How would you define feminism in a sentence or two?
Wait, stop thinking, for Reddit’s ImissAOL has already provided a wonderfully concise and accurate definition:
I see modern feminism as the equivalent to letting your kids stay up all night eating ice cream.
He adds, helpfully:
Just because they feel they are getting their way doesn’t mean it is actually benefiting them.
Gosh, that’s not patronizing at all!
Sometimes doing this blog makes me hungry.
Yes, creepy, but in fairness, I don’t think he’s advocating for pedophilia, particularly; I think he’s just grasping at straws in his attempt to find a case where an oppressed group was better off.
I think so too. It’s the fact that he doesn’t even seem to be aware that having no legal protection from being molested as a child is not a privilege that raised my eyebrows. It takes a certain mindset to consider that a valid argument.
Still waiting on that free stuff, as per my vagina….
If that free stuff is being delivered by Startrack, we’ll never flamin’ well see it …
/crap courier rant
Ah, I see. Thank you kindly.
I’m afraid that argument is one of mine, not his. It was not at all my intention to say that straight people are oppressed or anything, quite the opposite actually, but I apologize for being unclear.
*Sigh*
It used to be so much fun to kill time catching up on the threads. Now Arks is back, pithy and pointless as ever. B___n’s back, just as banal and twice as stupid. Still, I love the tangents that take over the discussions.
Arks? I’m going to give you some advice: stop hitting on straight men. Seriously.
@katz && @CassandraSays:
I do not believe that age of consent is misandry in any way. The reason I mention this is because it used to be explained to children in sex-ed classes.
When I attended sex-ed as a kid, the fact that lesbians could have sex at any age was always explicitly mentioned, so people knew that straight people could have sex at 16, gay people 18 and lesbians at any age. Now, it’s mentioned as a historical fact in sex-ed classes alongside how unfair the age of consent was for gay men (it’s all equal now but it’s taught to explain how gay rights got big in the UK in the 90 and early 00s).
[QUOTE]”I think so too. It’s the fact that he doesn’t even seem to be aware that having no legal protection from being molested as a child is not a privilege that raised my eyebrows.”[/QUOTE]
Age of consent rules in the UK are based on conditions. If you’re a teacher, doctor, nurse or other working professional, you cannot have sex with anyone you work with until they are ‘over 18 years of age’, some institutions take this to mean 18-and-1-day, and others, like schools and colleges interpret this as 19 years and over. Parents can’t molest their children either, as very strict, draconian child protection rules exist. All a child has to do is mention things which may sound like abuse to a working professional (teacher, doctor, nurse, clergy… lawyer… you name it!) and information has to be passed on under child protection rules.
So, lesbian children/teenagers could have had consensual sex with each other without risks of child abuse. How’s that for cool? =]
@Martyn
I think you missed the point.
@Martyn Hare (aka WarOfTheNerd)
I am going to assume you are a bright youngster, instead of a troll, and have insufficient life experiences to realize that an absence of something in your reading tells you nothing and cannot be used to infer something.
Several people have remarked on this so I will try to stick to bits about the law. My familiarity is from the US state of California’s Penal Code and I am not implyihg any literal application to English law.
The crime of rape is limited to penis in vagina assault. Other sexual assaults are covered by separate laws: penis in anus, penis in mouth, foreign objects in vagina, etc. The only gender specificity in the law of rape is the implied expectation of who has penises (peni?). The crimes of sexual violence that do not involve a penis have no gender specificity, implicitly or explicitly. I cannot help but doubt that the sexual assualt of minors by women was not covered by English Law.
However, lets assume you are correct and English law did not protect minors of sexual assualt by women. That doesn’t imply a societial acceptance of the behavior. Whether or not the behavior is a societial norm can be proven, but not from the law. For example, the absence of laws against wife beating in the past does not prove that it was a societial norm, but the historical accounts of its occurrence do,
Another example is car joyriding (TWOC in England.) The definition of theft is the taking of property with the intent of permanently depriving the owner of that property. Decades after the car was invented, it was realized that joyriding, the taking of a car without the intent of permanently depriving the owner of that car (but officer, I just borrowed the car) was not actually against the law. Again, the absence of a law does not imply a societial acceptance. Nobody has thought of it before that.
I call shenanigans.
NOW I think you are a lying troll. Not because I have proof, but because what you say sounds preposterous.
I am open to be proven wrong, but first you need to show me the relevant sections in English law.
@joanimal
I’m not sure that Martyn is lying, possibly just misinformed.
Maybe it is basically an urban legend?
@joanimal:
I’m not trolling. With the greatest of respect, I think you’re misinterpreting what I’ve said, I’ll try to clarify.
Two minors who are consensually having sex is not the same as an adult abusing a child. I’ve not said anywhere about adult women abusing children or even abusing other women being possible under UK law, in fact I’ve said the opposite. I’m saying the law allowing two lesbian children/teenagers to have fun together consensually was a freedom afforded to lesbians that was not afforded to straight and gay people at the time.
This was educated to children and teenagers by teachers in sex-ed classes; it was not a theoretical loophole or anything culturally abnormal. It was actually encouraged in the ’90s. It was taught so that lesbians were aware they could do things if they wanted to without legal repercussions. That was a *good* thing because people who wanted to have sex early who happened to be lesbian could do so knowing they didn’t have to lie to the school nurse and could even get full sexual health advice talking about their own real-world scenarios, not “theoretical” ones like gay people had to at the time.
@Some Gal Not Bored at All && @Sid && @Kitteh:
Sorry. My intention was not to be an asshole, but instead to try and say “you don’t have to hide your gender, I’m not going to disregard your arguments just because you’re a woman”. I really only mentioned it because I wanted to know the reference point of what was written; some parts what Sid wrote read differently depending on whether the writer is straight, a gay man or a woman (an assumption of the latter two logically deduced from the writing style).
That helps me better understand what Sid wrote 🙂
@pecunium:
Factoring in (generic violence + rape) would be unfair regardless of situation. It’s very easy to add together (generic violence + rape) and come out with an answer that is extremely biased in favour of MRM-arguments – hence why I did not do it. It’s been done over and over again and I know why it shouldn’t be done. Without factoring in London gang violence, it’s hard to balance things fairly.
The problem I have with looking at both Feminism and MRM as a whole is that both can’t be looked at as a whole.
To better explain, I personally think sex-positive Feminism is common sense everyone should have, while I’ve seen conservatives claiming to be Feminist say and write things that sound oppressive toward women, let alone men. I have the same problem with the MRM, I see people who say stupid, ridiculous things (before anyone says anything.. I know that’s the point of manboobz…) like “women shouldn’t get paid maternity pay, it’s free moneyzzz, they can have a baby and get paid for nothing!!1111!!one”.
So I’m not pretending anything, I believe the concept of activism to resolve problems with laws and the system which affect men (which is what the MRM is meant to be about) is sound. It just needs the vocal, bigoted minority to step down and the reasonable men who say nothing and get on with things thinking “that’s the way life is” to step up and say something.
Well the MRM is primarily about men’s rights and feminism is primarily about women’s rights. The fact that the MRM has been co-opted by hateful bigots is a problem that needs resolving.
You mean people I know IRL who identify as MRM but don’t maintain any presence online? Face to face, I can talk all day about problems with the institution of marriage, how the lack of a men’s rights officer position in the student union at uni makes for a total lack of representation for men etc. But other than raising the complaint at the source of the specific instance of a problem, we don’t do anything. I know it’s our job to fight our own battles but look at the result? Stonewalling because the term MRA is still associated in most people’s minds with bigotry when really, it isn’t, the MRM just has some vocal bigots.
I try to do something by trying to put out there the idea that there should be an open discussion on what affects both sexes, even if I do come across as biased (partly because I know more about what affects me personally, than what affects others).
@Argenti Aertheri: Thanks for the tip on quoting. I’ll try to remember to use that in future 🙂
@Some Gal Not Bored at All:
This is the first result from google, not an authoritative source but: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1045383.stm
It wasn’t an urban legend when I was in school. It’s also no lie.
Martyn:
First, good job on the blockquotes.
I want to discuss you in general and why you’re getting such a bad reception here, because I’m guessing you find it puzzling, but foremost I just have to say: Please, please, please drop the “lesbians have more freedoms because they can molest children” line. It makes you sound pig-ignorant, bigoted, and LIKE A PEDOPHILE.
@Martyn
That doesn’t say it was legal, just that it was not specified in the age of consent. That is, overlooked. There are numerous other charges that could be brought against someone of any age engaging in lesbian (or otherwise) sexual activity. I know a little bit about the age of consent laws in England and, historically, they were fucked up for a number of reasons (many of them pertaining to class and prostitution issues). That they failed to address lesbian activity does not mean that lesbian activity was condoned by all law.
I don’t know about your schooling in particular, but much of what I was taught in school was only partially correct. You may want to look at your own education as a bit less authoritative. It seems like, in this instance, you were taught something that was true, but taught that the implications of that truth were other than what they are.
Leaving all that aside, it is not a privilege that lesbians enjoyed. Heterosexuality was (and continues to be) privileged. That the erasure of lesbianism left the age of consent for lesbian sexual activity unaddressed does not mean that it was better to be a lesbian or that such activity was seen as better. It wasn’t seen at all! It was ignored! That is not a privilege.
No. The MRM is primarily about hating women or anti-women’s rights. That you may think it should be different or wish it to be is beside the point. Additionally, centering those who are already centered by society is always, in some way, going to promote the oppression of those on the margins. That is why feminism focuses on women’s rights, for example, to correct the historical and contemporary imbalance. Most of the issues that do affect men are those that will be corrected by feminism. Setting up a movement thar seeks to accomplish the same goals, but cares more about men or primarily about men may correct those specific issues, but will (I believe) do so at the expense of women because, at its fire, it recreates the inequality present in almost every facet of society. It is misogynistic in its premise because it takes secondary oppression as primary, thereby erasing the primarily oppressed.
While it is far from perfect, I do not feel the same way about the Father’s Rights movement(s) because while much about our cultural conceptions of mothers oppress women, mothers (as a theorectical category apart from women) are not necessarily oppressed as such. Thus, Father’s Rights do not center a group that is already considered by society to be consistently central.
Father’s Rights are, however, still addressed by feminism.
Shit.
This should be:
Gotta disagree with this; while there are some side effects that end up harming fathers, society as a whole hugely favors fathers. Fathers get to “have their cake and eat it too” by having both a family and a career, while mothers are expected to make sacrifices; fathers are treated as the head of the household, while mothers (and wives) are expected to obey them (especially in Christian circles); fathers get kudos for doing chores or spending time with the children, while mothers are negligent if they ever don’t.
@katz
I knew someone would. I was giving the idea of it the benefit of the doubt. It isn’t really possible to separate fathers from men and mothers from women. I see all the father’s stuff you identify as more men’s stuff. Husbands, fathers, male partners, etc. all get to “have their cake and eat it to,” be treated deferentially, etc. Men aren’t expected to be nurturing at all and it is treated as a pleasant surprise if they do any of it.
Theoretically, though, if father were separate from man and mother are separate from woman, Father’s Rights could be a thing. If they stuck just to expecting men to actually act like nurturing parents and supporting men in custody issues, then maybe…
It seems to me to be less oppressive than men’s rights, but perhaps that is just because I’m not a mother? Maybe I should rethink this.
@katz:
What I’m puzzled about is why people see my explanation of the law to mean “lesbians can molest children” when I’m on about lesbian teenagers (and potentially kids) having fun with each other consensually *and* when I already explicitly stated how adults can’t have sex with minors even with no age of consent under UK law. That’s neither in favour of paedophilia or in favour of child abuse.
In British culture, it’s considered fine for people to have sex before the age of 16 provided they’re of the same age, despite the fact its prohibited by law. In fact, the laws have been amended so that health professionals under patient-doctor confidentiality can provide contraception to under-16s without informing parents and without passing on any information in the name of child protection if it’s believed that underage sex is occurring with informed consent. Kids do have sex before the expected legal age, it’s normal, not paedophilic and given our culture, it was something lesbians could do without legal issues due to no age of consent. Why does everyone assume abuse/paedophilia when underage sex is mentioned? The vast majority of it is between people of the same age!
In terms of societal “norms” yes (and I hope that gets fixed) but in terms of law, no. I get that societal norms mean men are less inclined to want to take the role of “house husband” through social stigma of being “the housewife”, resulting in career-driven women being less able to persue good money even when the man of the house is earning far less. But the law is messed up, at least where I live.
Although potential mothers sometimes suffer from a massive wage gap due to the stupid assumption that having a child means lost money for the employer, mothers get far more legal protections to allow them to have a career and family than fathers do, in fact the system seems to punish fathers who want to be decent fathers by preventing them from taking paid leave until the mother has finished her ordinary statutory paid leave. (I know, I know not all countries have statutory maternity pay, but those countries suck and are the exception, not the rule – at least in Europe).
Fathers rights groups may aid the feminist agenda by helping to fix the problems with the maternity/paternity pay rules, allowing fathers and mothers to stop working when the child has arrived for a period, which would allow couples to better organise how to balance career and family – potentially resulting in a big net win for the career-orientated woman.
Of course, nothing seems to solve the dreaded problem of arseholes who make a woman pregnant claiming to love them, find out their lady is pregnant and then bugger off without supporting the child they helped bring into the world. I don’t know how anyone will ever solve that one. It’s a problem that fathers rights groups need to address big time.
@Martyn
Perhaps you ought to address my points before you start an new argument with katz. Especially since, as katz and my back-and-forth establish, you cannot in fact separate fathers as a group from men as a group, which is what you are doing when you try and treat fathers as a category not already privileged above women.
@Some Gal Not Bored at All
It centers around problems with fathers being paternity testing by mothers who are suspected of lying about paternity within marriage (in the UK if you’re married, paternity is assumed unless challenged in court), getting child support payments from mothers if the father is the custodian or if in joint custody the father looks after the child for longer (fathers often have to pay even if they look after the child more than the mother….) and campaigning for fairness with rights over custody.
Fathers 4 Justice for example protest the idea that mothers should get any child support payments from fathers if joint custody is an equal 50:50 split of time, they also protest court bias when fathers have custody but mothers aren’t asked to pay. They’re controversial at times and can be intimidating, if you ask different people you get varying views on them, from praise all the way to “they’re batshit insane”.
Martyn, you don’t understand why this makes you sound like a terrible, terrible person, but it does. If you don’t want to sound like a terrible person, stop talking about it.
Your primary problem here is that you don’t listen. I told you that you should stop talking about the lesbian age of consent thing, and your response was…to keep talking about it. I don’t want to argue about it and I’m not going to. Trying to pull me into an argument about that point is only making you look pushy.
@Some Gal Not Bored at All
Fathers can be separated from men technically, but fathers rights do not campaign for the rights of female fathers unfortunately.
But it’s time for another lesbian example for those who are puzzled by the above line! If a lesbian couple wants a child, then the mother is the person who has the baby, making the other half of the relationship the “father”. I don’t know how this works for gay couples, unfortunately. If anyone from the LGBT community could enlighten, I’m intrigued!
Unfortunately, this doesn’t really separate the men from the situation, because there are no prominent campaigns centered around lesbian fathers issues within the fathers rights movement.
So I don’t think I can address your argument. I don’t want to try and dodge it, I just don’t have all the information to address it.
Gah!!! I just… this is mansplaining on a whole new level for me. And I remember Owly!
Going back a couple of comments because I was off seeing the batshit insanity doctor.
“…whether the writer is straight, a gay man or a woman…” — um, there are other options, *waves* hi, I’m another option!
Glad you sorted out quoting though.
But um, guys? Does anyone else smell socks? Maybe it’s just standard fare goalpost shifting…