# Rolling Stone's urinals causes UPROAR!



## Jakke (Feb 1, 2012)

Link

I'm not gonna summerize it here, it's a short article after all. 




I see four problems with her reasoning:
1# If it was (according to her standards) a man's mouth, it would be okay. My follow-up questions are then: Is it okay to pee in a man's mouth? Is it less sexist if it is percieved as a male mouth?

2# The mouth is modeled after Mick's mouth, is this woman so prejudice that she can't see that a man might look like that as well?

3# What about it would make it more masculine if it had a tongue? Don't women have tongues?

4# How is whining about this furthering equality? (As she _claims_ wanting to do...)


This stuff is why I do not call myself a feminist, I am all for equality, therefore I am an _equalist_ (if I would need a name). Feminism has now descended into furthering women at the cost of men, and complaining about these sort of frivolous things. In the SCUM-manifesto, feminist men are refered to as "useful idiots", and that is the conclusion I have arrived at as well. 
Why would any man work for a weakening of his own gender, instead of the strenghtening of the other?
Why would we want a gray society where the barriers between genders have been removed? Why can't we recognize our differences, and cherish each other *because* we are different?


----------



## vampiregenocide (Feb 1, 2012)

Unfortunately the only stories you see regarding feminism these days are retarded ones like this, where women complain over pointless, trivial concerns. It gives the overall movement a bad image, when there are still real gender inequalities they should be focusing on. But, people are stupid and need things to complain about because they have little else constructive to do with their lives.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Feb 1, 2012)

"Uproar?" Seems more like "slow news day" to me.


----------



## Jakke (Feb 1, 2012)

Yeah, I added uproar in capitals to emphatize on the frivolousness of the situation.


----------



## MJS (Feb 1, 2012)

There's no shortage of videos of real female mouths doing for more degrading stuff than those urinals will ever be subjected to... so, I don't see what the whining is all about.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Feb 1, 2012)

Its in the men's bathroom which they will never enter. I see no problem here.


----------



## Leuchty (Feb 1, 2012)

leftyguitarjoe said:


> Its in the men's bathroom which they will never enter. I see no problem here.


 
Exactly.

Where I live some nightclubs have lounges in the female toilets. Do men care? No, we don't like to sit where we shit.

Besides, if there was a tongue in the urinals all your pee would run out.


----------



## ilyti (Feb 1, 2012)

Maybe to be equal, there should be toilets in the ladies room in the same design?


----------



## Leuchty (Feb 1, 2012)

ilyti said:


> Maybe to be equal, there should be toilets in the ladies room in the same design?


 
Maybe change it to a "sticky fingers" theme...


----------



## MJS (Feb 1, 2012)

ilyti said:


> Maybe to be equal, there should be toilets in the ladies room in the same design?



Well, they already have these:










I don't know why girls care what urinals look like anyway... it's not like they have to look at them while they're using them:







I still prefer plain ol' simple white urinals like these:


----------



## AxeHappy (Feb 1, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Why can't we recognize our differences, and *cherish each other because we are different?*





Seriously. This. So much fucking this. 

STOP TRYING TO PRETEND EVERYBODY IS EXACTLY THE FUCKING SAME. It's bullshit of the kind a 4th grader can detect. A slow forth grader.


----------



## Origin (Feb 2, 2012)

...How the fuck is it offensive? It's not. She's a moron. Regardless of her gender, her views, everything else, she is objectively and technically a fucking moron.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 2, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> Unfortunately the only stories you see regarding feminism these days are retarded ones like this, where women complain over pointless, trivial concerns. It gives the overall movement a bad image, when there are still real gender inequalities they should be focusing on.



In some ways, the fact that lawsuits seeking equal pay for equal work and experience are no longer considered to be a feminist issue must mean we're getting better about things. The same goes for family leave lawsuits, getting health plans to cover not only Viagra and male erectile dysfunction but also birth control options, and other inequalities. 

I also find it bizarre that a vaccine which would eliminate the viral precursor to many forms of cervical and other cancers is being fought on religious grounds. 

Not picking on you, just pointing out that stories which would previously have been considered solely to be feminism, as opposed to basic fairness, are still news staples. I guess that's some kind of progress.


----------



## PeteyG (Feb 2, 2012)

I've met some real feminists, ones who believe in the patriarchy and that all gender inequality issues are female inequality issues, and it's people like that that conclude me to believe feminism is a ridiculous movement.

The way I see it is like this, Feminism is the belief that all gender inequality issues can be solved, by focussing entirely on the problems of one gender.

This is a ridiculous pursuit, it's already gotten to the point where so many things are only deemed sexist if men do it against women, but not if women do it against men. Not to mention the fact that while domestic violence against women is seen as a horrific evil and causes uproar, domestic violence against men is seen as a joke, even though it makes up a ridiculous percentage of all DV cases (can't remember the statistic right now and I'm about to hear to work).

We need to focus on the inequality issues against both of the genders, not one, and instead of having this stupid idea of the men controlling the women (patriarchy), see that it's the rich controlling the poor.


----------



## Jakke (Feb 2, 2012)

^Yeah, the patriarchy is not a verified construct, yet some people take it as gospel.

I can only refer to the swedish statistics, but the latest here says that 55% of the victims of domestic abuse are men.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 2, 2012)

PeteyG said:


> I've met some *real feminists*, ones who believe in the patriarchy and that all gender inequality issues are female inequality issues, and it's people like that that conclude me to believe feminism is a ridiculous movement.



I'd reject that definition of "real feminists." You're talking about "radical feminism," which is the radical edge which attributes everything to patriarchy.

I'd not characterize them as representing all feminists any more than I'd categorize David Duke as representing all Republicans, the WBC as representing all Christians, or any other extremist(s) as representing the average person's views. You probably shouldn't either.


----------



## sojorel (Feb 2, 2012)

MJS said:


> There's no shortage of videos of real female mouths doing for more degrading stuff than those urinals will ever be subjected to... so, I don't see what the whining is all about.



links plz


----------



## PeteyG (Feb 2, 2012)

Explorer said:


> I'd reject that definition of "real feminists." You're talking about "radical feminism," which is the radical edge which attributes everything to patriarchy.
> 
> I'd not characterize them as representing all feminists any more than I'd categorize David Duke as representing all Republicans, the WBC as representing all Christians, or any other extremist(s) as representing the average person's views. You probably shouldn't either.



I was in a rush when I typed it, so yeah when I said "real feminists" I meant it as I would mean it when I say "real nutjobs", like they're REEEEEEEEEEEEALLY fuckin' crazy.


----------



## Jontain (Feb 2, 2012)

People always seem to get consumed by 'their' rights for whatever reason they have picked (race/gender/sexual agenda) to defend. Then they look at the world through different eyes convincing themselves that everything is unfair toward them or what they defend.

Bottom line is people dont agree and never will, its not a perfect world and again never will be. Sure they are allowed their views as much as everyone else, the difference being most people just get on with life rather than kick up a stink over ever little (pointless) thing.


----------



## Jakke (Feb 2, 2012)

Explorer said:


> I'd reject that definition of "real feminists." You're talking about "radical feminism," which is the radical edge which attributes everything to patriarchy.
> 
> I'd not characterize them as representing all feminists any more than I'd categorize David Duke as representing all Republicans, the WBC as representing all Christians, or any other extremist(s) as representing the average person's views. You probably shouldn't either.



And they are not true scottsmen either!




I couldn't help myself


----------



## Explorer (Feb 2, 2012)

Jontain said:


> People always seem to get consumed by 'their' rights for whatever reason they have picked (race/gender/sexual agenda) to defend. Then they look at the world through different eyes convincing themselves that everything is unfair toward them or what they defend.
> 
> Bottom line is people dont agree and never will, its not a perfect world and again never will be. Sure they are allowed their views as much as everyone else, the difference being most people just get on with life rather than kick up a stink over ever little (pointless) thing.



We have a lot of rights in the US, but we are definitely fortunate to not have the right to be free from being offended. That whole thing with Nergal being on trial for being disrepectful to religion was just amazing.

I'm not sure if I'd categorized equal treatment and rights, regardless of "race/gender/sexual (orientation)" to be "every little pointless thing." Given the stories just in the past 12 months like that group of white guys who looked for a black guy to kill just because of his race, I'm hoping you're not saying that such concerns are just people being selfish. 

I don't think you meant to belittle that stuff, just that you broadened the point from one person talking about a bathroom, to you viewing people as being selfish for wanting equal rights.


----------



## AxeHappy (Feb 3, 2012)

Explorer said:


> I'm not sure if I'd categorized equal treatment and rights, regardless of "race/gender/sexual (orientation)" to be "every little pointless thing." Given the stories just in the past 12 months like that group of white guys who looked for a black guy to kill just because of his race, I'm hoping you're not saying that such concerns are just people being selfish.



You know I agree with a lot of what you say. Just look at how often I like or rep one of your posts. 

But damn man, sometimes you will take what somebody said and just totally blow it out of proportion/context. 

I'm about 99.100% sure he wasn't saying that a group of racist murderers were a, "...little pointless thing," but, rather, was referring to people bitching about stupid shit. Like the toilet in the thread. You know...the thing we're talking about in this thread.


----------



## Jontain (Feb 3, 2012)

Explorer said:


> We have a lot of rights in the US, but we are definitely fortunate to not have the right to be free from being offended. That whole thing with Nergal being on trial for being disrepectful to religion was just amazing.
> 
> I'm not sure if I'd categorized equal treatment and rights, regardless of "race/gender/sexual (orientation)" to be "every little pointless thing." Given the stories just in the past 12 months like that group of white guys who looked for a black guy to kill just because of his race, I'm hoping you're not saying that such concerns are just people being selfish.
> 
> I don't think you meant to belittle that stuff, just that you broadened the point from one person talking about a bathroom, to you viewing people as being selfish for wanting equal rights.


 
No, not at all. Use a little common sense and it is easy to see that some 'stories' show appauling actions of hatred born from intolerance whereas others show someone being over defensive over small matters and blow them way out of proportion.

My point being people who feel strongly about sexism (or which ever part of other opinions they find intolerable) will often get very wrapped up in the subject, misconstruing what alot of us may view as normal behaviour as an attack on whatever they defend so dearly.

Did I call anyone selfish? no. Did I give an exact example for you to conclude that I consider concern over murder as people just being selfish? no. I referenced the op to make a point that people get way too touchy over discrimination to the point they look for discrimination where isn't any and never was any. People all to often shove their opinon down the throats of those who dont agree as apposed to debating the matter.

Put simply if people expect tolerance of their opinion or way of life they need to not forget to respect others opinions and ways of life.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 3, 2012)

I didn't think you believed that everyone raising those concern was being selfish (or hoped you didn't). I even said that. 

However, you appeared to be making that broad generalization, "People always seem to get consumed by 'their' rights for whatever reason they have picked (race/gender/sexual agenda) to defend." I just wanted to be sure, and explained why I thought it was worth stating it in a more specific way, rather than "People always...".


----------



## Blind Theory (Feb 5, 2012)

Feminism is fucking stupid. If you look at it from a physical stance then feminism has no real basis. We are designed for different things. Men are better at certain things than women and the opposite is true for women. In the work place, women do tend to have lower wages but at the same time, women dominate certain fields so it is kind of stupid to say that. Something like less than 15% of nurses are male compared to female. The only reason males tend to make more as nurses is because, statistically, men get higher level degrees and specialize in better paying fields than men. So as far as I'm concerned, it isn't because men are physically better or that men get treated better in the work place. Women aren't as physically capable as men at certain things and women tend not to go as far in school as men in a lot of instances. There should be no basis for feminism. Girls are wired different, don't try and think otherwise. And the Rolling Stones suck, there, I said it. FLAME ON!


----------



## leandroab (Feb 5, 2012)

"Rolling Stones urinals upset women"

Uh... ok...


----------



## Explorer (Feb 5, 2012)

@BlindTheory - When companies have a history of paying two classes of people (whether based on sex or race) different amounts, and they otherwise have the same experience, same education, and the same job, that would tend to undermine the basis of your arguments. 

And that's what the "equal pay for equal work, education and experience" is all about. 

Would you consider that "stupid?" 

I understand what you're saying. If the pay discrepancies came about because of the conditions you're arguing (only women instead of the same discreprancies due to race), then I would understand. Unfortunately, the ones which result in lawsuits don't.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Feb 5, 2012)

Blind Theory said:


> Feminism is fucking stupid. If you look at it from a physical stance then feminism has no real basis. We are designed for different things. Men are better at certain things than women and the opposite is true for women. In the work place, women do tend to have lower wages but at the same time, women dominate certain fields so it is kind of stupid to say that. Something like less than 15% of nurses are male compared to female. The only reason males tend to make more as nurses is because, statistically, men get higher level degrees and specialize in better paying fields than men. So as far as I'm concerned, it isn't because men are physically better or that men get treated better in the work place. Women aren't as physically capable as men at certain things and women tend not to go as far in school as men in a lot of instances. There should be no basis for feminism. Girls are wired different, don't try and think otherwise. And the Rolling Stones suck, there, I said it. FLAME ON!


----------



## Jakke (Feb 5, 2012)

I just read a very interesting article (it's in swedish, so unless you want me to, I won't link it). In that it said that men and women are different even at a brain level, to such a grade that upbringing cannot explain it, new studies show.

It among other things mentioned that men usually orient themselves better, both with and without landmarks, and a better visuospatial ability (roughly translated to ability to see three-dimensional shapes). Women however have a slightly better periodic memory (the ability to recall specific details in the past), a higher ability to recognize faces (that uncannily seemed to be restricted only to recognizing female faces), and a slightly higher ability with words. Men however do slightly better at mathematics.

I think the days were we consider ourselves exactly the same are past us. The feminist mob that considers upbringing and "the patriarchy" to be the sole cause of gender are hopefully out of a job soon, or confined to where they should be: with the rest of the religions.




Blind Theory said:


> And the Rolling Stones suck, there, I said it. FLAME ON!



Oh, it's so on...


----------



## Explorer (Feb 5, 2012)

Again, a reminder that extremism of any sort rarely represents the values of an average person of the same group. Radical feminism, with its beliefs in the "patriarchy," is a different thing from feminism.

I've known so many female accountants, rocket scientists and so on that I'm hoping male/female differences aren't being advanced as a rationalization against equal pay for equal education and experience. 

And, if they aren't... why are they being brought up in this context?


----------



## Jakke (Feb 5, 2012)

Because this is not about differences in pay (for the same amount of work, same education, of course equal pay), but some feminist being outraged about urinals at a Rolling Stones museum. I brought up some general points about feminism, and I found this article in the same spirit.

I have to disagree, feminism is a political ideology, and a keystone in their doctrine is a belief in the patriarchy, the patriarchy is however not even verified as a construct. A liking for equality does not make one a feminist, but you also have to accept their dogma, thus, a connection between the radical and the "normal" feminists is justified IMO.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 5, 2012)

Jakke said:


> I have to disagree, feminism is a political ideology, and a keystone in their doctrine is a belief in the patriarchy, the patriarchy is however not even verified as a construct. A liking for equality does not make one a feminist, but you also have to accept their dogma, thus, a connection between the radical and the "normal" feminists is justified IMO.



You're using the definition of "feminism" put forth by the radical feminists. In the same way 

I'd say that orthodox Jews can only define what orthodox Judaism is, and that they cannot proclaim that other Jews are not really Jews for not accepting all the orthodox beliefs. 

Same thing for radical feminists. 

You might decide both the orthodox Jews and the radical feminists are right, as well as those who proclaim that some forms of metal aren't really metal. 

More power to you, but I disagree. So do the many I know who count themselves as feminists without buying into a conspiracy theory. I've posted about conspiracy theories and their need to expand to insane lengths. 

Do you really mean to insist that all feminists buy into a crazy conspiracy theory to be considered feminists?


----------



## Jakke (Feb 5, 2012)

I would like to insist, but also to clear up the definitions. By a feminist, it means someone who is active in the feminist movement, someone political. The people you and I know that label themselves feminists (probably because of the zeitgeist) cannot really be called so, they are not political, plainly spoken. 
And part of the feminist doctrine is the patriarchy, so yes, you would have to believe in a conspiracy, but we are talking about different people.


----------



## guitareben (Feb 5, 2012)

I don't like people doing something which in no way affects me, because I personally find it repulsive. Therefore no-one should do it.

Also... "It's a woman's mouth, not a man's mouth."
No, it's a urinal.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 5, 2012)

Anyone interested in knowing about the different types of feminism can just use a search engine. Claiming that all feminists are the female equivalent to Conspiracy Brother in _Undercover Brother_ is arguing against the facts, and insisting on a definition with which even the non-radical feminists disagree.


----------



## McKay (Feb 6, 2012)

I'm despised by the feminist community in Plymouth because of things like saying 'there is too much focus on sexism and unfairness towards females compared to men, there shouldn't be a plethora of articles about cultural sexism towards women when there is still a lot of legal sexism against men'.

Feminists, by and large and fucking insane. Even the term itself is ridiculous, because to identify as a feminist means easily falling into the trap of victimhood. People should be working for the fair treatment of both sexes and feminists, by nature of their name generally only cater to one. It's an impossibly skewed paradigm that needs to change. Unfortunately talking about that results in irrational emotional outburts from butthurt psuedointellectuals on facebook...


----------



## Varcolac (Feb 6, 2012)

I identify as a (male) feminist and I think the woman's complaint is stupid. 

Then again, I find the response to feminism exhibited in this thread to be sickening. Radical nutjobs ruin things for everyone, but don't tar women who'd simply rather not be patronised or discriminated against with the same brush as those who'd rename school subjects to "Herstory" and "Huwomanities."


----------



## McKay (Feb 6, 2012)

Varcolac said:


> I identify as a (male) feminist and I think the woman's complaint is stupid.
> 
> Then again, I find the response to feminism exhibited in this thread to be sickening. Radical nutjobs ruin things for everyone, but don't tar women who'd simply rather not be patronised or discriminated against with the same brush as those who'd rename school subjects to "Herstory" and "Huwomanities."



What motivates you to identify as a feminist, specifically? Why not an egalitarian? Why concentrate solely on the one sex/gender?


----------



## Varcolac (Feb 6, 2012)

Because one gender gets a lot more crap than the other. 

To take a turn for the dramatic, if we want to take John Lennon's ugly point* to its logical conclusion, when discussing slavery you talk first and foremost about freeing the slaves, not about appeasing their owners.

I don't think it's that bad, and of course argumentum ad absurdum is a bad way to argue anything. I just think that on balance women deserve better, so I find it important to treat them the same way I'd treat a man. I don't think the way people treat men should change, hence my focus on the one gender.



*"woman is the n****r of the world" - stupid line, offensive but interesting song, I'm just not sure if a rich white man from Liverpool should be saying the word.


----------



## McKay (Feb 6, 2012)

Varcolac said:


> Because one gender gets a lot more crap than the other.
> 
> To take a turn for the dramatic, if we want to take John Lennon's ugly point* to its logical conclusion, when discussing slavery you talk first and foremost about freeing the slaves, not about appeasing their owners.
> 
> ...



Why not?

There is a sex that get more crap than the other. Men. Legally and culturally, they have more issues that need addressing than women at this point.


----------



## Randy (Feb 6, 2012)

McKay said:


> There is a sex that get more crap than the other. Men. Legally and culturally, they have more issues that need addressing than women at this point.



I get bullied around by women all the time and I still disagree with you. Women in the US still have a "glass ceiling" when it comes to wealth equality for women overall, and unreported sexual harassment/abuse of power still occurs disproportionately against women. 

I agree with Varcolac, 100% in this. The woman in the story is a whacko and gives feminism a bad name, but some of the attitudes expressed in here don't help the male case.


----------



## McKay (Feb 6, 2012)

Randy said:


> I get bullied around by women all the time and I still disagree with you. Women in the US still have a "glass ceiling" when it comes to wealth equality for women overall, and unreported sexual harassment/abuse of power still occurs disproportionately against women.
> 
> I agree with Varcolac, 100% in this. The woman in the story is a whacko and gives feminism a bad name, but some of the attitudes expressed in here don't help the male case.



Reread what I said more carefully. Most problems women encounter now are cultural, which is why modern feminism is so divisive. Men still have to deal with legal inequity like rape anonymity laws, consisently kept in place by feminist lobbying groups. To put it another way, feminism has been working for decades to real legal equality, which was needed and right to do, the opposite it not true.

So I again reiterate my opinion that identifying as a feminist, whether you're male or female is redundant. People should be working for legal equality first and _then_ trying to change cultural attitudes. As it stands now, men's rights need looking at.

Are they in as sorry a state as women's rights were in before feminism? No. But they still need to be fixed.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 6, 2012)

I was about to open up CNN.com to see if the polarity of the news stories had flipped. The assertion that men are the disadvantaged sex in this world is so ludicrous that I don't even know where to start... except for this:

I remember when people used to talk about how blacks had all the advantages. "These guys are guaranteed the best jobs! They have all the rights!" The numbers didn't support that kind of thinking, and even now with historical perspective on those decades, those people who felt that whites didn't have the same rights or better than blacks have been proven completely wrong..

Ah, yes, women in the US definitely should be addressing all those wrongs they've committed against men, and poor men should be taken care of. *laugh*

I'd wager that CNN.com wouldn't support the assertion that men get it worse than women. How long a period would be worth making a gentleman's bet about? A week? A year? 

----

It's amazing that people keep thinking of one extremist as representing all women. The fuck? You really think your moms, sisters and (if you have one) your partner think like this person if they want to be paid the same as guys? I'd be surprised if those of you with female partners woud dare reveal such attitudes to her.


----------



## McKay (Feb 6, 2012)

Is nobody reading a word I'm writing?

I'm not talking about cultural attitudes. About beliefs. I'm talking about legal disparities. Incarceration is an example. Women are given more lenient sentences. That needs to change. Nobody is making the assertion that men are disadvantaged. They are making the assertion that the men's rights have been neglected and need fixing.

Surely the order of priority for people working towards equality is legal first, culture second. If feminists want equality, they would be working ardently towards getting the legal system completely fair before working on cultural attitudes to gender roles and other issues. Instead they block legislation introduced to correct things like male rape anonymity, which is currently given to women but not men. If you're accused of rape, you are given no legal anonymity. This has ruined countless lives.


----------



## AxeHappy (Feb 6, 2012)

Edit:

Meh, don't really feel like arguing.


----------



## groph (Feb 6, 2012)

Blind Theory said:


> Feminism is fucking stupid. If you look at it from a physical stance then feminism has no real basis. We are designed for different things. *Men are better at certain things than women and the opposite is true for women*. In the work place, women do tend to have lower wages but at the same time, *women dominate certain fields so it is kind of stupid to say that*. Something like less than 15% of nurses are male compared to female. *The only reason males tend to make more as nurses is because, statistically, men get higher level degrees and specialize in better paying fields than men*. So as far as I'm concerned, it isn't because men are physically better or that men get treated better in the work place. Women aren't as physically capable as men at certain things and women tend not to go as far in school as men in a lot of instances. There should be no basis for feminism. Girls are wired different, don't try and think otherwise. And the Rolling Stones suck, there, I said it. FLAME ON!



First point, there is too much overlap between the sexes (I'll assume a binary for the purposes of this debate) to put it in these black and white terms. The big nature/nurture debate in academics and sciences rages on, but so far we at least know that there is a LOT of overlap. Yeah, some, maybe most men are good at chopping down trees because of higher on average upper body strength due to testosterone (also due to cultural beliefs of masculinity, men need to work out so that in effect contributes to men having higher levels of strength. Women can get strong too, but they don't "need to" in society), but there are also the odd women who are good at these things too, and vice versa. Lots of exceptions. You may be generally right, but not "right enough" to come right out and say we're good at different things. Second point, women dominate certain fields (like nursing) because these fields are believed to be "feminized" IE they're usually care-oriented. Lots of elementary school teachers are women and I'd bet an overwhelming (90%+) of daycare workers are women. Put a man in a daycare environment and he's either gay or a pedophile. Third point, I think nowadays women are getting degrees (not sure about high level ones) at a higher rate than men which may be indicative of other problems, the "lost boys" or "masculinity crisis" kind of thing comes to my mind.



Jakke said:


> I just read a very interesting article (it's in swedish, so unless you want me to, I won't link it). In that it said that men and women are different even at a brain level, to such a grade that upbringing cannot explain it, new studies show.
> 
> It among other things mentioned that men usually orient themselves better, both with and without landmarks, and a better visuospatial ability (roughly translated to ability to see three-dimensional shapes). Women however have a slightly better periodic memory (the ability to recall specific details in the past), a higher ability to recognize faces (that uncannily seemed to be restricted only to recognizing female faces), and a slightly higher ability with words. Men however do slightly better at mathematics.
> 
> ...



I think I remember reading something else (we're awesome at citations on ss.org) that brought these brain tests into question. I think it had men and women do the typical tests (mental rotation, visuospatial stuff, etc.), and the typical result came out, but then they had the women imagine themselves as men and the men imagine themselves as women, and the results were different. 

I don't think anybody is trying to forward an "everybody must be exactly the same" agenda here, in fact a lot of feminism is addressing similar issues. There's an identity crisis in the movement because at its origin, it was middle class white women's advocacy. Now it's embraced women all around the world precisely because they are different, they have different contexts and different issues, and they unify because of these differences; its all very organic now. They're also fighting against notions that all women are the same (women are bad at math, women are sluts, etc) AND MEN TOO (all men are uncontrollable rapists). Are we biologically all the same? No, we're mostly similar but not THE SAME EXACTLY, of course not. I am of the opinion that people are more similar than different but I'm still an individualist since I've been brought up in a Western country under capitalism. That happens.



Jakke said:


> Because this is not about differences in pay (for the same amount of work, same education, of course equal pay), but some feminist being outraged about urinals at a Rolling Stones museum. I brought up some general points about feminism, and I found this article in the same spirit.
> 
> I have to disagree, feminism is a political ideology, and a keystone in their doctrine is a belief in the patriarchy, *the patriarchy is however not even verified as a construct*. A liking for equality does not make one a feminist, but you also have to accept their dogma, thus, a connection between the radical and the "normal" feminists is justified IMO.



What do you mean that the patriarchy isn't verified as a construct? It's not legally recognized, yes, it is a thing that feminists defined and named and use. I guess it hasn't been scientifically "proven" or anything, but I'm pretty sure the huge huge huge majority of positions of power at least since the industrial revolution have been held almost exclusively by men. Maybe the patriarchy "in reality" isn't as pervasive as radical feminists hold, but I'll certainly contend that men own the HUGE majority of political power positions, power in the family (rule of the father, which is what patriarch means), probably own most of the land and control most of the wealth. That's what they mean by "patriarchy" at least in a cursory sense. How they interpret patriarchy, "read into it" if you will, is another matter, and what I mean by this are things like the "rape culture" in which rape is more or less tolerated and even encouraged through things like pornography, victim blaming, framing heterosexual men's sexuality as inherently predatory (this is what I'm researching right now) and what have you. It's a bit postmodern at this level.



Jakke said:


> I would like to insist, but also to clear up the definitions. By a feminist, it means someone who is active in the feminist movement, someone political. The people you and I know that label themselves feminists (probably because of the zeitgeist) cannot really be called so, they are not political, plainly spoken.
> And part of the feminist doctrine is the patriarchy, so yes, you would have to believe in a conspiracy, but we are talking about different people.



All it really takes to be a feminist is to believe that women share the same kind of common dignity and value that men do. 



McKay said:


> Is nobody reading a word I'm writing?
> 
> I'm not talking about cultural attitudes. About beliefs. *I'm talking about legal disparities. Incarceration is an example. Women are given more lenient sentences*. That needs to change. Nobody is making the assertion that men are disadvantaged. They are making the assertion that the men's rights have been neglected and need fixing.
> 
> Surely the order of priority for people working towards equality is legal first, culture second. If feminists want equality, they would be working ardently towards getting the legal system completely fair before working on cultural attitudes to gender roles and other issues. *Instead they block legislation introduced to correct things like male rape anonymity, which is currently given to women but not men. If you're accused of rape, you are given no legal anonymity. This has ruined countless lives*.



The bolded parts are kind of like an elephant in the room and I DO think that they are valid questions. When they're mixed in with feminist politics it never ends well because you'll basically get the response "way to just reassert your male privilege by centering the debate right back onto men and ignoring real female victims." And, "unfortunately," I think that's a totally valid criticism. The solution to that in my mind is for men to start being more proactive about feminist issues like rape or sexual objectification or violence, create their own spaces where they can talk things out and, more importantly, actually DO something (look up Men Can Stop Rape). Being accused of rape when you did no such thing, yeah, that would be a total nightmare. But consider this. Why would it be a nightmare?

Because "the rapist" is a grimy, shady guy with a knife who drags women into alleys and violently, painfully forces himself into her and leaves her for dead. This goes against a (possible, this is just my perception) collective will or want on the part of men to protect women (which can be interpreted as a patriarchal thing), and a rapist is such an affront to that sentiment. None of us want to be associated in any way with that image. The reality of rape is much different. Most rapists are known to their victims, they may even be in relationships with them. The guy who is good enough to walk a drunk girl home to her apartment is more likely to be the rapist than some bum in an alley, but once our protective impulse kicks in*, all rapists and all rapes are the same. They're not. I don't think men want to talk about rape, they're scared shitless by it. The huge, huge majority of *rapists* (I didnt say victims) are men. Tons of men are raped in prison by other men, gay men are raped by straight men and surely other gay men, straight men might rape straight men outside of prison for some reason, and of course men rape women. Sure, there have been instances of rape and assault where the victim was male and the perp was female, but those are pretty few and far between. They'd get publicized like hell because that makes good news, but they're rare. It's still rape so it's just as wrong as any other, but it's unfortunately not looked at that way. Nobody would believe a man got raped by a woman. Nobody would believe a man got beaten by a woman, he can't "keep her under control" and his masculinity would be attacked if people found out so I'd buy that male rape/abuse victims are kept invisible. I'll say they're being kept invisible through male privilege, and once we stop thinking we're all a bunch of infallible superheroes things can get better for us men and everybody else.













*This is a guess, it's not really backed by anything at this point.

EDIT: Oh and yeah, I think that getting outraged over a urinal is pretty stupid.


----------



## Jakke (Feb 6, 2012)

Please groph, do not strawman. I am also for equal rights for both men and women, and I am not a feminist. Why? *Because I do not subscribe to the feminist ideology*. Claiming that if you care about equal right you are a feminist is a straw man, because in that you are implying that any other position does not care about equality. And such a position is fallacious.

No, the patriarchy is not verified sociologically, therefore it is frivolous to assume that it exists. One could draw parallels to UFOs, they are not verified to exist, therefore they are not officially aknowledged either.


----------



## groph (Feb 6, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Please groph, do not strawman. I am also for equal rights for both men and women, and I am not a feminist. Why? *Because I do not subscribe to the feminist ideology*. Claiming that if you care about equal right you are a feminist is a straw man, because in that you are implying that any other position does not care about equality. And such a position is fallacious.
> 
> No, the patriarchy is not verified sociologically, therefore it is frivolous to assume that it exists. One could draw parallels to UFOs, they are not verified to exist, therefore they are not officially aknowledged either.



There are varying degrees of feminism and it is in fact multifaceted so I'll agree that it is possible to vouch for equal rights but no go so far as to label yourself feminist. Yes, it does have political implications and feminism is a political, at least politicized movement.

I wasn't trying to make what you were saying sound absurd and I wasn't trying to imply that only feminism can be concerned with equal rights - yes that would be wrong to say that and there are feminist biologists, feminist psychologists, and feminist sociologists among many more, as well as people like yourself who reject the label but still support equal rights. 

Nobody is assuming that the patriarchy exists, just out of thin air, there are in fact rigorous, peer reviewed academic works that say that it does. Does that mean that patriarchy definitely does exist and that the peer review process is perfect? No, but going by what you seem to be saying, you'd have to be taking on a large body of work with evidence. There may not be a unified, operationally defined concept of feminism in a discipline like sociology or even within the broader range of feminism itself but they're not just saying that patriarchy exists, they're backing it up. You're setting up a strawman with the UFO analogy - it's hardly an analogy to begin with since there is plenty of reviewed empirical evidence that supports the theory of a patriarchy, where all one has with UFOs are conspiracy theories and pictures of flying hubcaps. I know it's incredibly easy to set up strawmen and I'm sorry if I did, but if you're going to walk the walk...

There is also more than one feminist ideology, it's hardly a unified thing, as I've already said. There are probably some things within feminism you'd agree with, like the equal rights thing (which isn't in the exclusive domain of feminism any more but I'd argue that's because of women's movements [not necessarily feminist, maybe] in the first place) and some things you wouldn't agree with, like the whole all men being rapists thing. Just keep in mind that feminism is attacked all the fucking time, it's misrepresented and misunderstood an awful lot. Yes, some feminists were anti-male like Valerie Solanas (author of the SCUM manifesto, a document that advocated androcide) and some of them are batshit crazy like Andrea Dworkin (charged with the whole all heterosexual sex is rape thing, although that's taken out of context and it was rhetorical to begin with). My problem with Dworkin was that she was an author, not a scholar. Some good ideas but she was too rhetorical for me, nothing was really fleshed out and grounded in intellectual honesty.


----------

