Justice for Men and Boys - Isn't this exactly why we need feminism

[wickeddevil]

Heard Justice for Men and Boys Founder Mike Buccanan on Womens Hour earlier today complaining that men pay 72% of all income tax.
Well isn't that because they have more income?

And instead of complaining about the feminist agenda doesn't it demonstrate why we need it?

It seems to be a huge factor in whether men sell out other men. Don't want their princesses getting hurt. Who would, of course, but some men seem to lose all rational thought and go into way over the top protect mode. I guess they must feel that if their daughters are feminists they'll somehow be immune to the relationship indignities us plebs suffer.

Sorry Annie, I forgot that feminism is responsible for every societal change going.

Firstly you tell me that we live in a patriarchy, then you tell me that feminism has changed society. But patriarchy, which seeks to oppress women, seems to have had no choice but to listen to the feminists...but the patriarchy controls everything...but the feminists have changed things..

How about, SOCIETY is evolving, fluid, changing as it has done throughout history, and will continue to do so until the planet is dust.

What on earth are you talking about sigmund?

Absolutely, society is fluid and evolving. And I like to think it's evolving for the better on many fronts, with women, homosexuals and people of minority races getting a better deal by the day. Because each one of those groups has pushed and fought to be recognised to be of equivalent worth, importance and value as white heterosexual males, who have traditionally run the show and have in their legislation and laws awarded each of those groups lesser rights than their own.

Please show me one example of where the rights and lives of minority groups have been improved through the pressure of an outside party?

Women got the vote because of the natural evolution of society.

You hear that Emmeline Pankhurst?

Even the most ardent dictator can only stand so long in the face of opposition from those he oppresses. This is why the patriarchy has had to yield to feminists, and black rights and gay rights groups.

No, feminism hasn't made all the changes for the better. Why would be claim that? Of course other groups have done their part for their own members too.

The Suffragettes wanted votes for wealthy women. The rest could rot.

Annie. If the 'Patriarchy' was an all powerful society, such change would not happen. 'Patriarchy' is a feminist theory dreamt up by feminists to excuse women's behaviour and blame men. It was a masterstroke, and certainly gained traction, but people are starting to question it, I see it all the time now, whereas even 2 years ago, nobody really did. This is certainly a good thing, and it is this questioning of feminist theory, rather than believing it, that will ultimately 'help men', as you put it.

And, to go back to the start of this thread, Mike Buchanan's party will speed up the questioning.

How funny that you should think that sigmund, when the banners said "Votes for Women" not "Votes for rich women."

Mike Buchanan's party will not get anywhere - Brand new political parties with dodgy anti-women agendas will pick up a few angry men and women - but that's it.

Mike will probably end up an MEP or something like Kilroy Silk, which is worrying because he has some really extreme views.

sigmund: If the 'Patriarchy' was an all powerful society...

Who use the words "all powerful"?

Er, feminists.

Patriarchy exercises mind-control. Patriarchy influences everything.

Patriarchy. Patriarchy. Patriarchy. In fact, I was once pitied by a feminist online because I was only typing out what patriarchy had conditioned me to.

I'd say that was pretty powerful. Or bollocks.

"It seems to be a huge factor in whether men sell out other men. Don't want their princesses getting hurt. Who would, of course, but some men seem to lose all rational thought and go into way over the top protect mode. "

What the hell are you going on about, SF? The ability to see the world outside of maleness isn't gifted because you help produce a daughter.

I said 'some' Pan. Are you going to deny it's the case for some?

Sorry to butt in here. However.

The Home office crime stats say that suspects in cases of violent crime break down somewhat differently to the Independent's view of them.

England and Wales Percentages
Relationship Male victims Female victims

(367 offences) (172 offences)

Partner/ex-partner 5 51
Other family 11 18
Other known 39 9
Stranger 34 15
No suspect 12 7

Source: Homicide Index, Home Office

My arithmetic is awful, but 5% of 367 is somewhat less than 51% of 172, isn't it? So I would be interested to know where they got the figures from as well.

There was also a link which included lots of 'facts' about why men have it so tough which included some erroneous information about the British Army, should anyone be interested in the correct information, I'm happy to provide it.

I do not identify as a feminist, by the way, so have no particular axe to grind either way, I have been reading this thread with interest though as the mother of 2 boys, neither of whom has been brought up to judge people by the contents of their underwear.

Oops! The table didn't come out too well, do hope it makes sense though

Yes, I would, that v v few men who have daughters suddenly lose rational thought and sign up as feminists, as you suggest. I'd suggest as a more reasonable assertion that far more men who didn't see society predominantly 'run' by men become a better bit informed by the discrimination that they see their daughters will face, and that may affect their thinking, awareness and behaviour.
fwiw refs. to 'little princesses' is slightly insulting, but there you go.

I think Mike's party will be successful. It will be consciousness raising, and I'm grateful that someone's prepared to stick their neck out and point out that things aren't quite as they seem.

The article I linked to is a case in point. More and more of these articles are appearing.

Well we're going to have to agree to differ then Pan. I have read comments on blogs where men have said that the essentially became feminists when they had daughters.

Would you care to enlighten me as to the discrimination their daughters will face?

I think you're a little confused Sigmund. Unless you've been talking to some weird sub-sect of feminists, most of us realise that the patriarchy is just the way society is set up - a merge of ideals, principles and morals. It's not an entity, a secret world "board of directors" or a force with any kind of intelligent design. It's just the way society "is". Which makes it infinitely open to influence and change.

Are you perhaps confusing the patriarchy with the Illuminati?

Pan didn't disagree with your point that men became feminists when they had daughters, Sigmund. He disagreed with you as to their reasons for doing so.

'Patriarchy' is a feminist theory dreamt up by feminists to excuse women's behaviour and blame men.

That is a seriously deluded statement to make - especially in view of Annie posting a definition of patriarchal society for you a few pages back.

I don't know about 'all powerful' but it's certainly been a political struggle to get some of the laws through improving equality for women. All the legal changes to improve womens' status in society have been through serious campaigning by women's groups.

By it's very definition patriarchy is oppressive to women, and women have been oppressed for centuries - 150 years ago married women were the mere chattel of their husbands. A daughter was seen as property of a man until she was married off, and 'given away' to another man in a wedding ceremony.

It has taken decades and decades of women's political pressure to chip away at the patriarchy, to even begin to put women on a level playing field with men. We're not there yet - the statistics for the pay gap, number of women in boardrooms/parliament, rape conviction statistics and dv murder rate back that up.

It was only 20 years ago that the law changed to a say a married woman could be raped by her husband. Which says something about married women historically being seen as property of their husbands.

Sf, is it your contention that western society used to be patriarchal but now has developed beyond that, or that it never was patriarchal?

I think you're a little confused Sigmund. Unless you've been talking to some weird sub-sect of feminists, most of us realise that the patriarchy is just the way society is set up - a merge of ideals, principles and morals. It's not an entity, a secret world "board of directors" or a force with any kind of intelligent design. It's just the way society "is". Which makes it infinitely open to influence and change.

Are you perhaps confusing the patriarchy with the Illuminati?

Yes, absolutely that ^^

SF - most of that discrimination has already been pointed up to you on this thread, and I'm sure over on the FWR/chat as well, over the years. I have other more productive things to do that repeat stuff to you.