Queen of Mercury
Anouska
Jaxton Cole
Anouska
Jaxton Cole
Only a fool thinks that a movement that is only focused on one gender is a movement steeped in equality for all genders. No, feminism, which advocates for women and women's issues, is not egalitarian.
And that would be your opinion according to your conception of equality, which sadly is not universal, so your point is moot.
No, it is
fact. Focusing on a single gender does not create equality. It creates an unbalance in favor of that gender. Hence why patriarchy has taken so much heat, because it created an unbalance in favor of males and only males. The same can be said of the Men's Rights movement. It focuses solely on one gender, thus creating an unbalance in favor of men. In order for there to be a balance, you must focus on issues that affect not just women, or not just men, but everyone.
Of course, you are going to continue sticking your fingers in your ear, make s**t up, and go 'la la la la I can't hear you' because to actually acknowledge that feminism is not focused on equality, but on bettering things for one gender, would mean having to admit that its not about equality. And that is something few 'feminists' are willing to do.
Patriarchy actually own serves a certain demographic of males, aka middle upper class heterosexual white males. Men of ethnic minorities, lower classes, or who are homosexual or transsexual are not served by patriarchy, for example the issue of gay rights. You'll find that academic fields like Queer theory are dominated by feminists, so so much for your claim that 'feminists' are not interested in male issues, seeing that feminists like Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick or Judith Butler have all written pieces on the negative impact of gender on the men...
It seems you think because someone stick the prefix 'men' or 'women' in front of 'movement', then that movement must solely focus on men or women. This is not true of either of these movements. Feminists and MRA both claim that they are interested equality for both genders, and their discourses reflect that. You may not like the way they go about trying to pursue this 'equality', and you are entitled to that opinion- however ill informed it maybe.
He's right, you know. I mean if we're going to go by the definition of feminism, which states it is a movement advocating for
women's rights, then yes, the movement is focused only on one gender.
Women obtained equal rights nearly half a century ago so why would modern feminism still be plugging for rights when they already have it. And that is why he fails the internet. He making a critical commentary on something that he knows absolute zip about.
Quote:
See,this is why many people think you third wave feminists are batshit insane and clueless about what the movement actually is. It has never been about focusing on issues that directly affect men. It has only ever been about issues that directly affect women. There is this belief that if you focus on making things 'better' for women it will somehow have the same effect for men. That's as absurd as the trickle down economic theory that says if you increase how much the wealthy have eventually that money will trickle down to the poor and pull them up out of poverty. It doesn't work that way. We have altered society, in some ways, to push women ahead but in focusing on just them, we have left males behind.
Many people are stupid. There are plenty of people who would criticise Marxism without ever having read what Marx and Engels had wrote. So it is unsurprising that people like yourself make assumptions based on a reductionist view of what feminism is supposed to be about. You claim that feminism is concerned with the accumulation of 'women rights', yet equal rights were obtained but in the 70s, further more with exception of reproductive rights all other rights are gender blind. And to add to that just because something on piece of paper says 'men and women should be treated equally' does not mean things like sexism, racism and any other types of discrimination magically stop. People still experience racism, sexism ect despite the existence of equality legislation.
The education system in the US is a prime example of this.
Quote:
Academics from the University of Georgia and Columbia University think they have more insight into why girls earn higher grades on report cards than boys do, despite the fact that girls do not necessarily outperform boys on achievement or IQ tests.
Christopher Cornwell, head of economics at the University of Georgia's Terry College of Business, UGA's David Mustard and Columbia's Jessica Van Parys have published a study that they say shows
"gender disparities in teacher grades start early and uniformly favor girls."
The researchers analyzed data from 5,800 elementary school students and found that boys performed better on standardized exams in math, reading and science than their course grades reflected.
The authors suggest that girls are truly only outperforming boys in "non-cognitive approaches to learning" -- defined as attentiveness, task persistence, eagerness to learn, learning independence, flexibility and organization -- leading to better grades from teachers. The study is published in the latest issue of The Journal of Human Resources.
Read the rest of the article:
Quote:
Other findings contradict some of Cornwell's points. Women are proving to score higher on IQ tests than men, and a spring study out of the University of Texas at Austin argues that teachers do tend to show gender bias, but in favor of boys, specifically in math.
Quote:
What’s behind the new gender gap? Theories of why boys are struggling in today’s classrooms abound. In her controversial book The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men, Christina Hoff Sommers writes that classrooms remodeled to serve the needs of girls are creating a reverse sexism that hurts boys. Less structured learning environments and less focus on grades and competition are hallmarks of a changing school landscape that, according to Sommers, puts boys at a disadvantage.
Christian Hoff Summers is an equity feminist. Congratulations you just disproved your own argument.
Quote:
Others speculate that a lack of boy-friendly reading material, a scarcity of male teachers, and the disappearance of recess may be hurting boys in the classroom. So which of these theories is really behind the problem?
There is a tremendous amount discourse on this subject, however you have to realise that there is more at stake here than 'all boys are under achieving because of women'. What most of your references do is offer an identification of a social trend without explaining why it is happening. It is a huge leap to say boys are underachieving so it must be sexism.
The few references that do have a tendency to gloss over the fact that if you take boys as a demographic then divide them up according to class, ethnicity ect, then you would find that some groups are doing better than others. Willis, a prominent British sociologist emphasises that there is a deeply rooted anti-school culture amongst boys. Boys from working classes are much more likely to undervalue the education system, which is unsurprising as their own parents are also more likely to undervalue the importance of education.
I want to emphasise at this point that I do believe men have issues, however there is a political dimension in the US between neoliberal and socialist academics that creates a lot of research that really isn't research but a polemic against the opposing party. For example Christiana Hoff Summers hates the type of liberal feminism found in universities and makes no bones about expressing this in her work, hence the title of her book.
What essential happens is that male problems become lost under this type of polemic. So books written by Christian Hoff Summers or MRA will focus on the education system and women as the perpetuators of male discrimination, rather than examining the more likely root cause which is things like anti-school culture, parental attitudes to education, socio-economic class or even the gender construction of boys.
200
200
200
