defending one without defending the other contributes to Double Standards in the first place?
"However, may I ask you if your social circle is fairly intolerant? Because if not, it's a fairly laughable mistake. And so yes, I do think it takes personal bigotry. Not a lot of it, but some." - Ultrayellow
And exactly WHAT do you base this on?
Also, what are you saying is a "fairly laughable mistake"? (And no, I don't have much of a social circle anyway but I don't think the people in it are intolerant.)
Fine, but confronting one form of discrimination while not confronting another based on similar logic is nothing short of hypocrisy.
No it's not.
The Black Panthers were never obligated to fight for the rights of white people. The AARP has no obligation to fight for the rights of young people.
Why should feminists have to fight for men's rights? It's not their thing; it's just a distraction from what they're there to do.
Being Mistaken for Gay.
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.![]()
Feminists are under no obligation to fight for men's rights. But they are under obligation, if they do not do so, not to say that feminism supports complete equality of the sexes or that it benefits men just as much as it does women.
edited 13th Jan '11 3:21:49 PM by LeighSabio
"All pain is a punishment, and every punishment is inflicted for love as much as for justice." — Joseph De Maistre.

Because for the most part being self satisfied whilst injustice continues is one of the worst traits of apathy in the modern world?
And how is "making a bad marriage" solely the mans fault? Surely both people can be to blame for the breakdown of a marriage.