|
Lucienne -> RE: Feminism (11/2/2009 8:35:06 AM)
|
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'd say you're too focused on the trees to see the forest, but I really don't think I've written anything on this thread that would support thinking I'm trying to preserve unfair advantages. 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.
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 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. I don't think the law should automatically favor mom. In my jurisdiction, the law does NOT automatically favor mom. This is a done deal. 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.
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.
I guess I don't understand how my previous answer was insufficient or remotely supportive of a conclusion that I've taken an "incongruent position." Here it is again, feel free to connect the dots for me:
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.
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. It's an ugly and exploitve movement preying on misery. 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 would disagree. MRAs say they want fair custody laws. In most cases they have them. 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.
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
