The three types of masculinism

[ruby sparks]

Compare The Oxford English Dictionary definition of feminism as, "The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."

Could I add, 'generally anti-masculinism'? Or could I use the word ideology?

This is the way I'll be meaning it (masculinism): "Relating to the advocacy of the rights or needs of men."

It doesn't sound like you want to follow the distinction between masculism and masculinism I used in context. Why do you want to deviate from the op question in context?

I'm not saying I necessarily agree or disagree with the distinction, but I do think that since neither word is either clearly defined or understood in commonplace language that the distinction might cause confusion, just as a distinction between feminism and femininism or femism might.

I'm not a big fan of haggling over definitions at the expense of advancing a discussion either.

I might even say that no one owns the usage of a word, and/or that you are only selecting one preferred definition among many. As am I.

I anticipate a potential for confusion and straw men if the word masculinism has to meant either anti-feminism or necessarily anything to do with patriarchy.

Personally, I'll probably lose interest in the discussion if that's the case.


ETA: In fact, since the word seems to have certain connotations (that I was not aware of) I might just avoid using it, for fear of being misunderstood.

 

[ruby sparks]

Why don't you just use the word patriarchy?

Or the term patriarchal masculinism.

In fact if you called it the Patriarchal Masculinism Theory you'd have a ready acronym.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Compare The Oxford English Dictionary definition of feminism as, "The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."

Could I add, 'generally anti-masculinism'? Or could I use the word ideology?

This is the way I'll be meaning it (masculinism): "Relating to the advocacy of the rights or needs of men."

It doesn't sound like you want to follow the distinction between masculism and masculinism I used in context. Why do you want to deviate from the op question in context?

I'm not saying I necessarily agree or disagree with the distinction, but I do think that since neither word is either clearly defined or understood in commonplace language that the distinction might cause confusion, just as a distinction between feminism and femininism or femism might.

I'm not a big fan of haggling over definitions at the expense of advancing a discussion either.

I might even say that no ones owns the usage of a word, and/or that you are only selecting one preferred definition among many.

I anticipate a potential for confusion and straw men if the word masculinism has to meant either anti-feminism or necessarily anything to do with patriarchy.

Personally, I'll probably lose interest in the discussion if that's the case.

This is a controversial topic. People will definitely quibble over everything. I expect more whataboutism than semantic quibbling but we appear to have both. Is society plagued by feminazi armies of the metoo movement or is it that we've just hit the tip of the iceberg with metoo? What about all the non-famous people who aren't talking at all? I mean, come on, ruby... people are framing what is going on in our society as whether or not feminism goes too far instead of analyzing the underlying problem-the root cause. I may have to bring in a word like patriarchy to discuss it but patriarchy isn't usually a mild word. So I chose the next best thing to use for the whole spectrum. I don't know how to deal with masculinism or if I am asking the right questions. Maybe you could explain what to do about it with all your wisdom from your life experiences. What do I know in comparison? I am just some random guy on the Internets who made a thread.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'll look into the rest of those quotes later.

Don’t do it for derec, as he does not hear you; he loves his fiction and does not wish to explore its veracity.
Though there is value to the rest of the readers who don’t already know to take his words as fabrications.

Ok I'm going to be controversial here. In that particular case, the quotes were genuine, as far as I know. Derec might be OTT (which you are, Derec, imo), but that doesn't mean he either has no valid points or only posts bullshit. It makes not much difference if Andrea Dworkin put some of her unreasonable opinions into the mouth of a fictional character, because for example she also said (I believe) that all men are inevitable rapists, or something to that effect. Also, if a man said what Sharon Stone said, would we be saying he was just describing a reality?

Not that such things bother me all that much. They are non-representative of women's or feminist's views generally, at least nowadays, and probably then too (though I think they did have an influence on the content of many gender studies courses). Nor do i necessarily think of Sharon stone as an extremist. I don't know the context of her remark. She does have a sense of humour, I'm sure.

But if valid points like that are dismissed or labelled as bullshit or fiction, it is not going to encourage the sort of 'calling out' that nearly everyone might agree is a good idea when it comes to male speech, or actions.

ETA: allowing for reasonable banter. I like banter. Would hate to have us all po-faced at the sound of a joke at the expense of a gender.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm not saying I necessarily agree or disagree with the distinction, but I do think that since neither word is either clearly defined or understood in commonplace language that the distinction might cause confusion, just as a distinction between feminism and femininism or femism might.

I'm not a big fan of haggling over definitions at the expense of advancing a discussion either.

I might even say that no ones owns the usage of a word, and/or that you are only selecting one preferred definition among many.

I anticipate a potential for confusion and straw men if the word masculinism has to meant either anti-feminism or necessarily anything to do with patriarchy.

Personally, I'll probably lose interest in the discussion if that's the case.

This is a controversial topic. People will definitely quibble over everything. I expect more whataboutism than semantic quibbling but we appear to have both. Is society plagued by feminazi armies of the metoo movement or is it that we've just hit the tip of the iceberg with metoo? What about all the non-famous people who aren't talking at all? I mean, come on, ruby... people are framing what is going on in our society as whether or not feminism goes too far instead of analyzing the underlying problem-the root cause. I may have to bring in a word like patriarchy to discuss it but patriarchy isn't usually a mild word. So I chose the next best thing to use for the whole spectrum. I don't know how to deal with masculinism or if I am asking the right questions. Maybe you could explain what to do about it with all your wisdom from your life experiences. What do I know in comparison? I am just some random guy on the Internets who made a thread.

No prob. I'm not trying to be critical. I honestly hadn't realised before responding in the thread that 'masculinism' had certain connotations. I think that perhaps what you are talking about is a spectrum of patriarchy?

In any case, I can neither say you are using the right definition or the wrong one.

If we are talking about what we might perhaps call 'patriarchal masculinism', I'd be happy to talk about that if you want me not to spoil the thread with quibbling about definitions.

 

[Rhea]

It makes not much difference if Andrea Dworkin put some of her unreasonable opinions into the mouth of a fictional character, because

You seriously think authors are held accountable for the words of all of their characters?

 

[ruby sparks]

It makes not much difference if Andrea Dworkin put some of her unreasonable opinions into the mouth of a fictional character, because

You seriously think authors are held accountable for the words of all of their characters?

No, obviously not.

Well, they are accountable for them, but they may not share the character's views. Perhaps that's what you meant. Sorry.

Why did you snip my post after 'because'? That's where I offered a reason for saying what I did.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If we are talking about what we might perhaps call 'patriarchal masculinism', I'd be happy to talk about that if you want me not to spoil the thread with quibbling about definitions.

Yes, word choice does matter if you want to avoid mmisunderstanding. I doubt anybody will rush to the defence of 'patriarchal masculinism' whereas we have already seen multiple people equate 'masculinism' with masculism and egalitarianism. The more descriptive word just works better here.

I am not sure it covers what Don was getting at in the OP though, because some of the examples he listed (ie, a man complaining about ladies night or guys assaulting each other with pencils) are not patriarchal or anti-female.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If we are talking about what we might perhaps call 'patriarchal masculinism', I'd be happy to talk about that if you want me not to spoil the thread with quibbling about definitions.

Yes, word choice does matter if you want to avoid mmisunderstanding. I doubt anybody will rush to the defence of 'patriarchal masculinism' whereas we have already seen multiple people equate 'masculinism' with masculism and egalitarianism. The more descriptive word just works better here.

I am not sure it covers what Don was getting at in the OP though, because some of the examples he listed (ie, a man complaining about ladies night or guys assaulting each other with pencils) are not patriarchal or anti-female.

I think they are masculinist and that is how I defined it. You are free to explain why you think i am wrong precisely. Do you think, for example, that masculinists do not bully or assault or rape males, why? Tbh, i think men could have their own metoo movement about male victimizers, but the masculinist culture sees that as weak. So it is very sparse in comparison. There are a few male celebrities who have talked about it like Corey. It's part of the zeitgeist sort of...

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I think what is meant is not "masculinism" but "meninism".

Anyway, I just read an interesting article the other day from a feminist point of view. The gist of it was "sure, we all know that jock culture is toxic masculinity. Well, I've decided that so is nerd culture, and when the two fight each other it is toxic masculinity versus toxic masculinity."

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yes, word choice does matter if you want to avoid mmisunderstanding. I doubt anybody will rush to the defence of 'patriarchal masculinism' whereas we have already seen multiple people equate 'masculinism' with masculism and egalitarianism. The more descriptive word just works better here.

I am not sure it covers what Don was getting at in the OP though, because some of the examples he listed (ie, a man complaining about ladies night or guys assaulting each other with pencils) are not patriarchal or anti-female.

I think they are masculinist and that is how I defined it.

So again, we are stuck on words. Because your wikipedia definition you pointed to said patriarchy and anti-female, neither of which these are. You have further claimed there is come continuum that runs along from a guy complaining about ladies night etc at one end and rape at the other. Then you throw in mere violence and assault of men against other men just to further complicate it. I have no idea what you are envisioning as "masculinism" at this point so can't discuss this further.

masculinists do not bully or assault or rape males, why?

If you define them as doing so, then they do, by your definition.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyway, I just read an interesting article the other day from a feminist point of view. The gist of it was "sure, we all know that jock culture is toxic masculinity. Well, I've decided that so is nerd culture, and when the two fight each other it is toxic masculinity versus toxic masculinity."

A problem there is that both jocks and nerds can be female. It also makes me wonder if there is anything that particular feminist writer would not brand as "toxic masculinity".

 

[SimpleDon]

The wikipedia clears it up a little. So masculinism as you mean it only means patriarchy. Ok. Then why not just say patriarchy and misogyny?

That should not be tolerated regardless of how insignificant it may seem.

Not so sure about some of your examples though. A guy complaining about ladies night is just confused, as that's done for the sole purpose of bringing him more women to be around (and hit on). The pencil up butt example is just simple bullying (and assault). Neither of those are patriarchy or misogyny. The second doesn't seem to regard maleness or oppose females at all.

The honour and obey thing is simple misogyny and only gets a pass because it's religion. It shouldn't. The pussy grabbing (if he meant what he is often misquoted as meaning) is rape.

I think that we have moved beyond the dictionary meaning of the words. "Feminist" seems to be the bell that triggers the conditioned response, the salivation that occurs that prevents thought and the application of reason. The Teaso clerks are mainly women who want higher wages and the decision in the other chain store ruling that the work in the stores and in the warehouse were equivalent gives them the opportunity to get the higher wages. There is no hint of the clerks being associated with any feminist organizations or declaring that this is being pursued as a feminist goal. They simply want higher wages for clerks, no matter what sex, race, religion, country of origin, rank achieved, favored pastime activities they enjoy, zodiac sign, eye color, etc. It is possible to agree or to disagree with the validity of the ruling and the Tesco filing without dragging feminism into the discussion, but the need to rant against feminism and equal pay is the only reason that we were discussing it.

That being said, feminism is a valuable and much needed social and political movement. Despite undeniable progress women today are still facing entrenched discrimination in hiring and promotion in addition to a soul crushing, daily assault on their confidence and qualifications and achievements. Even today women are expected to fulfill their traditional child rearing and household roles as well as pursuing their careers, all the while being penalized in both because of the pursuit of the other. Add in the frequent, unwanted sexual advances and the guilt that comes with not being able to do it all and you have a combination that would devastate the strongest of men, if it was reversed onto men.

The excesses of the women in pursuit of equality are much more acceptable than the excesses of the reactionary backwards looking men that want to preserve the previous unquestioned dominance of men. We are working toward a day when it will dawn on these men that that they have been left behind and they will deny ever having opposed women's equality.

This should be easier than this. We are backsliding in equality of the sexes and of the races.

Trump was misquoted? Do you know that there is a tape of him bragging about "when you are a star they let you get away with it" , right?

 

[Rhea]

It makes not much difference if Andrea Dworkin put some of her unreasonable opinions into the mouth of a fictional character, because

You seriously think authors are held accountable for the words of all of their characters?

No, obviously not.

[...]
Why did you snip my post after 'because'? That's where I offered a reason for saying what I did.

I did that on purpose. There is no “because” that makes it logical to take a character’s words, put them on a meme and then put the author’s name below like she said them instead of her character. So I deliberately snipped there since one could add, “...reasons” onto the end of it and show how absurd it is to append an author’s name to her haracter’s words and claim this is an example of nasty meanie feminsim.

 

[laughing dog]

There's already a thread on feminism.

Yes, but Rhea thinks one ought to make masulinists very uncomfortable for their views, but does not extend the same toward feminists, not even the radical kind.

You have no basis for that conclusion. Nothing she wrote even implies that.

But it is interesting that you feel the need to derail a thread about masculinism with another one of your boring hobby horses.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Trump was misquoted?

Trump has been misquoted many times.

Do you know that there is a tape of him bragging about "when you are a star they let you get away with it" , right?

Yes. I listened to it. He was saying that being a rich celebrity let's people get away with anything. He didn't say he grabbed anybody by the pussy. He said he could. He may have actually done so, but he hasn't admitted to it. He also said he could get away with killing somebody and his supporters wouldn't turn on him. That wasn't him adnitting to murder.

 

[laughing dog]

Trump was misquoted?

Trump has been misquoted many times.

Do you know that there is a tape of him bragging about "when you are a star they let you get away with it" , right?

Yes. I listened to it. He was saying that being a rich celebrity let's people get away with anything. He didn't say he grabbed anybody by the pussy. He said he could. He may have actually done so, but he hasn't admitted to it. He also said he could get away with killing somebody and his supporters wouldn't turn on him. That wasn't him adnitting to murder.

Wow. It takes a special kind of tin ear to spin that type of defense. Especially in light of his personal life.

Nonetheless, what type of man brags that he can get away with grabbing someone by the pussy?

 

[Hermit]

I'll look into the rest of those quotes later.

Don’t do it for derec, as he does not hear you; he loves his fiction and does not wish to explore its veracity.
Though there is value to the rest of the readers who don’t already know to take his words as fabrications.

It's not just him bringing this shit up. Next time I see it posted elsewhere, I will be able to put the poster - and people who also read it - straight about the Dworkin and the Solanas quote, the background to which I was unaware of until now. It's like countering fake news with actual truth - all good.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Grab them by the pussy. Trump speaks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnMAo1T3OzA

 

[ruby sparks]

Next time I see it posted elsewhere, I will be able to put the poster - and people who also read it - straight about the Dworkin and the Solanas quote, the background to which I was unaware of until now. It's like countering fake news with actual truth - all good.

With respect, I could have posted that set of quotes. The reason I didn't, and wouldn't, is because (a) they could do with being put in context and (b) they're not representative of feminism as a whole, they (well perhaps not that exact set, but a similar set) arguably just represent extreme feminism, possibly, imo, the sort that puts off many more people than it attracts and is therefore, imo, the aspiration for equality shooting itself in the foot. But hey, you go right ahead and defend it. I won't be joining you, because I don't think we should necessarily defend extremist views just because they're coming from the side we tend to agree with generally. But you know what they say, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.

That Valerie Solanas was mentally ill is....well I mean, is that a valid excuse we can use to dismiss what she said? I can see problems if we adopt that stance when it comes to utterances in several other areas of discourse. Also, regardless of her personal state of mind, and that her SCUM Manifesto (from which the quote was taken) was part-satire, the bigger point is that it was influential in the real world (as was 'Mercy', fiction or not) including in informing Separatist Feminism (a valid movement but do you want to support it?). As for Andrea Dworkin, 'Mercy' was arguably semi-autobiographical (main character was called Andrea for starters). In any case, Dworkin elsewhere apparently espoused what I personally would call unfortunate opinions in non-fiction, so you could give that quote from 'Mercy' a bye ball and still have valid concerns.


Bottom line: I'm not dismissing radical feminism entirely, I'm just not a subscriber, and most importantly I do think that it's valid to cite it or criticise it without being labelled as a peddler of bullshit or fake news. You could have an apparently overall unbalanced/inaccurate/unfair/skewed pov (that could be derec, imo) but that doesn't mean you don't have any valid points. Ditto for derec's views on grid girls, imo, an issue which demonstrably has two sides.

 

[Hermit]

Next time I see it posted elsewhere, I will be able to put the poster - and people who also read it - straight about the Dworkin and the Solanas quote, the background to which I was unaware of until now. It's like countering fake news with actual truth - all good.

With respect, I could have posted that set of quotes. The reason I didn't, and wouldn't, is because (a) they could do with being put in context and (b) they're not representative of feminism as a whole, they (well perhaps not that exact set, but a similar set) arguably just represent extreme feminism...

Same here.

As for (b), I would not even call them feminists as such. Many of those who are labelled "extreme feminists" are misandrists sailing under a false flag.

Yeah, sometimes the "No true Scotsman" argument is valid.