Masculinism

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 27 Oct 2005 16:16

I've been reading a lot of feminist authors lately, some dating back to the 1800's and I'm really impressed with what I've read and how their writing has shaped the feminist movement.

I was brought up primarily by women and have mostly had close friendships and mentoring by women. I think it's a great position to be in because I truly appreciate how subjugated women really are. However, I struggle with expressing the "maleness of me" around so many woman all the time.

As women's social status increasingly changes I realize certain things.

Chauvinism is out. Like it or not, girl's may say they want the "bad boy" type, but it's increasingly obvious that those relationships aren't built to last and the ones that do are a throwback to the prefeminist era.

The divorce rate in the US has steadily increased over the last 30 years and feminist equality certainly plays a part in it. Not in an evil way, but the growth in the female workforce and the desire for women to stake their own claim has unselfishly impacted burgeoning families.

I think women deserve every opportunity presented to men and then ceratin ones that are not.
Then I wonder... are we moving toward "equality" or not. If we aren't it's generally considered a bad thing. If we are, do men and women really want "equality".

I've never been to "men's night" at a club. I'm sure they exist somewhere, but not in heterosexually prominent clubs, that's for sure.

What's happening to Masculinism? Is there such a thing? Are guys allowed to have a movement without returning to female subjugation?
Can we expect that continuing our guyish ways of fighting over women, punching eachother out, buying eachother a beer, watching the game, and staring at "chicks" asses is morally acceptable in a feminist world? If not, then what are guys? What is the new Masculinism? Do we move forward in accepting feminist definitions of what the man of the new century ought to be? What are those definitions?

If a man speaks in the woods and a woman isn't around to hear it is he still wrong?

jon · Post by **jon** » 27 Oct 2005 16:40

Masculinism is just evolving imho. You can definitely expect men to continue behaving as men have and probably always will. What I don’t see is this feminist world you are talking about. Last time I checked woman (in a few of the more moderate countries) have fairly equal rights as men but are more objectified, paid less on average, placed into more gender defined roles, and are seen as secondary citizens. In the majority of the world woman are second to men.

Sure rich north Americans can think that equality is on its way but what about woman in Africa that are being killed by aids spread to them by there cheating husbands and woman forced to have female circumcisions? What about woman in Iraq and Iran who are not allowed to compete in sports or even leave the house without covering up their bodies? What about people in population controlled China that murder their daughters? What about Thailand and the sex trade? What about ….

As far as I can see the idea that feminism is even a prominent thing in the world is a gross exaggeration. When there are countries in this world where a woman is more likely to be raped then learn to read how anyone can honestly think woman have even half equality of men.

If you want to narrow the scope of your argument to middle/upper class white North American women then maybe you can say they are progressing in terms of opportunities, even then I would hardly call the situation equal.

That being said I feel confident in my ability to drink bear, watch Nascar, stare at tits, watch football, go to monster truck rallies, download porn, go to strip clubs, scratch my balls in public, and generally be as big of an ass I want to be is not hampered because of the feminism movement, nor will it be anytime soon.

PS I don’t like really like Nascar, footbag, monster truck rallies, or scratching my balls in public

jon · Post by **jon** » 27 Oct 2005 16:42

!! meant to right football not footbag

pips · Post by **pips** » 27 Oct 2005 16:50

I can tell you that I won't put up with the "fights, beers, games, and chicks" kind of guys, but I, as a female, really couldn't describe one type of guy to be acceptable in this world today. He wouldn't have to prove his strength to get me. Drinking is ok on occasions...no alcoholics. Games are ok to watch, but not ALL THE TIME like they're the only life to live. If a guy is with a girl, I mean he can look at other girls, but don't stare them down and drool. But there is the uniqueness of each man that I like that I can't say this guy is acceptable and this one isn't in our world today. I don't know if I explained that well, or if I even can, but that is my opinion.

Toby · Post by **Toby** » 27 Oct 2005 19:51

Splint wrote:I think women deserve every opportunity presented to men and then ceratin ones that are not.
Then I wonder... are we moving toward "equality" or not. If we aren't it's generally considered a bad thing. If we are, do men and women really want "equality".

I'm not sure about this. The results of "equality" seems to be double income families and children put into créches shortly after they are born.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 28 Oct 2005 05:55

What are you trying to say? That you think women should be forced to stay at home and look after the kids while the man works? That the career of the man in a relationship is more important than the career of the woman and if they later seperate it will be the woman's problem that she hasn't been working and gaining a strong position in her proffession? I think women should definitely be given the same opportunities to men and if in the relationship the parents decide that the best thing for their child is for them to pay for somebody else to look after it while they give their attention to their jobs, well that's their decision to make. When I have children I personally will make sure that either my wife/partner or myself takes the time off work to look after the children because I think that creates a much better relationship between the parents and children and is a much better way of bringing up children. That's my personal belief though - I'd still strongly support people's right to choose to work instead of giving the time to their children - it's just not the choice I would make.

I think in general mascinalinty is fine so long as you don't start impeding on the rights of women. "Beer, games and chicks" - well that's all fine. I love all three and if a girl has a problem with that I won't have a relationship with her (or it will be very short). I think those things are fine in the modern world. It's employing people based on their looks or gender and issues like that that should be a concern and stamped out.

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 28 Oct 2005 06:38

Yeah, feminism is a movement for the equal rights of women, as pertained to things such as voting, workplace environment, and other such rights. It has nothing at all to do with the way a man acts.

Masculinism isn't a movement, or at least has not been established as one as of yet in modern history. The way men and women 'act' has nothing to do with feminism at all. Feminism only pertains to how women are treated according to civil rights. A man can scratch himself, watch every game, drink a lot, look at every single woman's body, and it has no affect on feminism.

If however, it was a boss, who inappropriately behaved towards a female coworker, or vice-versa for that matter, then a violation has occured. These have to do with civil rights.

I'm glad Chrissy has a grasp on what types of men she feels are acceptable to date in this world. However, it has no relevance to the topic of this thread.

The only way a 'Masculinism movement' could occur is if they were oppressed by females in their society.

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 28 Oct 2005 08:37

Actually Chris, I disagree entirely on two things.

shredzilla wrote:The way men and women 'act' has nothing to do with feminism at all. Feminism only pertains to how women are treated according to civil rights.

Here's a link to John Stuart Mill's The Subjection of Women
http://www.constitution.org/jsm/women.htm
He says it much better than I could, but I'll highlight an important part for you.

John Stuart Mill wrote:All causes, social and natural, combine to make it unlikely that women should be collectively rebellious to the power of men. They are so far in a position different from all other subject classes, that their masters require something more from them than actual service. Men do not want solely the obedience of women, they want their sentiments. All men, except the most brutish, desire to have, in the woman most nearly connected with them, not a forced slave but a willing one, not a slave merely, but a favourite. They have therefore put everything in practice to enslave their minds. The masters of all other slaves rely, for maintaining obedience, on fear; either fear of themselves, or religious fears. The masters of women wanted more than simple obedience, and they turned the whole force of education to effect their purpose. All women are brought up from the very earliest years in the belief that their ideal of character is the very opposite to that of men; not self will, and government by self-control, but submission, and yielding to the control of other. All the moralities tell them that it is the duty of women, and all the current sentimentalities that it is their nature, to live for others; to make complete abnegation of themselves, and to have no life but in their affections. And by their affections are meant the only ones they are allowed to have — those to the men with whom they are connected, or to the children who constitute an additional and indefeasible tie between them and a man. When we put together three things — first, the natural attraction between opposite sexes; secondly, the wife's entire dependence on the husband, every privilege or pleasure she has being either his gift, or depending entirely on his will; and lastly, that the principal object of human pursuit, consideration, and all objects of social ambition, can in general be sought or obtained by her only through him, it would be a miracle if the object of being attractive to men had not become the polar star of feminine education and formation of character. And, this great means of influence over the minds of women having been acquired, an instinct of selfishness made men avail themselves of it to the utmost as a means of holding women in subjection, by representing to them meekness, submissiveness, and resignation of all individual will into the hands of a man, as an essential part of sexual attractiveness

Basically, the inequality of women and men has culturally bred each over thousands of years to act in certain ways, with certain demands on the other.

The other thing I disagree with you on, Chris, is that I believe the kinds of guys Chrissy likes to date or doesn't is pretty relevant to the topic. She's describing the types of behaviors that she, as a woman in the feminist era, finds acceptable and unacceptable in men. Those behaviors are more or less what I was getting at in starting this thread. What becomes of the social norm of Masculinity? What is acceptable and what is not? Do men have the right to have their own movement toward keeping the old or creating the new as active members or do men let the flow of feminism control their social actions?

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 28 Oct 2005 09:21

You're describing a completely different subject which is societal behavior trends. Not a 'movement'. A movement is something done to establish equality. Men watching football games, scratching themselves, looking at a woman's body, and other things of this nature have nothing to do with a political movement.

Women do all sorts of things that could be described as crude behavioral patterns. They aren't oppressing men with these actions, therefore a 'movement' like Masculinism is unnecessary. If you'd like to discuss behavioral patterns of the male and female species over the course of history, that's great, but it belongs in a different thread.

The kinds of men Chrissy wants to date may or may not exhibit specific behavioral trends. However, they are in no way affecting feminism, unless they restrict her civil rights as a woman. None of the things she listed would affect her rights.

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 28 Oct 2005 12:11

Feminism and societal behavioral trends are 100% unequivocally linked to one another. One affects the other. Feminism didn't begin as a "Movement" as such. It began with a woman conniving her way into influence of some sort, mostly likely because she came from money and she decided not to marry the guy she lived with and it caused a small social scandal that other women began to emulate.

In effect and after some time, women and men began to organize toward social and political rights for women. As feminism grew, the societal and behavioral trends that began the movement changed even further.

So, is there an organized movement of Masculism? No, not as such. Is there some foundation for it as societal behavioral trends of men change as a result of feminism? I think so. As men have changed their behavior over time, will it further change and will it change to something that men will control or just allow to happen?

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 28 Oct 2005 13:58

I still don't understand what you're getting at. "MEN" exist separately from one another. You and I are not the same person. Therefore, you and I will behave differently from every other MAN on earth. The US used to be a very male dominated country. Since then, a movement arose liberating women, called 'Feminism'. Now, the movement continues, as women strive every day to get the same fair, and equal treatment as men when it comes to civil rights.

They have achieved so much in this movement, that one could speculate and say their mission is almost complete. But, hypothetically if they were still being treated completely unfairly, then you could still only discuss how they were being treated UNFAIRLY when it came to civil rights in regards to the feminist movement. You can't comment on "MEN"'s behavior, because we are all individuals; unless you are speaking about say, the corporate work world, or the government, or things like that. You can't use 'guys watching the game' or 'guys drinking too much' or 'guys getting into fights' or 'guys looking at a woman's body' to prove any given point about feminism, because the two points are completely unrelated.

Once again, Feminism refers to a movement brought on by women and men to help women gain equality in America in regards to social, political, and civil rights, nothing more. RIGHTS. Not any given man's behavior, but the RIGHTS of females. By very definition of the word, that is what you're speaking about. Not the 'strange or crude behavior' of men or women, unless it violates said rights. Watching the game doesn't do so.

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 28 Oct 2005 14:04

It would be very difficult for "MEN" to unite under one cause in the same way that women did, because there's no cause. We live in a free society now that lets us choose how we wish to act. I for one, will not conform to someone's ideal of how I should be, but rather my own ideal. I'm pretty sure a lot if not most men would feel the same way. Given this, and the fact that men are not in any way oppressed by the opposite sex, there is no need for a Masculinism movement in this country.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 28 Oct 2005 14:23

shredzilla wrote:Given this, and the fact that men are not in any way oppressed by the opposite sex

Spoken like someone without a Y chromosome.

Ever heard of a women loosing half of her net worth because a relationship didn't work out ?

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 28 Oct 2005 15:33

Tsiangkun wrote: Ever heard of a women loosing half of her net worth because a relationship didn't work out ?

Yes. Every man has the same rights to sue for alimony or child support the same as a woman. It's whoever makes the most money. And, that's what prenups are for. Everyone should get one, given that the divorce rate is high in this country.

Listen, I'm not saying that things aren't messed up. Because they are. I'm just saying that if you want to talk about how messed up stuff is, it belongs in a thread called 'Hey, let's talk about how messed up things are', not in 'Masculinism'. Cuz you can take any minority, gender, majority, or anything else for that matter and attach an 'ism' on it, but your conversation will be moot unless it's in the right context.

How about ballet, or say...female clothes modelling, or something else that women only are allowed to do. If you wanted to do that as well, and prove that you could be a man and still do those things, that would give you just cause for a 'Masculinism movement'.

Homosexuals had a movement not too long ago that made it possible for them to join the military. Before that, you were asked by the recruiting officer if you were heterosexual or not. If you answered no, then you were denied entrance into the military. These are all examples of movements to advance one's gender/race/whatever to an equal status amongst it's peers.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 29 Oct 2005 10:32

Wow i started glazing over after 8 or so posts, but there's some good shit in here.

-----------------------------------------------------

What's happening to Masculinism? (.....) What is the new Masculinism

This is the first time i've heard this term before: Masculinism

Is this supposed to be equal to manliness, or machismo??

It sounds stupid. It's a pain to even say the word. The word itself almost sounds like nuts on a beard.

The word itself seems like it is trying to reprogram or rewrite history.

White males in the business world should cringe when they hear that word, fearing some new mandatory metrosexual sensitivity training.

jon said:

Sure rich north Americans can think that equality is on its way but what about woman in Africa that are being killed by aids spread to them by there cheating husbands and woman forced to have female circumcisions? What about woman in Iraq and Iran who are not allowed to compete in sports or even leave the house without covering up their bodies? What about people in population controlled C(....)

There are 2 reasons(or more) why many prominent American feminists have nothing to say about the misery of the rest of the world.

But I want to be sure to phrase them in an elaborate and "correct" way , lest the "thate" police come to attack.

Next post.....

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 30 Oct 2005 20:24

HighDemonslayer wrote:There are 2 reasons(or more) why many prominent American feminists have nothing to say about the misery of the rest of the world.

Is it because they are still caught up in defending their own rights. Think Roe vs Wade and its possible reversal if George W gets his way. Its hard to fight for someone elses rights when your own are being marginalized.

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 30 Oct 2005 23:25

shredzilla wrote:I still don't understand what you're getting at. "MEN" exist separately from one another. You and I are not the same person. Therefore, you and I will behave differently from every other MAN on earth.

Obviously you and I are different and so is the next guy. I'm not sure whay you even bring that up. However, if I need to answer it, then suffice it to say that all men while different in many individual characteristics, still exhibit many of the same social and genetic behavioral patterns. Hence the cliche, "It's a guy thing".

You can't comment on "MEN"'s behavior, because we are all individuals; unless you are speaking about say, the corporate work world, or the government, or things like that.

Look, I'm sorry, but that statement is just asinine. How about men as a social entity making up nearly half of the world population? How about the behavior of men in the US vs the behavior of men in Bahrain? To say that you can only talk about men's behavior in context of gov't or business as it pertains to feminism is just obtuse.

You can't use 'guys watching the game' or 'guys drinking too much' or 'guys getting into fights' or 'guys looking at a woman's body' to prove any given point about feminism, because the two points are completely unrelated.

Once again, Feminism refers to a movement brought on by women and men to help women gain equality in America in regards to social, political, and civil rights, nothing more. RIGHTS. Not any given man's behavior, but the RIGHTS of females. By very definition of the word, that is what you're speaking about. Not the 'strange or crude behavior' of men or women, unless it violates said rights. Watching the game doesn't do so.

You are at least 50% wrong if not more. Feminism is not just an organized political movement. It is a belief, and was such long before it became an actual organized movement, in social, political and economic equality for men and women.
It is also not solely and American idea or movement. Some of the earliest feminist writers were British; i.e. Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Shelley, Sarah Stickney Ellis, George Eliot and John Stuart Mill.

Now, I'm not saying that men are being subjugated or that we have in any way given up rights or are being oppressed by women or feminism. What I am saying is that we are in a continuing process of changing behavioral conditions due to the effect feminism has had on society as a whole. In light of this I believe there is some cause for men to take an active role in shaping masculinity.

"Masculinism" and "Feminism" are in no way to be construed as being the same things. Masculism isn't meant to be a political movement to save the oppressed male gender. If anything at all it is a social one that forms a foundation for the appropriate moral behavior of societal men in a feminist world.

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 31 Oct 2005 08:06

Yeah, all I am saying is that I don't agree with CHANGING the way men behave in society. Leading by example maybe, but you don't want to start turning every guy out there into what YOU think is the ideal man. Of course I don't think it is right to mistreat others, or behave inappropriately according to the common value system of society. But I will not be the enforcer or try to make someone behave like me, or anyone else. I will only encourage the fair and considerate treatment of others via leading by example. If I felt the male race was oppressed, I might feel the need to take action in the way of a social movement like Feminism.

We can also agree to disagree on the definition of Feminism. I believe that it was a political movement organized by women, men and politicians to uplift the female race to an equal status amongst it's male peers. If you look up the word in a dictionary, or an encyclopedia, that's how Feminism is defined.

fem·i·nism (fm-nzm)
n. 1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
2. The movement organized around this belief. SourceThe American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

You on the other hand, feel that it WAS a movement, and has evolved into a 'way of behaving' or an idealism meant to push society toward greater good. You feel that we are continuing to change our behavior based on how Feminism affected society. I have no problem with your desire to feel that way, I just don't choose to accept it as definition. I believe that once women achieve social, economic, and political equality, the need for the movement is obsolete. Feminist movements are definitely needed in other countries as well where women are still being oppressed. Iraq and Afganastan have Feminist movements going on as we speak.

I most likely won't be adding another post to this topic, as I have already stated my disinterest, and don't feel the necessity to rehash every point I have already made. Feel free to continue the discussion, but I ask you to please respect my right to have my own thoughts on the subject, as I am respecting yours. I'm requesting that we agree to disagree on this subject.

sniikeri · Post by **sniikeri** » 31 Oct 2005 08:17

Sorry, haven't read the posts really through but thought I'd throw a thought too.

The stereotype feminists are lesbians. Are the masculinists homosexual too? The stereotype of the homosexuals often more feminin than masculin.
Or are the hc masculinists 'ture machos'?

Idk, but in Finland after the divorce the men get pretty easily run over in the custody (?) matters. The women usually get the kids, and it created a sensation in the media when it occured that the ex-wife had gotten the kids after he had made false insest accusations against the ex-husband. I don't know how common this is, but it sounds like it wouldn't be that rare.

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 31 Oct 2005 12:06

shredzilla wrote: I ask you to please respect my right to have my own thoughts on the subject, as I am respecting yours. I'm requesting that we agree to disagree on this subject.

I respect your right to have your own thoughts on the subject and any other subject. However, I don't agree to disagree. That's like asking to remain divisive and ignorant.

modified

Masculinism

Masculinism

Re: Masculinism