Men's Rights/Gender Issues category

[James Dean]

I notice a lot of topics about men's rights and gender issues getting scattered over the "General Message" section as well as a few others, and I'm wondering if FDR might benefit from a "Men's Rights/Gender Issues" topic like Stef has on his YouTube Channel. I don't know a lot about the volume of posts on this topic so I don't know if it justifies it's own section, it just seems inefficient to have it scattered across the forum when it's becoming a bigger and bigger issues in the community; Especially with the waves caused by Estrogen Based Parasites, and Stef's attendance of the (please donate!!) men's rights conference in Detroit. 

 

 

[Freedomain]

Done!  Can anybody suggest a "description" for the section?

[Kevin Beal]

"A safe place for the patriarchy to come together and conspire against all womyn kind"

 

"the he-man woman haters club (now accepting female listeners!)"

 

"What about the menz? Find out here!"

[JamesP]

"Equal privileges requires equal responsibility. Discuss the emergence of the men's rights movement and gender issues here!"

[MysterionMuffles]

I think Kevin's descriptions have 'em down pat

[MrCapitalism]

I like the "he-man woman haters club (now accepting female listeners)"

 

Perhaps this can be a temporary subtopic? My personal experience is that Men's Rights is a 'philosophical story arc' or 'flavor of the year' for Freedomain radio.

 

As a longer time listener, I can remember other issues that were highlighted for a short time, including;

 

Alternative theories to health and diet,

Intellectual property,

and Psychohistory.

 

While I think these are all important to the conversation, my experience has been that the focus was shifted to each of these subjects for a period of several months, before the show went into a different direction. I feel that the same will happen to the issue of Men's Rights. It will never 'go away,' but at some point I am sure that it will cease to be an important focal point.

 

Thoughts?

[dsayers]

Done!  Can anybody suggest a "description" for the section?

 

Maybe I suggest a change in the title? Gender encompasses men's issues and feminism without being biased. I understand that the pendulum was far too the other way for far too long, but that's no reason for a philosophical board to have an unphilosophical approach to the title.

[JamesP]

I like the "he-man woman haters club (now accepting female listeners)"

 

Perhaps this can be a temporary subtopic? My personal experience is that Men's Rights is a 'philosophical story arc' or 'flavor of the year' for Freedomain radio.

 

As a longer time listener, I can remember other issues that were highlighted for a short time, including;

 

Alternative theories to health and diet,

Intellectual property,

and Psychohistory.

 

While I think these are all important to the conversation, my experience has been that the focus was shifted to each of these subjects for a period of several months, before the show went into a different direction. I feel that the same will happen to the issue of Men's Rights. It will never 'go away,' but at some point I am sure that it will cease to be an important focal point.

 

Thoughts?

 

I think this topic is different. Health/diet theories flare up on the boards from time to time, but it's never really been a main topic in the show, as far as I'm aware. Intellectual property was a topic until (I think) Stef became convinced that it was an invalid concept. I'm not sure what happened with Psychohistory, exactly, but part of it is that the work that Stef was originally going to do regarding the origins of war is being done very well by DeMause and his group.

 

I think that men's rights and feminism are different, in that they have very personal impacts on people in ways that those other topics you cited do not.

 

 

Maybe I suggest a change in the title? Gender encompasses men's issues and feminism without being biased. I understand that the pendulum was far too the other way for far too long, but that's no reason for a philosophical board to have an unphilosophical approach to the title.

 

I'm not sure it's all that important, and I would vote for keeping it as-is. My main reason is that the phrase "Gender Issues" has been coopted by feminists. I don't think it's unphilosophical to have "Men's Rights" in the category title, especially for newer members of the board who may not even be aware that it's a thing.

[Edit] And then after writing that, I see that the name was changed anyway, which I think is just fine

[James Dean]

I also think feminism, as Stef puts it, "socialism with tits" has much more of a tangible negative effect on people's lives than bad diets or IP. Anarchism and Atheism are huge topics that are always being discussed because so many people are beaten down with them as kids and when you throw off the shackles, it's such a relief! I felt the same with gender issues, and really looking at the issues that men and boys face, and more importantly connecting with my own feelings, there is a great sense of relief. I think that this is one of the great irrationalities that we yearn be free of, as we do with gods and the state.

 

And I'm really excited that my ideas could contribute to the community, I hope this space serves the greatest conversation well. Thanks to Mike and the whole crew who made it happen.

 

I also like "the he-man woman haters club (now accepting female listeners!)"

[corpus mentium]

I notice a lot of topics about men's rights and gender issues getting scattered over the "General Message" section as well as a few others, and I'm wondering if FDR might benefit from a "Men's Rights/Gender Issues" topic like Stef has on his YouTube Channel. I don't know a lot about the volume of posts on this topic so I don't know if it justifies it's own section, it just seems inefficient to have it scattered across the forum when it's becoming a bigger and bigger issues in the community; Especially with the waves caused by Estrogen Based Parasites, and Stef's attendance of the (please donate!!) men's rights conference in Detroit. 

 

James Dean, I was thinking about suggesting this too, but I kept forgetting to do it while I was at my computer. Thanks for suggesting it. I wish I could give you more upvotes.

 

"What about teh menz? Find out here!"

 

The pedant in me just couldn't resist. FTFY. 

[dsayers]

I don't want rights because I'm a man. I want rights because I'm a human. I want female humans to have the same rights as me. And the trans-gendered, hermaphrodites...

 

"Men's rights," while a perfectly fine general name for the counter-movement, makes for a bad subforum title in my opinion. I think this would be especially true of those who do not realize it's a thing, that might misinterpret it as a misogynistic cult instead of just a valid counter-movement.

 

Would we vote to name a subforum about racial issues "white's rights"? How about amid a paradigm where an effort to give blacks equal rights had swung too far? I'd rather break the cycle than perpetuate the pendulum, but on this side of center for a change.

[corpus mentium]

"Cups, pads, and diaphragms: Men and women have more in common than you think. Find out here!"

[Wesley]

I kind of have to agree with dsayers on this one. The biggest issue I have with the Men's Rights movement is that it clings to the idea of rights which is anachronistic at its best. We can call it Gender Issues and then put in the description something about the Men's Rights Movement discussion, but the whole concept of rights falls down the oh so slippery slope to statism and the people who claim arbitrary rights on a daily basis nowadays.

 

Edit:

 

I now have read the title:

 

Men's Issues, Feminism and Gender

 

That sounds good to me as a category.

[corpus mentium]

I agree with dsayers as well. I don't know what an accurately descriptive name would be, though.

[James Dean]

I think "men's issues" as opposed to "men's rights" is more apt, and that is reflected in the title.

 

I agree with Dsayers in that swinging the pendulum the other way will just lead to more opposite momentum. It's partly for this reason that I think the FDR community should really speak out about men's and women's issues because offering anarchic and peaceful solutions to these issues is paramount. From what I have seen there is a kind of self awareness in the MRA 'camp' and a desire not to just become a mirror image of feminism (this to me is evident by, just recently, Paul Elam saying that any attendant to the conference in Detroit seen being violent or in any way reacting to the protests would loose all standing on the AVFM site; the calling out of fringe elements is something feminism never did because it thrived on escalation). It cannot be denied that while these are "men's issues," but because of the intimate relationship men and women have on a large biological/sociological scale, these issues impact women as well. 

 

For instance, the predation by the state upon fathers is a men's issue, but it has ramifications that hurt the sons and daughters that grow up in fatherless households. 

 

It's also, albeit to a lesser degree, important to recognize these groups of social and personal issues have a name recognition as Men's Rights and are associated with organizations (like AVFM) that call themselves "Men's Right's Activists." Especially taking into account the largely libertarian nature of these people and these groups, maybe that name recognition will invite them into other conversations about atheism and anarchism. They have already conquered one great cultural irrationality and might be up to taking a whack at a few more.

 

"Men's rights," while a perfectly fine general name for the counter-movement, makes for a bad subforum title in my opinion. I think this would be especially true of those who do not realize it's a thing, that might misinterpret it as a misogynistic cult instead of just a valid counter-movement.

 

I understand your hesitation, it's difficult for anyone to cut through the cultural milieu we are all born into and often almost drown in; I certainly don't think we want to make that more difficult unnecessarily. However, if some newcomer to the board takes one look at the topic name, doesn't even look at the content therein, and immediately writes it off as a misogynistic cult, I don't think they would have much of anything valuable to add to the conversation at hand (and they probably wouldn't have gotten past 'Anarchism' without having a full blown meltdown). What is it that Stef said? "we don't want stupid people in our movement"?

[dsayers]

if some newcomer to the board takes one look at the topic name, doesn't even look at the content therein, and immediately writes it off as a misogynistic cult, I don't think they would have much of anything valuable to add to the conversation at hand

 

Uh huh. What about the converse? What about the newcomer with the philosophical fortitude to see through the narrative, but wonders how we could drop the ball by naming a subforum about gender issues as if it's only focused on 50% of the genders? Men's rights, feminism, and gender reads as "all the best things about men, all the worst things about women, and (fine print) everything gender related." But everything gender related tells the whole story with less words and bias. Am I wrong?

[Wesley]

Uh huh. What about the converse? What about the newcomer with the philosophical fortitude to see through the narrative, but wonders how we could drop the ball by naming a subforum about gender issues as if it's only focused on 50% of the genders? Men's rights, feminism, and gender reads as "all the best things about men, all the worst things about women, and (fine print) everything gender related." But everything gender related tells the whole story with less words and bias. Am I wrong?

First of all, it is Men's Issues.

 

Second, many would view the opposite in that Men's Issues is negative and that Feminism is a positive.

 

I do they they can be all-encompassed by "Gender Issues" though, so further topics would only serve to highlight that MRA and Feminist discussion occurs there and maybe should be in the description and not in the title.

[Kevin Beal]

I think what we've got at the moment is perfect. Probably not so good to go the snarky route with that one (like I was suggesting). It's a serious topic ripe for some rigorous debate, truth bombs and sharing men's (and women's) lived experiences. And I suspect it will be one of the most popular sub forums in little time.

[James Dean]

Uh huh. What about the converse? What about the newcomer with the philosophical fortitude to see through the narrative, but wonders how we could drop the ball by naming a subforum about gender issues as if it's only focused on 50% of the genders? Men's rights, feminism, and gender reads as "all the best things about men, all the worst things about women, and (fine print) everything gender related." But everything gender related tells the whole story with less words and bias. Am I wrong?

 

No, I think that's a fine criticism. But then it comes down to any which way we cut it, we lose someone. Gender neutral titles will alienate those who want to focus on men's issues because they see them as more prevalent in the process of "societal triage." And I'll say again, a real push for libertarian principals in the MRM will help both libertarianism and the MRM respectively; as individualist as I am, the reality is that there is strength in numbers. 

 

I guess i'll just say I trust those people who have more quality information on the forum and the ability to make such changes. If they and/or the community in general think a gender neutral title is better, than that's what should happen.

 

Personally, I think someone with the philosophical rigor to journey this far will understand the context in which the sub-topic is so titled and understand the reasons behind it. Another option would be to make a sticky with a brief disclaimer or description of the issues appropriate for this sub-topic stressing that a philosophical approach excludes no topic on the basis of gender. Again, I really don't know what is best for the show, these are just my opinions.

[dsayers]

Gender neutral titles will alienate those who want to focus on men's issues

 

Why? If this is true, and if alienation is a valid reason to do something, wouldn't this mean we'd also have to have a women's issues forum so as not to alienate them? And if we had separate men's women's issues forums, wouldn't this be perpetuating the division? I wasn't around at the time and am not terribly versed with it's origins, but didn't feminism get to be the monster that it is today because it was more focused on "making up for lost time" rather than equality? Don't we have empirical evidence that it is a dangerous foundation and why?

 

Personally, I think someone with the philosophical rigor to journey this far will understand the context in which the sub-topic is so titled and understand the reasons behind it.

 

I don't disagree. I read this as, "I can play my stereo as loud as I want and anybody that has a problem with it can wear earplugs." While a true statement, it dispenses with consistency in light of how others could compensate for our own inconsistency. Again, I don't feel this is a philosophical approach. It's not of terrible importance to me, but I do find it interesting that no case has been made as to why it should be men's issues instead of gender issues. I'm not trying to play devil's advocate here. I honestly think my suggestion is a rational one.

[LovePrevails]

[James Dean]

Why? If this is true, and if alienation is a valid reason to do something, wouldn't this mean we'd also have to have a women's issues forum so as not to alienate them? 

 

Well, there is feminism in the title. I think it would be a fine objection if it only had men's issues in the title, but it includes men's issues, women's issues, and all misc gender issues... I'm sorry, dsayers, I guess I just don't understand how it could be more inclusive than that...? 

[JamesP]

The category is now called "Men's Issues, Feminism and Gender."

 

What's the problem with this?

[PatrickC]

I personally thought a 'Conan and the barbarian' category was sufficient..  j/k

[dsayers]

The category is now called "Men's Issues, Feminism and Gender."

 

What's the problem with this?

 

I'm having a hard time choosing how to respond to this. It strikes me as manipulative. I feel I've been clear with my CRITIQUE (which doesn't denote a "problem") and have asked if I'm wrong and/or for the case to be made for the current title. So far, the only reason given has been that that's the way it is. If my observation is in err, please correct me or share with me in what way I've been unclear. Asking what the problem is seems like a way of saying, "Look at the crazy guy getting bent out of shape over nothing!" Hyperbolic, I grant you, but I hope this conveys why this quote has made me uncomfortable.

 

What would you think if a math textbook presented itself as being about 2, 18, and numbers? I would think, "Wait, 2 and 18 are numbers, aren't they? Why didn't they just say numbers?" After three and a half decades of being subjugated by people who manipulate words to obfuscate the truth, I highly value precision. I don't think that is ridiculous.

 

Earlier in the thread, there were already two opposing interpretations of "Men's Issues and Feminism" as 1 - the best of men and the worst of women and 2 - men's issues is negative and feminism is positive. I would say we are both rational people, so this demonstrates how the extra words don't add anything to the title other than imprecision.

 

Why is my suggestion a problem?

[Freedomain]

I wonder why the naming of a forum is such a contentious issue. Instead of participating in this thread, I worked on something which will bring more eyeballs to material which demonstrates the negative impact of spanking. At least one kid, somewhere will grow up in a violence free household because of how I've spent that time. How are you spending your time?

[JamesP]

dsayers, nothing more was behind what I asked, though Mike put it much clearer. Why spend any more time on the name of the forum?

[dsayers]

Instead of participating in this thread, I worked on something which will bring more eyeballs to material which demonstrates the negative impact of spanking. At least one kid, somewhere will grow up in a violence free household because of how I've spent that time. How are you spending your time?

 

You realize that this IS participating in this thread, right? Is it your argument that if you spend your time more productively than I do, I'm automatically wrong wherever we may disagree? Is it consistent to take the time to set up a subforum, title it, solicit feedback, then speak as if titling it is a waste of time or feedback is bothersome to the point of resorting to ad hominem?

 

Why spend any more time on the name of the forum?

 

Wait a second. YOU spent more time on the name of the forum by adding to it, claiming it's a problem. When I pointed out that it's not a problem and asked you questions, you ignored that you put words into my mouth, ignored my questions, and are now asking me why spend more time on it, the very act of which is spending more time on it.

 

I know you guys have more integrity than this. I'm not staff here, so disagreeing with me doesn't even require a conversation. not that what you're doing is actually disagreeing with me, which is curious. What purpose does it serve to offset/marginalize my suggestion?

[Kevin Beal]

Give it up dude. Even if you're right, who cares?

 

They didn't give your very well crafted argument about how the sub forum should be named it's due consideration, possibly. So what? Why is it so important that you would risk alienating yourself like this?

 

I would suggest that you pick your battles.

[corpus mentium]

I care.

 

Is this even about the naming of the forum any longer? Or is this now more about lack of consistency in using accurate language? I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but it seems to be about the latter. Shouldn't such consistency and accuracy in language be critically important on a philosophy forum?

 

If I am off the mark here, I would greatly appreciate being informed about it. I am rather new to many concepts here, after all, but I do have to say that I felt a bit disturbed and disappointed after reading the above exchange.

[dsayers]

Why is it so important that you would risk alienating yourself like this?

 

I would suggest that you pick your battles.

 

Appeals to insecurity aside, WHO is alienating me? WHO needs to pick their battles? Look again. I made a suggestion. That's it. The suggestion has made a couple people uncomfortable to the point of trying to alienate me; to the point of stopping to battle an idea that they could just as easily walk on by. My participation beyond the suggestion itself is to engage in conversation with those who respectfully disagree and answering what I view as bias-motivated attacks by those who disagree not so respectfully.

 

Mr. Dean was able to disagree with me without getting nasty. As was Wesley with regards to the parts he disagrees with. corpus mentium isn't biased in such a way as to miss the point or otherwise need to marginalize the provider of the suggestion. How do you know they're the ones that are wrong and those not providing productive interaction are right? If you could explain that much, I'm open to it. The problem continues to be that people are bypassing this step to go straight to addressing me personally.

 

You asked who cares, but what difference would that make? "Gender Issues" either encompasses "Men's Issues" and "Feminism" or it does not. How much anybody cares about it won't change this. The real question is who cares so much about division and inconsistency that they would make a sizable effort to obfuscate and keep things thrice as long as it needs to be? If being rational and consistent alienates me, why do you suppose that would be a problem for me? Pursuing self-knowledge and philosophy in a world teeming with coercion already alienates me. It's a point of pride that I have integrity enough to withstand such social discomfort. Though I will say it's troubling that it could be found here of all places, and in increasing frequency I'm sorry to say.

 

[EDIT]

Ironically, my suggestion was also for the purpose of not invoking these types of emotional responses.

Edited June 5, 2014 by dsayers

[Kevin Beal]

Appeals to insecurity aside, WHO is alienating me? WHO needs to pick their battles?

You do.

 

This ugliness started with your response to James. He asked an honest question and you passive aggressively accused him of manipulating and acting out. Passive aggressive because you suggested it, didn't confirm it, and then doubled down the rest of the exchange.

 

And further evidence of passive aggression is the red text above. You made several of these claims about the intentions of James, Mike and I. You have no idea what we're thinking, but you keep talking like you do. That is ripe for projection.

 

Always assuming the worst in what people say is incredibly passive aggressive. Because what the fuck are they supposed to do about that? It sets up a double bind where they are fucked if they act with dignity and call you out because that is only going to be used as "corroborating evidence" and fucked if they don't because you've set a narrative where they are the bad guy.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Kevin Beal

[LovePrevails]

I also think Gender Issues would be a better name for the forum.

I don't care enough to be bothered by it. I agree with "human rights" vs.  "men's rights"

"men's issues" is not the equivalent of feminism, "women's issues" is

masculinism is the quivalent of feminism

feminism was originally purported to mean the ideology that women should be equal to men (whatever equal means)

[dsayers]

 

This ugliness started with your response to James. He asked an honest question and you passive aggressively accused him of manipulating and acting out. Passive aggressive because you suggested it, didn't confirm it, and then doubled down the rest of the exchange.

 

And further evidence of passive aggression is the red text above. You made several of these claims about the intentions of James, Mike and I. You have no idea what we're thinking, but you keep talking like you do.

 

But this here isn't talking like you have an idea what I'm thinking, is that right?

 

From my perspective, the ugliness actually began with James's first response to me where he said he doesn't view it as important. Being important isn't the standard by which people are ALLOWED to discuss something. I didn't address this at the time.

 

What I also did not do is accuse James of being manipulative. I told him that what he said struck me as if it were manipulative. I didn't phrase that as an accusation because I accept my own capacity for error. What I did do is express the discomfort I felt. I was also open with how *I* felt as if I was a damned if I do damned if I don't because I could either let him control the narrative, claiming it was a problem, or I could respond as if I was the crazy guy getting bent out of shape over nothing. As far as I understand it, this is an example of RTR.

 

James did not explore this with me and it doesn't appear that he spent any time considering that maybe he was wrong to marginalize my input by calling it unimportant or wrong to call it problematic. He didn't answer any of my questions before, during, or after our exchange, including not addressing that his (what I viewed to be) provocative question had been answered before he asked it. Instead, HE doubled down with the putting me in a damned if I do damned if I don't position by making it sound as if investing any further time would be irrational. All while ignoring the contradiction of his own further investment of time.

 

Speaking of ignoring contradictions, am I to understand that it is your position that because from your perspective, the ugliness began with me, that it is okay for Mike to try and shame me rather than addressing my words or ignoring my suggestion altogether? Is it your position that I need to know exactly what you're thinking in order to understand that you didn't actually address what I've said and instead talked about the effects of what my saying them might be? How is that NOT an appeal to insecurity? I'm genuinely curious because if you'll re-skim the thread, one constant has been my feeling of helplessness in the amount of time people are willing to spend talking to me without actually talking with me. Even though I've expressed curiosity and made the case for my position every step of the way.

 

I don't know if you noticed my last edit, but one of my motivations in suggesting a more precise approach is to avoid the potential misgiving of bias. Given the amount of emotional responses I've received, I feel I was right to recognize that potential. In case I wasn't clear about it before, I'm a man. Therefore I'm a benefactor of having a gender subforum being named as if it is meant to favor men. I still don't want it as such because I view it as imprecise, not productive, and perpetuating the failures of the last time gender issues were described by one gender alone. Can you show me the flaw in my logic?

[Kevin Beal]

But this here isn't talking like you have an idea what I'm thinking, is that right?

Correct. I did not assume what you were thinking.