Feminists? Any here?

[Mr. Bloom]

OK Jewell, I'm curious: What is the male equivalent of "feminism"? That is, what is to men, like feminism is to women? I'll also be curious as to your views on how that concept of the "male equivalency" coexists with what I believe your definition of feminism is...without one being subordinate to the other.

I'm of the belief that capitalism is at the core of the issue,

I couldn't DISagree more. Don't confuse consumerism or social injustice with capitalism. A capitalist saves without flaunting...and social justice allows capitalism to thrive. Your attribution to capitalism is very misguided in my humble opinion.

Keep in mind, your views are not just a function of your observations of society, but also the perspective that you possess in making those observations. There are others who have a different perspective who shouldn't feel minimized because they see it differently than you do.

For example:

...ever realize on Seinfeld how George always went out with gorgeous women

you see, I always saw George as the negative point of that...he expected physical attributes of others that he could never attain or possess himself...and was satified with nothing less. Kinda sad...since Hitler did the same thing in defining an ideal appearance that was the opposite of his own physical characteristics.

[Crankin]

I am sorry you feel that way, Smurf. I am not bashing you, your religion, race, or sexuality. In fact, I don't even know you. So, I am not sure where your comments came from, except that it sounds like some narrow minded people have not been nice to you.
Being White, Christian, and heterosexual are positions of power and majority in this country. Most people do not give a thought about how this gives you privileges. We just don't think about it.

[Pax]

Respect is a two way street. I admire stay at home parents, I think they made some wonderful financial decisions so that one parent could stay home and raise their children. Those SAHP's who feel they've been ridiculed should be happy in the knowledge that they had the financial ability to make the choice. Perhaps those who were disrespectful to them simply didn't understand the commitment required?

As for me, I have no kids and when I was a young woman I was tired of being told what I couldn't do, "girls can't be astronauts/firefighters/construction workers...". So, instead of listening to the naysayers I went out and became a professional firefighter in 1983, at that time there were less than 100 of us in the world. I was treated like absolute ****, was put in hazardous situations just to see if I would "man up". I never filed a complaint, I never got nasty, I just worked very very hard at the job until I earned the grudging respect of the people on my department. I'm not a strong orator so I decided to be the kind of feminist who used action rather than words to try and make a difference.

[Jewell]

OK Jewell, I'm curious: What is the male equivalent of "feminism"? That is, what is to men, like feminism is to women? I'll also be curious as to your views on how that concept of the "male equivalency" coexists with what I believe your definition of feminism is...without one being subordinate to the other.

The male equivalent of feminism? This could become a very interesting in-depth discussion if you truly wish to understand how men can support women in the feminist plight. Though, I'm not sure that is what your really asking. Sounds like your fishing for something else. Men can be feminists, I know men who call themselves feminists, but I also know men who rather call themselves pro-feminist. Their reasoning can be quite in-depth, and its not something I think I can full address here.

I couldn't DISagree more. Don't confuse consumerism or social injustice with capitalism. A capitalist saves without flaunting...and social justice allows capitalism to thrive. Your attribution to capitalism is very misguided in my humble opinion.

I suppose I shouldn't have mentioned capitalism. Its so difficult for us rich westerns to understand the negative side of capitalism. Many of us are rewarded by it so much so we can't imagine how its functioning allows social injustice to fester throughout the world. Its a charged topic, I shouldn't have mentioned it. Misguided, no, mindful, yes.

Keep in mind, your views are not just a function of your observations of society, but also the perspective that you possess in making those observations. There are others who have a different perspective who shouldn't feel minimized because they see it differently than you do.

For example:

you see, I always saw George as the negative point of that...he expected physical attributes of others that he could never attain or possess himself...and was satified with nothing less. Kinda sad...since Hitler did the same thing in defining an ideal appearance that was the opposite of his own physical characteristics.

George is an example I gave to describe the horrible beauty standards that are expected of women tv compared to men. Regardless of what kind of character you think George is, look at any show on tv and you will see amazing disparity between beauty standards of men and women.

Its so interesting how the very mention of women's rights brings up so much hostility...

[Mr. Bloom]

Please don't deflect - I'm not being hostile, but I am challenging your perspective and I'm doing it without apology.

So, to the original question:

If women are free to be totally feminist and men are free to be 'masculist'', how do they coexist??

I would submit that it is in respecting their inherent differences rather than attacking and criticizing them. This is not about gender, but rather about respect...and being on the short end of respect is not uniquely female.

[Grog]

If women are free to be totally feminist and men are free to be 'masculist'', how do they coexist??

Not sure, but I think it's called "patriarchy" and it's existed for quite a bit of time. It's not really the "equivalent," or perhaps it's the "dialectical equivalent."

In my view, feminism has always been not so much about promoting one gender, but rather about reducing discrimination and constraints imposed by gender. Basically the idea that rights should be based on being human, not on being a man or a woman. Say, for example, property rights: it sucks not to be allowed to own property but to be property (of someone else) instead. There were quite a few reasons to believe that women were getting most of the discrimination and constraints, or at least getting the bum side of that deal. In Hegelian terms, you could say that the master also needs to be liberated. For example, even today it's extremely difficult for men to take parental leave (not six days but six months) in most occupations, even if in theory it's permitted by law and even partly supported financially by government and some employers. That's something that feminism around here is concerned about. Your mileage may vary.

It sure makes things a lot more complicated, but personally I have not yet given up on the general idea that there should be equal opportunities. I will admit though that, in 21st century Canada, given the choice, I'd pick being a woman. It seems a lot more difficult for men to bend gender roles, but I know quite a few around me that are doing it, and everyone's gaining from that.

[Mr. Bloom]

In my view, feminism has always been not so much about promoting one gender, but rather about reducing discrimination and constraints imposed by gender. Basically the idea that rights should be based on being human, not on being a man or a woman.

Amen!

Now, I'm going for a ride!

[BleeckerSt_Girl]

The male equivalent of feminism? This could become a very interesting in-depth discussion if you truly wish to understand how men can support women in the feminist plight....Men can be feminists, I know men who call themselves feminists, but I also know men who rather call themselves pro-feminist. Their reasoning can be quite in-depth, and its not something I think I can full address here.

He wasn't asking if men can be feminists. He's asking what the male equivalent of feminism is- as in 'masculinism'- and what that would be. Interesting...would 'masculinism' be automatically considered something chauvenistic, anti-women, or negative?, just as 'feminism' is often labeled as anti-men, radical, and negative as well? Can we see both feminism and masculinism as being positive, each in its own right?

[Pax]

...Can we see both feminism and masculinism as being positive, each in its own right?

I don't think so, when one group holds (or has held) significant power over another the oppressed seek out their own power. I don't think masculinism would work any more than "white power" works. Does that make any sense?

[Zen]

Makes perfect sense.

[Irulan]

Originally Posted by Mr. Silver
If women are free to be totally feminist and men are free to be 'masculist'', how do they coexist??

Not sure, but I think it's called "patriarchy" and it's existed for quite a bit of time. It's not really the "equivalent," or perhaps it's the "dialectical equivalent."

I disagree that patriarchy and masculist are equivilant.

I would think that "masculist" would investigate male role issues, including but not limited to male objectification and machismo, whereas patriarchy ( to me) implies the system of men running the world for the last few hundred/thousand

[Grog]

I would think that "masculist" would investigate male role issues, including but not limited to male objectification and machismo, whereas patriarchy ( to me) implies the system of men running the world for the last few hundred/thousand

I agree with you. I think that's what I meant by the "dialectical equivalent." I should have said "dialectic response."

It's just my opinion that feminism has embraced men questioning men role constraints as well. But the label is not very conducive to many men embracing it.

[BleeckerSt_Girl]

I don't think so, when one group holds (or has held) significant power over another the oppressed seek out their own power. I don't think masculinism would work any more than "white power" works. Does that make any sense?

Unless masculinism is defined the same way we define feminism-
I would imagine masculinism could be defined as promoting non-stereotyping in male roles...for example giving more respect and support to stay-at-home fathers, single fathers, eliminating our society's stigma attached to males showing emotion and crying, etc.

The negative stereotype of feminism is of a bunch of women who hate men and want to get power from them. Why define masculinism the same way?
Ideally, both feminism and masculinism would be more about enabling both genders to discard stereotypical roles in society and be able to enjoy the same choices, the choices that are right for them as individuals of any sex.
Admittedly, choice-wise, things are currently lopsided. However I think that discouraging stereotyped roles for men would benefit everyone, including women.
I would think both feminism and masculinism would be about everyone being able to have the same choices in life without being subjected to ridicule and unfairness.

[ilima]

He wasn't asking if men can be feminists. He's asking what the male equivalent of feminism is- as in 'masculinism'- and what that would be. Interesting...would 'masculinism' be automatically considered something chauvenistic, anti-women, or negative?, just as 'feminism' is often labeled as anti-men, radical, and negative as well? Can we see both feminism and masculinism as being positive, each in its own right?

Perhaps the recognition of the conflicts inherent in using the terms terms help to explain why some women's studies programs have been re-jiggered as 'gender studies' so as to, theoretically not be aligned with one gender or the other.

Still not too many men on those faculties, though.