|
undergroundsea -> RE: Feminism (11/2/2009 5:09:49 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucienne
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.
I don't think you're focusing on fairness and consistency in principle if you're pulling a quote talking about universal human rights and wondering if I'm only interested in fairness for myself.
I am indeed focusing on fairness and consistency in principle.
Your statement about universal human rights as opposed to privileges gained at the expense of others is a point with which I agree. However, your previous statements appear to me to be inconsistent with this statement. The question about whether or not you seek privileges at expense of others is what prompted my first post to you to ask why you hold all MRAs in disdain and contempt--is there a legitimate reason, or is it simply because they seek an agenda which could remove a privilege?
I asked for a reason and I have not gotten an answer that helps me understand why you oppose them other than that you dislike them.
quote:
I really don't think I've written anything on this thread that would support thinking I'm trying to preserve unfair advantages.
I have not read all your posts but one statement I find to create question is the generalization against all MRAs. It is this generalization that leads me to wonder if you are trying to preserve unfair advantages.
quote:
As for the portion I italicized, I don't know how you can be interested in fairness and consistency in principle and not understand that injustice for one is injustice for all.
Your interpretation is incorrect.
Unfortunately, there exists injustice in various forms in various places. Fortunately, there are various people who are championing various causes against these injustices. I don't think one can expect each person to actively pursue each cause. I think it is more reasonable to expect that a person will pursue causes that directly impact or are emotionally closer to that person. Furthermore, in the spirit that injustice by principle for one is injustice by principle for all, I think it is reasonable to expect that this person not oppose efforts of those who seek justice simply because it might take away an advantage from this person. How much or whether you actively seek to represent men's rights is your choice. I would not hold it against you if you do not actively do so. However, I don't think it would be fair of you to object to activism that represents men's rights simply because it could take away an advantage from you.
I do not know whether you oppose any activism to represent men's rights simply for this reason. It is for this reason I asked you why you felt contempt and disdain for MRAs in general. You have not provided an adequate answer yet.
quote:
quote:
undergroundsea: 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.
I think you're picturing MRAs as a broader class than I do. I don't think of everyone who thinks the law shouldn't automatically favor mom in custody disputes as a Men's Rights Activist.
<snip>
The people who would agree with the MRA agenda if presented in simple list form are not the same as people who are self-identified activists for this agenda.
I am interpreting men's rights advocates to mean groups that seek to represent men's rights, which could include groups that seek fairness for men in a way that is also fair to women, and groups that seek advantages for men at expense of women. Why is this definition too broad and what is the basis instead to use your definition of only those who are self-identified activists who, according to you, only have an agenda that seeks advantages at expense of women? And what does one who seeks activism for men's rights then call self? If there are women or feminists who seek to represent women's rights without seeking privilege at expense of men, why cannot be there men who seek to represent men's rights without seeking privilege at expense of women?
Also, the italics portion of your statement quoted above is unclear to me. You suggest that there is something called the MRA agenda. Is it monolithic? I expect it is not but let us assume that it is monolithic to further discuss your statement. Who comes up with this agenda if not people who identify as activists for this agenda? But then you say people who agree with this agenda do not identify as activists.
Do you consider their agenda to be fair or unfair? And if this agenda is unfair, who are the people who are agreeing with this agenda (but are not self-identified activitists) whom you are trying to separate from the unfair self-identified activists? If this MRA agenda is fair, then what unfair agenda do those who identify as activists for MRAs, and whom you characterize as unfair persons, then follow?
Your definition assumes that anyone who claims to represent or seek activism for men's rights does not in fact seek fairness but advantage. I am unconvinced this definition has merit. Would you clarify why you think it does rather than simply saying that you think it does?
quote:
Feel free to connect the dots for me
Here we have a bunch of dots:
. . . . . .
First you say:
quote:
Lucienne : In my experience, MRAs are fully deserving of all the contempt and disdain they receive
To me, your statement comes across as a generalization which leaves me curious why you make such a generalization. I ask:
quote:
Undergroundsea: I do not know enough about MRAs to say whether your statement is right or wrong but I am curious what about them makes you think they deserve contempt and disdain?
You respond:
quote:
Lucienne: 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.
The statement above does not appeal to me intuitively and continues to strike me as a generalization that comes from a bias. I continue to wonder what basis you have to make this generalization and whether you oppose anyone who seeks a cause that could compromise an advantage you have. I ask you what specifically do you consider to be MRA agenda that you feel is designed to control a soon to be ex wife or children to see if your statement has basis or is it a hand-waiving argument.
quote:
Undergroundsea: I do not know enough about MRAs and how they compare to feminism to comment in an informed manner. What do you consider to be steps that are designed to control a soon to be ex-wife, or children?
You do not respond. In a later post you speak of:
quote:
Lucienne: universal human rights as opposed to privileges gained at the expense of others.
This statement is inconsistent with the question I saw your prior posts to raise: do you oppose all MRAs because they could potentially remove an advantage or privilege?
Thus, I raise the point quoted below, explain why I think your words strike me as an incorrect generalization (I have trouble believing that all MRAs seek privilege at expense of women), and that this incorrect generalization leaves me to wonder whether you are opposed to any group that has an agenda that can lessen an advantage for you. If so, I would consider such opposition to be at odds with your appeal to universal rights without privilege at expense of others.
quote:
Undergroundsea: 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. 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.
._._._._._.
Now the dots are connected.
Below you consider custody to fall within the realm of MRAs.
quote:
The friendly introduction to MRA's is custody disputes.
Here you do not:
quote:
I also clarified that my contempt and disdain is not directed at every man who wants a fair shake at a custody hearing. 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."
And the only specific area you have mentioned is custody.
Moving on:
quote:
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.
Feminism is not only about seeking legislative change, but also about seeing that the legislative changes are being observed, and about social change. I expect the same could be said of MRAs with respect to the changes you think are needed.
quote:
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.
I support a push for women's rights in a spirit that seeks universal rights without privilege at expense of others. I do not think feminism is monolithic and do not think all feminists have the same agenda, or that all feminists, even within groups that have differences in agenda, seek privilege at expense of men. Thus, if all MRAs claim so, I see reason for an objection. However, I am not convinced all MRAs make such a claim.
quote:
I disagree with the MRAs 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 misogyny.
If you would specifically clarify with which points you disagree, it would help me and others see that you oppose MRAs for a specific reason and not simply because they seek an agenda that could take away a privilege from you.
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.
I do not claim patriarchy is a feminist invention. I do not claim all feminists have the same platform. I do not claim all feminists seek privilege at expense of men. I do not claim one should completely ignore or mischaracterize what most feminists are arguing for. I do not say all feminists deserve contempt or disdain. Thus, I do not view feminism the way you view MRAs. That said, I again see incongruence. You acknowlege you are practicing against MRAs the generalization and contempt you incorrectly criticize me to have against feminism--you are practicing behavior you criticize and incorrectly attribute to me.
quote:
MRAs say they want fair custody laws. In most cases they have them.
I do not know whether they have them in most cases. Even if they do, it seems then there is room to continue their activism since most means some work remains.
The only specific objective you have mentioned is custody laws. If what MRAs want are fair custody laws, and you agree with fair custody laws, what is your basis for feeling contempt and disdain for MRAs? Is there something else you can describe as the basis for your contempt and disdain?
quote:
If I were to go stand on the corner holding a sign demanding that women get the right to vote, you would probably think I was an idiot, or not being honest about what I want.
So then what you are saying is that MRAs only ask for fair custody laws but they already have them (even though you think it exists in most cases but perhaps not all) but really you think when they say they want fair custody laws, they are not being honest and they want something else? If you know what this something else is, what is it? If you don't know what it is, why do you feel contempt and disdain?
quote:
There's been a lot of that on this thread, assuming a feminist holds a certain position until she explicitly disclaims it. Maybe, you know, stop assuming so much. Or learn more about feminism from feminist sources.
I do not claim to be an authority on feminism but do not direct my comments at all feminists, as reflected by my statement below:
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.
I do not make the assumptions you list and you incorrectly criticize me for assuming a feminist holds a certain position until she explicitly disclaims it. You say this and then you generalize against all MRAs, which leads me to reiterate my point about seeing incongruence.
Cheers,
Sea
|
|
|
|
