[MP-Ryan]

I still don't grasp what is so horrible about recjecting modern feminisim. It's an ideology like any other and last time I checked I am not required by law to support any ideology.

It's not horrible to reject the mechanics of modern feminist theory.  I've said before, I'm not actually a feminist but technically-speaking a theoretical Foucaldian neo-Marxist (no, that doesn't mean I support Communism or wealth re-distribution).  Rejecting the evidence used to support feminism or its actual goals - gender equality, as its actually defined - isn't "horrible" either; it merely indicates that the person doing it is unwilling to consider evidence in a rationalist manner, and doesn't actually support the Enlightenment principles of liberty and equality either.  Which, again, is a opinion that is perfectly legal to hold, but exposes one to the social consequences of holding that opinion.

In other words, a person has the legal and moral right to hold and espouse views as they please; other people have the legal and moral right to adjust their social interaction with that person accordingly.  If that doesn't sound so bad, consider:  ~70 years ago, one could expect that if one espoused racist views in public that one wouldn't be fired or suffer contractual consequences of one's livelihood as a result.  This past year, an extremely wealthy owner of a sports team had his contractual relationship with the authorizing sports organization revoked and transferred on the basis of his stating of those same sorts of views.

Are you required by law to express and hold views supporting gender equality?  Nope.  But you can absolutely experience social consequences of holding beliefs that society at large deems unacceptable, and they can be unpleasant.

[MP-Ryan]

The sleazyness might be not intentional but it *is* there. The idea is "gender equality is also about men", but the point remains: what is to be solved is about her. It's "He for She", not "all of us for each other". The assymetry is there, and I don't like it. Kinda reminds me of Chris Rock old joke about marriage:

Well, for one, it's a UN-backed global initiative, which is largely aimed at developing nations, for which there very clearly is a skewed relationship where men hold power and women do not.  For two, it's an initiative being put forth by Women's organizations; I don't find it unreasonable that it is actually presented from a women's perspective.  I think criticism of the movement being called "HeForShe" speaks far more to insecurities of men uncomfortably with it than any meaningful idea that the movement is about primacy of women and not gender equality.

You can check out the website for the background (heforshe.org) but the fundamental rationale behind the name is that through most of recent history, the movement for gender equality has been fought by women for women.  The name is a call to invite all men to the conversation, something that badly needs doing, particularly in parts of the world where the equality gap is less a crack (as in first world democracies) and more a ****ing chasm (the developing world).

[Luis Dias]

Count me skeptical about it. This is how I intuitively predict it: Men are invited to the "conversation" about how women are being oppressed by men and how men can do the things that women will tell them they should be doing. I can't see it going anywhere else. I don't see men's issues being accepted in these "conversations" if the core idea is to solve women's issues in the first place. The moment men come to the conversation thinking they can also be accepted in their own issues and perhaps get laws and cultures changed to correct some injustices, a backlash will inevitably occur, feminists will cry how the movement is being hijacked by "MRMs" or whatever (even if they aren't), men will be pointed as "peddling" mysoginistic ideologies, etc. and drawn out.

Don't get me wrong, I think it is a *step* in the right direction, but it is *one*. Many others are needed before I get positive about it.

[MP-Ryan]

If the movement specifically includes a number of men's voices who were invited to it to discuss gender equality from both male and female perspectives, I don't think it has any choice but to accept men's issues as well as women's into the broader conversation.

It of course depends on the men who actually participate.  If those who advocate for gender equality and focus on men's issue abandon the idea and leave participation solely to men who already identify with feminism and are content to address women's issues alone, then it will ultimately fail.  That is why objections of the type Skyclad cited/linked are actually extremely counterproductive.

[Luis Dias]

It's precisely about who those "men" are. Will they be able to espouse, for instance, the same points Christina Hoff Sommers likes to point out? Will they be able to say these things without getting angry looks and be either quickly or slowly thrown out of the movement? Yes, you are allowed to speak, but speak softly, for you're threading on feminist dreams...

Nevertheless, I'll keep an eye on it. Roads to hell are paved with good intentions, but then so are roads to heaven...

e: I'm deeply skeptical of this coopting of men's issues into feminism in the first place. They should be distinct movements that should be able to talk civil with one another. They have different agendas. If the goal is "gender issues", then it should never be assymetric in the first place.

[Lorric]

MP-Ryan, I don't like the way you dismiss certain things someone says just because "MRA's said it." I know very little about MRAs, but I'm not going to believe they're crap, especially every last one of them, just because someone says they are, even when it's coming from you, who in terms of Gen Disc posting I respect more than anyone else here. So if someone (and I don't know if SkycladGuardian even reads / supports MRA stuff) actually does support those ideas, I don't think telling them they need to stop reading that crap because MRAs said it is going to solve anything, nor is scare tactics about social consequences.

Wouldn't it be better instead of loading someone down with that baggage to actually explain why you have a problem with certain views instead of just dismissing it as crap? That's not going to disabuse anyone of anything. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but for the first time in all the time I've been here I think you're coming across as closed minded. This is not the MP-Ryan I'm used to seeing, and it's the first time you've ever posted things which make me feel uncomfortable.

Luis, SkycladGuardian and I all clearly have issues with certain aspects of modern feminism. It doesn't mean we're not in favour of gender equality. I'd like to call up the video AtomicClucker posted which shows where there is a real problem regarding men, or rather boys, imo:

War on Boys (yes, we go there~)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqOTj9NDv80

And equality should mean equal opportunity. If you've got what it takes you're in regardless of gender or race or whatever. Not artificially enforced quotas. Men are superior to women at certain things and vice versa, but that doesn't mean both genders aren't capable of producing individuals who can perform at a high level even in their gender's weakest areas. But what it does mean is one gender is going to outnumber the other in that field due to natural advantages.

[An4ximandros]

Oh my god. Lorric is being the proper discussion moderator we need... I am very uncomfortable right now (in a good, sarcastic way =d).

[SkycladGuardian]

I still don't grasp what is so horrible about recjecting modern feminisim. It's an ideology like any other and last time I checked I am not required by law to support any ideology.

It's not horrible to reject the mechanics of modern feminist theory.  I've said before, I'm not actually a feminist but technically-speaking a theoretical Foucaldian neo-Marxist (no, that doesn't mean I support Communism or wealth re-distribution).  Rejecting the evidence used to support feminism or its actual goals - gender equality, as its actually defined - isn't "horrible" either; it merely indicates that the person doing it is unwilling to consider evidence in a rationalist manner, and doesn't actually support the Enlightenment principles of liberty and equality either.  Which, again, is a opinion that is perfectly legal to hold, but exposes one to the social consequences of holding that opinion.

In other words, a person has the legal and moral right to hold and espouse views as they please; other people have the legal and moral right to adjust their social interaction with that person accordingly.  If that doesn't sound so bad, consider:  ~70 years ago, one could expect that if one espoused racist views in public that one wouldn't be fired or suffer contractual consequences of one's livelihood as a result.  This past year, an extremely wealthy owner of a sports team had his contractual relationship with the authorizing sports organization revoked and transferred on the basis of his stating of those same sorts of views.

Are you required by law to express and hold views supporting gender equality?  Nope.  But you can absolutely experience social consequences of holding beliefs that society at large deems unacceptable, and they can be unpleasant.

I support gender equality, as I do support rationalism and the principles of enlightenment and empiricism. I simply do not accept certain believes, methods and goals of modern feminism as it exists today primarily in my country (Germany) and the industrialized, western countries. I do not deny that women face grave injustices and inequalities in other parts of the world. However, since for procreation it is most of the time still required for both genders to live together, ignoring men's perspective and refusing to genuinely care about their issues won't solve anything in the long run. Even in obviously largely patriarchic societies like in India the male perspective is important to be included.
Returning to the state of affairs in my country: It is simply a fact that in areas like education, healthcare and economics our society has spend a tremendous amount of energy and money focusing on the (legitimate) needs of women and girls, but it completely left out men and boys, going so far as to ignoring facts like an increasing number of struggling boys in the educational system, huge injustices in family law at the expense of divorced fathers and male victims of domestic violence, the much larger suicide rates among male teenagers especially and men generally, the lower life expectancy, pathologizing normal masculine behaviour and character traits etc. etc.
And the feminists (the academic, instutionalized as well as the "freelance") in my country does jack **** about it. If MRA try to organize presentations and discussions on universities, the feminists form flashmobs and try to mob the university officials into canceling such events (which they have done successfully on a number of occasions), basically denying MRAs their legitimate basic right of free speech, not to mention that they pervert the idea of a university, where the free exchange of different ideas is one of its most crucial basic principles.
Instead those feminists and gender activists are concerned that our language might be "sexist" and spend tax payer's money on finding ways how to speak and write without potentially offending anyone (no women, gays, lesbians, transsexuals, queers, people of colour, mentally and bodily disabled, illiterates etc.). So I'm sorry if I simply cannot take modern feminisim serious anymore.

E: Another eloquent reply to Emma Watson's UN speech. This time by a woman: http://naughtynerdess.tumblr.com/post/98184739316/an-open-letter-to-emma-watson

[MP-Ryan]

Wouldn't it be better instead of loading someone down with that baggage to actually explain why you have a problem with certain views instead of just dismissing it as crap?

So I actually did that...

Writing about social consequences is not scare tactics; it's to explain that while opposition to the tactics and approaches to feminism is both rational and reasonable, opposition to much of the evidence it relies on and the goals it seeks are not, and that society in general already recognizes much of this.

And equality should mean equal opportunity. If you've got what it takes you're in regardless of gender or race or whatever. Not artificially enforced quotas. Men are superior to women at certain things and vice versa, but that doesn't mean both genders aren't capable of producing individuals who can perform at a high level even in their gender's weakest areas. But what it does mean is one gender is going to outnumber the other in that field due to natural advantages.

There is nothing in this entire thread that says otherwise.

I support gender equality, as I do support rationalism and the principles of enlightenment and empiricism. I simply do not accept certain believes, methods and goals of modern feminism as it exists today primarily in my country (Germany) and the industrialized, western countries.

And there is nothing wrong with this, either.

The trouble with most MRAs, and the way many men often frame this debate, is they become an exact mirror image of the type of feminism they oppose, using all the same tactics, logical fallacies, poorly-interpreted data, and general nonsense that the same feminists they criticize do.

: It is simply a fact that in areas like education, healthcare and economics our society has spend a tremendous amount of energy and money focusing on the (legitimate) needs of women and girls, but it completely left out men and boys,

I have often joked - well, said it in a joking manner, thought the claim is factual - that if I was a disabled Aboriginal female, my grades would have paid for my entire 7 years of post-secondary education and living expenses in scholarships several times over.  Instead, they paid for about two semesters.  So I understand the whole concept of measures to promote equality resulting in less of it, too.  On the other hand, there is room for unequal measures to promote equality in outcomes.

[Lorric]

Oh my god. Lorric is being the proper discussion moderator we need... I am very uncomfortable right now (in a good, sarcastic way =d).

*snip*

I didn't mean to imply you hadn't done that at all, I just meant wouldn't it have been better to do that instead of. And thanks for the clarification on scare tactics, I'm okay with that.

And yes, that last paragraph is something I wanted to emphasise from the video. Perhaps I should have been more clear there.

[NGTM-1R]

Oh my god. Lorric is being the proper discussion moderator we need...

Only by ignoring the previous parts of the thread that did what he asked. So...not really.

[Scotty]

The moderation staff has not received any reports about this thread.  Considering that it's remained fairly civil so far, no action is necessary.

If we stopped every instance of thread drift on these forums, we'd be locking or heavily moderating at least 80% of threads.  No one wants that.

[Luis Dias]

Given the nature of the discussion I think that's already a small victory around here.

[Lorric]

SkycladGuardian, I think you might have cut Emma Watson off too soon, because if it's the part I think it is she does change gears to talk about the male side too after she talks about the female side.

I think it's a very good speech. I like how she tackles the stigma of the word feminist and tries to put distance between HeforShe and that word, while at the same time identifying as feminist herself. While people are squabbling over what feminist means and the stigma that word carries, it's not a word you can unite people under, so instead we use HeforShe instead, as a distinction for what this movement and this movement only stands for.

I think she was sincere about wanting gender equality for both male and female, and focusing on both genders and getting both genders to see their goal as the same. I didn't feel like the stuff about men was just lip service and there to further the agenda of women, I felt she cared about all of it.

I'll be interested to see how this all plays out. They're getting a lot of men on board. I'm sure if it's empty words, they'll soon realise it and then they will go.

EDIT: While I do like Emma Watson's speech, unfortunately now that I'm looking around at what HeforShe is supposed to be, it's still very focused on women seemingly. So while Emma Watson's speech is very nice, HeforShe itself doesn't seem to match her narrative.

Instead of billing HeforShe as men standing up for women's rights, I think it would have been better if the for was in terms of men being for women as opposed to against women.

But it seems to be a very new thing, so I'll keep my mind open and see what happens.

[Scotty]

I have to admit I'm a little surprised by the idea that improving society must be done in a way that provides more benefits for the group providing assistance than the group that needs assistance.  It reeks of realpolitik in an arena where realpolitik is a definite stumbling block.

[Luis Dias]

That would be really surprising yes. Fortunately no one said something dumb as that, so I am a bit surprised at your surprise.

[TrashMan]

Interesting quote I found somewhere:

Gaming is not a big deal. The gaming journalism industry is small and poor, and they don’t have the money or experience to launch any major information coverup or maintain a sizable conspiracy. This whole thing has been a sloppy and pathetic attempt at a real conspiracy.

 

And yet, people are still falling for it.

 

Sure, it might not matter now. A news site can declare “gamers are misogynists! We need to push back!” and the worst that will happen is some people get bullied on the internet or mailed an ominous syringe. But what happens when the news declares “Egyptians are terrorists! We need to attack!”? What happens when you have actual collusion and falsified information, headed by professionals, guiding you to political conclusions?

 

The manipulation tactics people have fallen for over the course of GamerGate are appalling in their simplicity. You see people using grouping as a call to arms - “you’re a social justice warrior. If you want to keep being one, you need to stand against these misogynists with me”. You see harassment and threats given to people who speak out - before the syringe, Milo Yiannopoulos was sent 90 rolls of toilet paper as a presumed message of “I know where you live (and you’re ****)”. You see people using guilt by association - citing Adam Baldwin’s homophobic statements and how he’s a GamerGate supporter - or relying on the Genetic Fallacy - pointing out how much of this started on 4chan and claiming that ruins its credibility. I swear you even see ****ing negging: people getting hit with these subtle implications that they’re inherently racist or overprivelaged, but that they can counteract it a bit by opposing GamerGate. Negging, for God’s sake!

 

If you want a picture of how sloppy this entire operation is, consider this for a moment: there is no name for people who are against GamerGate. People who oppose abortion, for example, get the cheerful title of “Pro-Life”, but people who oppose GamerGate aren’t pro- anything. They can say “I’m pro-safety in the games industry”, but then GamerGate people just reply “so are we. We want people to be able to speak without losing their jobs”. They could say “I’m pro-women in gaming”, but then GamerGate people point out that they are too, and funded The Fine Young Capitalists after they were DDos’d and slandered by journalists and their friends. If they say they’re against harassment, the GamerGate people will point out that they have been actively calling out harassers in their own ranks while their opposition hasn’t. The anti-Gamergate people can’t even claim they’re “pro-representation in media” because, as people have pointed out, the gaming journalism clique is predominantly white men. #NotYourShield was created (and promptly ignored) because minorities were pissed off at these people’s claims to “represent” them. The only position anti-GamerGate people have is that they are against GamerGate. Sometimes, they even endorse all its goals but are pushed to stand against it anyway.

 

And this is all so easymode. We are better than this; these are manipulation tactics that should be harmlessly bouncing off anyone who graduated highschool. I’m glad that GamerGate seems to be winning, but understand: we need to be able to win harder. We need to learn from this, and become resistant to these methods. There are bigger enemies all around us, and we can’t afford to waste this much time struggling to beat the rat in the starting dungeon.

[SkycladGuardian]

EDIT: While I do like Emma Watson's speech, unfortunately now that I'm looking around at what HeforShe is supposed to be, it's still very focused on women seemingly. So while Emma Watson's speech is very nice, HeforShe itself doesn't seem to match her narrative.

Instead of billing HeforShe as men standing up for women's rights, I think it would have been better if the for was in terms of men being for women as opposed to against women.

Unfortunately this is not very surprising. The UN  so far has failed to acknowledge human rights violations that are or were committed primarily against men, like trafficking and forced prostitution, gendered genocides or mass rape against men and boys in war torn countries like Sudan, Somalia, Liberia, Bosnia etc. (www.gendercide.org)

Clarification: I do not mean that genocide, trafficking, forced prostitution or mass rape are not committed against women. However there have been instances when these crimes were mostly and sometimes exclusively committed against men, and the International Community ignored it.

[MP-Ryan]

-snip-

Perhaps you may find unattributed, unsourced, anecdotal opinion pieces fun to read, but they're generally considered irrelevant by anyone actually wanting to discuss an issue.

I also wasn't aware there was a "Gamergate" group and an "anti-GamerGate" group, seeing as the term has been used to describe the whole gigantically stupid kerfuffle in the first place.  I agree with Luis and Joshua; this thread is not improved by bring discussions of the rampant idiocy that is GamerGate into it.

Clarification: I do not mean that genocide, trafficking, forced prostitution or mass rape are not committed against women. However there have been instances when these crimes were mostly and sometimes exclusively committed against men, and the International Community ignored it.

Citation required.

Also, I'm not entirely sure that gendercide.org site says what you think it does.  It points out that atrocities are committed against both genders but in different ways, something long acknowledged by both the UN and various Human Rights groups around the world.  Sex-selective mass murder / executions are well documented within the international community.  Much of the information on that site is derived from UN-backed organizations and related groups like Human Rights Watch.  That seriously undermines your premise that the international community ignores gender-specific violence and crime directed at men.

[SkycladGuardian]

It's about the difference between acknowledging in research and acknowledging publicly in mass media to actually raise support for male victims world wide. The former happened, the latter not. One example would be the gendercide in Kosovo: http://www.adamjones.freeservers.com/effacing.htm
I posted the link to gendercide.org, not because it proves that gendercide agains men are not at all acknowledged (since the page's existence disproves this), but simply to show that such things like gendercide actually existed, since I didn't know of such a thing a year or so ago.