quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

No problem. There are a lot of other "feminist" stereotypes I keep hearing which seem to have no basis in fact. For example, the idea that because you're a feminist, you don't believe that women should stay home and raise their children (personally, I did it for several years when my kids were younger). Or that because you're a feminist, you believe that men should have no rights (personally, I believe that paternal rights go hand in hand with paternal responsibility--a child's true "father" is not the sperm donor, it's the man who sacrifices time and resources to make the child's life better).

Or that because you're a feminist, you don't believe that women should ever submit to men--even if they love it.

I don't think women should be beaten by abusers--and I can tell the difference between "beaten by an abuser" and "playing with Daddy". Just because you're a feminist doesn't mean that you're stupid or ignorant about the submissive side of BDSM, or the joy it brings to people's lives. But as many submissive women can tell you, there's a big difference between being humiliated by the man who knows you and loves you best, and being talked down to or harassed by some repulsive stranger who thinks he's entitled to treat you like an inferior being because he has a dick and you don't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne
The door holding thing fascinates me. I frequently see guys on the internet bitching about how some woman (usually years ago) was rude to them when they held a door for her. But I rarely see women on the internet complaining about men holding doors for them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Nothing would make me happier than to serve a man from my knees at a restaurant. Rarely does it happen because we both have to be cognizant of how it may look to others there, especially little ones.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SnowRanger
and
Some years back I heard "Don't patronize me!" so often that I gave door holding up.  Except for people with their arms full, I quit holding doors for anyone at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19

The feminist movement was not born out of thin air. If women were treated fairly under the law, women would not have had to unite. If women were not minimized by society, we wouldnt have had a need for the feminist movement. If women were payed fairly, treated fairly, not been abandoned with children by low lives, we wouldnt have had a need for the femist movement. if all men were good and honorable, we would not have had a need. There are plenty of good men out there, but others that still think a women was asking for it when she is raped or abused. Woman still do more for less and thats why during a recession such as what we are in right now, women are more plentiful in the workforce than men.

I can be a submissive and a feminist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

quote:

ORIGINAL: SnowRanger
and
Some years back I heard "Don't patronize me!" so often that I gave door holding up.  Except for people with their arms full, I quit holding doors for anyone at all.

But it's the only way you can get a good look down her décolletage and check out her ass as she walks by!

quote:

ORIGINAL: SnowRanger
Some years back I heard "Don't patronize me!" so often that I gave door holding up.  Except for people with their arms full, I quit holding doors for anyone at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne
"Rights" are not seen as a zero sum game, when considered as universal human rights as opposed to privileges gained at the expense of others.

quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne
"Rights" are not seen as a zero sum game, when considered as universal human rights as opposed to privileges gained at the expense of others.

What I am focusing on is a sense of fairness and consistency in principle, and whether one supports fairness in general, or whether one seeks to correct only that that is unfair and disadvantageous to self. I do not expect one to actively seek to correct that that is unfair and disadvantageous to others, however I do see an issue if I see one to oppose any such change--because it takes away one's advantage even if it is an unfair advantage--in a way that is incongruent with one's stance otherwise. I do not know which approach you take.

quote:

Intuitively, I expect there are some MRAs who seek fairness, and some who seek advantage more than fairness. Intuitively, I expect there are some feminists who seek fairness, and some who seek advantage more than fairness.

quote:

A generalization that MRAs deserve disdain and contempt leaves me to wonder if you are threatened by any organization whose agenda could lessen your advantages whether fair or not. It is for this reason I was curious what your basis is for objection to MRAs, to which principles you object, and whether you rely on this  same principle in other cases when it supports you.

quote:

Generally, MRAs are what they accuse feminists of being - angry, narrow-minded, self-absorbed and self-pitying. At its core, men's rights activism, is about control of others. Men fighting for the right to control the uterus of their sex partner, fighting for the right to control their soon to be ex-wives, fighting for the right to control their children. It's a belief system suffused with notions of possession.

If you care to take a gander at my posting history, you will discover that I am a person who is opposed to the idea of literally possessing others. Which is contrary to many a kink around these parts. But I'm not concerned with how people choose to order their private lives, I respect their right to do so. MRA's seek public laws to complement and support their ideas of possession.

The friendly introduction to MRA's is custody disputes. It's not that I think the family court system is perfect in making custody decisions. But the problem is more cultural. The laws favoring women in custody decisions have, certainly in my jurisdiction, been changed. Cultural recognition and support for men nurturing their children is what is needed. And that's something I push for, as a feminist. The idea that men are good for a support check and don't need much face time with the kids is a direct result of the "Man as Provider" cultural expectation. That MRA's have surveyed the situation and decided that what is necessary is to declare war on feminism, well... they are either stupid or they are not being honest about what they want.

quote:

I recognize it is your choice whether or not to respond to such questions, and to the extent you have this incongruent position, I disagree with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

But it's the only way you can get a good look down her décolletage and check out her ass as she walks by!

Yes, but if you let her open the door for herself and time it right, she'll faint decoratively from the effort (fluttery eyes, one dainty wrist over forehead, locks of hair wafting, etc.) into your arms.  Then you can get a really good eyeball at her tumblers. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andalusite

I hold doors for anyone who is within a few steps (or further, if their hands are full), and enjoy it when people do so for me. I've never witnessed anyone yelling over someone holding a door or offering their seat on the bus or whatever, online or offline.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

On the other hand, I honestly believe that becoming a "feminist" because you hate men is like becoming a "soldier" because you're a sadistic killer and you want to torture and murder people for a living. The fact that you wear a uniform doesn't really mean that you represent the nation's honor and principles in a situation like that, and the fact that you label yourself a "feminist" doesn't mean that you uphold the ideals of equality and human rights that are foundations of the movement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

"I disagree with the feminists on many points, but the disdain and contempt is also fueled by the fact that it is a movement that takes men who are in a vulnerable position (ugly custody disputes), tells them nothing is their fault and nurtures them with a steady stream of misandry."
 
I thought I'd quote you but swap your "MRAs" for "feminists" and "mysogyny" for "misandry", respectively, just to see how it looked.  If I saw that statement as I've modified it, I'd already have my phasers powered up and Mr Worf's finger on the firing button.  There are some nutty people calling themselves feminists, but feminists are not all of a similar hue.

quote:

I suppose if you think patriarchy is a feminist invention and completely ignore or mischaracterize what most feminists are arguing for that you could view the feminist movement the way I view MRAs.

quote:

Likewise mens' rights activists.  'MRA' is an uncommon phrase in the UK and perhaps things are different here.  Nonetheless, Starbuck was right to put in a word of defence for our own mens' rights groups.  They've frequently and unfairly been villified as a monolithic movement composed of far-right misogynists gnashing their teeth about the monstrous hordes of women.  I'd be very suspicious of a similar claim about mens' rights groups elsewhere.   

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne
Your substitution is also incomplete, in that it doesn't make sense unless you swap "men" for "women."

quote:

I've expressly disclaimed knowledge of the legal regime in the UK and don't know enough about the groups there to know if they've been unfairly vilified or not. On the rare occasion I've read a UK based MRA blog, it was fairly indistinguishable from the misogynistic tripe feature on US blogs.

quote:

Although I am suspicious of anyone who calls themselves a "men's rights activist." In my experience, men who are genuinely interested in equality do not label themselves as such. Maybe "father's rights," but not "men's rights."

quote:

The fight for "women's rights" was/is the fight for human rights. The right to direct the upbringing of your children is a human right. I support this right.

quote:

I'm talking about self-labeled MRAs. If the phrase is so uncommon in the UK, how is it that you think I'm talking about such a broad group of people?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoDolphins

The problem with custody laws isn't that the laws themselves are biased towards women-- it's the implementation that is.  The laws are written in a gender-neutral manner, but custody definitely isn't enforced that way all the time.  While there are cases where mothers get screwed over, most of the time if one parent is going to get screwed over it's the father.