by Robert Yourell
NCFM Liaison Baha, Mexico
Here is some research that looks at stereotypes about feminists. I have been saying that men’s Rights advocates that display black-and-white thinking (among other things) harm the credibility of the movement. Maybe this little survey can help that type of guy inhabit a more complicated world. Unfortunately, it will take a lot more than this to influence people that need to simplify their world.
Many of them will simply create a theory that’s even more ridiculous. Consider a post by Back2TheKitchen on DontMarryCareerWoman.com: “Talk about desperation. How do Feminists attempt to combat the marriage strike and IMBRA? With propaganda, of course.” And how is it that reporting on polls equals propaganda? They are lying about the stats? The questions were totally manipulative? And how could anyone actually believe that the marriage strike and IMBRA caused them to concoct a big lie? Were those things even on their radar screens? Someone actually thinks the researchers were threatened by that?
Allow me to suggest this approach to feminists. If you encounter a feminist, ask what feminism is. If their definition sounds like humanism, ask them what the difference is. If they say something like, “The difference is that feminism is a special focus on the rights and well-being of women,” ask if there should be such a focus for men. If they say yes, then you could probably learn some things from each other. If not, then I guess what you do with them depends on whether they show any capacity to dialog with sincerity. But first, ask yourself if you have a sincere desire to dialog, or if you just like to preach to the choir.
Read the Science Daily article below, Feminism and Romance Go Hand In Hand . Then, please, leave a comment and your opinion.
Contrary to popular opinion, feminism and romance are not incompatible and feminism may actually improve the quality of heterosexual relationships, according to Laurie Rudman and Julie Phelan, from Rutgers University in the US. Their study* also shows that unflattering feminist stereotypes, that tend to stigmatize feminists as unattractive and sexually unappealing, are unsupported.
It is generally perceived that feminism and romance are in direct conflict. Rudman and Phelan’s work challenges this perception. They carried out both a laboratory survey of 242 American undergraduates and an online survey including 289 older adults, more likely to have had longer relationships and greater life experience. They looked at men’s and women’s perception of their own feminism and its link to relationship health, measured by a combination of overall relationship quality, agreement about gender equality, relationship stability and sexual satisfaction.
They found that having a feminist partner was linked to healthier heterosexual relationships for women. Men with feminist partners also reported both more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction. According to these results, feminism does not predict poor romantic relationships, in fact quite the opposite.
Click here to read the rest of the article.
Take a stress break:
| Unique five-minute mindfulness meditation audio:
| www.Yourell.com/ShimmerSample.mp3
Robert A. Yourell, LMFT
| Preparing people for challenges
|
| 619/677-6970
| Toll free: 877/266-8880
| San Diego, California, USA
| Rosarito, Baja California
|
| Robert@Yourell.com
| Skype: yourell
I guess the question here is the definition of feminist. Many MRA's, including myself, see "feminist" as a term relating to women who believe in the Patriarchy theory and that women are in essence slaves to men, and the only way to break free and gain rights is to victimize said men(via male disposability or outright gendercide). Taking this as the definition makes the above article an impossible reality. Marc A. your wife sounds more like what would be defined as a humanist or women's rights advocate, which is far form being a feminist, and if someone wants to be seen as those labels then they should call themselves that appropriately. It's too late to take back "feminism" as a term to describe a woman's rights supporter. It may be a matter of semantics, but a replacement of the word humanist and feminist creates a HUGE distortion in the eye of the beholder, especially on this website.
I've been an MRA for over 10 years. I'm the VP of NCFM. My girlfriend calls herself a "feminist." But in no way is she like the average rank and file fembot from the feminist miltia. She believes in both women's rights AND men's rights. She joined our fathers rights street rally against Verizon's anti-father ads. She has supported my activism. I some areas we might disagree a little, but she respects the rights of men and is fair minded. That, to me, is real feminist. The man-hating fembots that refuse to respect men's rights aren't real feminists. But then that is all a matter of semantics, IMO. I appreciated this article. Given what modern feminism has become, I'm cautious of anyone who considers themself a feminist today, but I'll give them a chance and see if they're humanitarian and fair-minded, or igno-reactionary bigots like so many feminists are.
Feminists might be sexist, but that has nothing to do with racial superiority one way or the other. Some radical feminists may stress conscious oppression, sex = rape, and other, often misandrist things (and IMHO, the obsession with female powerlessness you get there is in itself rather misogynistic), but at its heart, feminism only means desiring equality between the sexes. I think that, alongside the fact that some women who are sensitive to gender issues aren't necessarily only interested in the problems that affect women, but are more likely to be sympathetic about the ways in which cultural norms and stereotypes hurt men as well, is what this article is trying to get at.
"but at its heart, feminism only means desiring equality between the sexes"
Actually, the only definition of feminism that is applicable across the entire range of feminist activists is that feminism is about female empowerment. To what degree changes based on the individual feminist, the egal types like Christina Hoff Sommers want it only to what men have (and in some cases, again like CHS, even want male empowerment to the level women have in area's women are better off. but this view on men isn't a facet of feminism, but rather, an addition), while the dworking/MacKinnon types want empowerment for empowerment's sake, taking all they can get, regardless of it's comparison to men (the more power over men the better).
"alongside the fact that some women who are sensitive to gender issues aren't necessarily only interested in the problems that affect women, but are more likely to be sympathetic about the ways in which cultural norms and stereotypes hurt men as well, is what this article is trying to get at."
It would seem ether those sympathetic feminists are rare, or they don't exists in any influential facet of the feminist movement, because a great deal of the feminist organizations actually oppose men's rights, especially fathers rights and a legal/political acknowledgement of male DV victims (by legal/political I mean, most will give lip service saying "yeah, men can be abused too … BUT" then proceed to describe why all the money, support and legal policies should be focused on women only). I'd be happy to be proven wrong here, but I don't think you can.
This is a disgusting post to NCFM.
Having sex with an orangutan would, by definition, improve your lovelife.
A feminist is, by definition, a racist. Would a slave having sex with their slavemaster improve their lovelife?
By all means, have sex with someone who defines themselves as racially superior to you. Good form.
Don't forget that the science was done for the purpose of supporting feminism.
Much of science is done by interest groups.
Weird article NCFM… IMHO.
well i'm against feminism in all its forms.
I'm pretty taken aback by this article…
Maybe I AM on the wrong website…