Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's International Women's Day message: think of the men

[ray245]

The wife of prime minister Justin Trudeau divided opinion on social media with a post inviting praise for men and boys who promote gender equality

Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, the wife of Canada’s prime minister, has set off a social media firestorm by suggesting women celebrate International Women’s Day by highlighting boys and men who promote gender equality.

The post appeared on several social media sites on Tuesday. “This week, as we mark International Women’s Day, let’s celebrate the boys and men in our lives who encourage us to be who we truly are, who treat girls & women with respect, and who aren’t afraid to speak up in front of others,” Grégoire Trudeau wrote.


'A Day Without a Woman' faces a pivotal question – what woman is it for?
Read more
She urged women to snap a photo of themselves with a male ally and share it on social media, adding: “Together, we can create a movement that inspires more men to join the fight to build a better tomorrow with equal rights & opportunities for everyone … because #EqualityMatters.”

The post was accompanied by a photo of Grégoire Trudeau holding hands and gazing into the eyes of her husband, Justin Trudeau, a self-described feminist.

Reaction was swift. While more than 13,000 people on Facebook said they liked or loved the post, thousands of others blasted Grégoire Trudeau for being tone deaf.

“364 days a year I am all up to holding hands with my favourite men and creating partnerships and alliances that will support equality,” read one of the top-ranked responses. “But today I don’t want to celebrate men. I want to remember all women who protested against not being able to vote, talked about unequal pay, stood up to the society, protecting our rights and freedoms.”

Other commenters described the post as “utterly ridiculous” and “shameful” while one asked: “I have to first be oppressed in patriarchy, but also spend more emotional labour comforting men who make any effort whatsoever?”

Another added: “Yes, let’s celebrate the men who, in a world that is still dominated by patriarchal culture, give us permission (because we need it?) to be ourselves, be safe, and be heard. No thanks. My parents raised me to know that all of that is a right, not a privilege granted by men. I will instead thank the generations of women around the world who never forgot their inherent dignity and worth, helping me to preserve my own.”

Some juxtaposed Grégoire Trudeau’s words with her husband’s actions. “If your husband were a true feminist and, by your own definition isn’t ‘afraid to speak up in front of others’, he would denounce Trump personally and his administration’s misogyny. Until he does, he’s a lip-service feminist and I can’t take him seriously as a fighter for the cause.”

While several world leaders have taken aim at the US president over his actions, Trudeau has avoided any public criticism of Trump.

Others, however, backed Grégoire Trudeau’s viewpoint. “Despite the backlash you’re taking over this, I’d like to say thank you for the spirit of inclusion it was clearly meant in. We need more people reaching out and building bridges, finding genuine common ground and assuming goodwill from each other if we’re to repair the fractures that have been spreading in our society,” read one comment. Another added cheekily: “I’m single. Can I borrow Justin to take a picture with him?”

Hours later, Grégoire Trudeau weighed in with a second post. “Well, now we’re having a conversation! Thanks to everyone for your feedback and pics! Love it,” she wrote. “Our goal is gender equality, and fighting for it is going to require men and women working together – raising our boys and girls to make a difference, hand-in-hand. This is about recognizing that we should be allies on this journey,” she added.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... ns-day-men

I think this is worth commenting upon. I get why some women are upset with her words, but at the same time, it really drives into the heart of social activism today. It's a large part why the response to BLM movement was the slogan All lifes matter.

The fear of social activism seems to be in large part driven by the fear of exclusivity. Black lifes matter is taken by some to mean white lives doesn't matter, and feminism is taken by some as men hating.

I feel that there is some level of anxiety among many guys about the point of the male gender whenever they come across a feminism topic. If feminsim is about celebrating the ability of the female gender and feeling proud of it, then what are the things that are deemed acceptable for men to feel pride in? This seems to be a rather prevalent concern among those that felt anxious about identity politics.

[Shroom Man 777]

I get that... but for fuck's sake, oh no they're so worried because there are SOME times when they're not hot shit and where other people are given consideration. Boohoo!

Sheesh. Do they ALWAYS need cookies in order to behave? Ugh.

[Khaat]

1) Feminism isn't woman-centric (quite the opposite: it's about equality between the sexes)
2) International Women's Day is woman-centric by design ("celebrating the social, economic, cultural and political achievements of women.")

[Dragon Angel]

"All Lives Matter" was a slogan designed to distract from what BLM was founded to promote: that the lives of black people matter as well, in addition to the lives of white people. The people who twisted it to somehow mean black lives matter "more" were people who had a hard right agenda to push. This is something that I understood since the day it was coined without looking extensively at my commie leftist circles, and I really don't know why people don't bother to research it more.

The same with feminism. Feminism was never meant to say women deserved more rights than men, as several people like to strawman it as. Feminism was always about equality of gender rights and opportunities. Nowadays it's extended to include LGBTQ groups, but the principle remains the same.

Are there people who go all "kill all white people" or "kill all men" or whatever? Yeah, but, how does this represent the totality of activism? Let's not just burn the baby, let's scorch all the Earth and evaporate the oceans while we're at it! It's very easy to go search on Twitter or Tumblr or whatever for several lone posts but until the day comes when the entire movement's raison d'etre is to put all white men into labor camps or whatever, I'm never going to give these anti-activist cretins any second of my time.

I find absolutely no merit to people making shit up about activism for equality. Usually, these arguments are parroted from dishonest shits like Sargon who love to misrepresent them horrible SJWs!!!

Anyway, what can men feel pride in? ...Anything? Why is that such a huge question? The reason for days like this is to highlight achievements from underrepresented groups, and I see the justification for them every time I see trolls rant about how women have achieved nothing at all in the past and how all of society has been built by and for men. We don't want that obvious falsehood taking over the narrative, now do we?

[ray245]

"All Lives Matter" was a slogan designed to distract from what BLM was founded to promote: that the lives of black people matter as well, in addition to the lives of white people. The people who twisted it to somehow mean black lives matter "more" were people who had a hard right agenda to push. This is something that I understood since the day it was coined without looking extensively at my commie leftist circles, and I really don't know why people don't bother to research it more.

The wording of the term doesn't help, because it is exactly something that can be twisted into meaning something else entirely. But more importantly, the challenges of identity politics is not merely to raise awareness of the current problems, but also figuring out how to build bridges. If people are opposed to you are paranoid, you aren't helping the situation by making them even more paranoid.

The same with feminism. Feminism was never meant to say women deserved more rights than men, as several people like to strawman it as. Feminism was always about equality of gender rights and opportunities. Nowadays it's extended to include LGBTQ groups, but the principle remains the same.

Are there people who go all "kill all white people" or "kill all men" or whatever? Yeah, but, how does this represent the totality of activism? Let's not just burn the baby, let's scorch all the Earth and evaporate the oceans while we're at it! It's very easy to go search on Twitter or Tumblr or whatever for several lone posts but until the day comes when the entire movement's raison d'etre is to put all white men into labor camps or whatever, I'm never going to give these anti-activist cretins any second of my time.

I find absolutely no merit to people making shit up about activism for equality. Usually, these arguments are parroted from dishonest shits like Sargon who love to misrepresent them horrible SJWs!!!

But the reason why people accepted some of the bullshit largely stems from the fear of the movements and change itself. Such movements are by and large meant to be confrontational, which creates a level of anxiety for some. You can't simply ignore these people by calling them idiots. It doesn't really do much to actually help feminism and other social movements.

Anyway, what can men feel pride in? ...Anything? Why is that such a huge question? The reason for days like this is to highlight achievements from underrepresented groups, and I see the justification for them every time I see trolls rant about how women have achieved nothing at all in the past and how all of society has been built by and for men. We don't want that obvious falsehood taking over the narrative, now do we?

I'm not talking those idiots that think that males are the only group that build up society. I'm talking about ways in which males can take pride in their own identity in a truly gender equal society. Women can always celebrate their identity based on the struggles they managed to overcome throughout history based on their gender, but would a men be able to celebrate their identity based on their gender without being misogynistic?

In other words, it has always been easier for men to gain achievements than women throughout history. So in what way are their accomplisment simply not being "trivalised" for being male? I think that's a big issue for identity politics to consider. Everyone wants to feel a sense of pride in their own identity, regardless of the level of advantages their identity confer.

[Dragon Angel]

The wording of the term doesn't help, because it is exactly something that can be twisted into meaning something else entirely. But more importantly, the challenges of identity politics is not merely to raise awareness of the current problems, but also figuring out how to build bridges. If people are opposed to you are paranoid, you aren't helping the situation by making them even more paranoid.

How is the wording vague? "Black Lives Matter" says what it says: people of color's lives matter, and they shouldn't be treated like dirt. It seems like only a pedant of the highest order would construe that as "Black Lives Matter, BUT YOU DIDN'T SAY 'TOO' OR 'ALSO', you're being so exclusive!!" That's like, basically looking for an excuse to trash on the groups. That's going to happen no matter what term they use even if they added "too", "also", or some other synonym, and the only way to get around such people would be to name the movement something insanely long as to be unsupportable.

I mean, look at how anti-SJWs love to trash on the term "intersectionality" without actually knowing the meaning behind it. If people can't be bothered to go and Google these things and instead perhaps only listen to their favorite conservative echo chamber, well, that's their problem, not ours. You can't placate a group that isn't willing to listen.

But the reason why people accepted some of the bullshit largely stems from the fear of the movements and change itself. Such movements are by and large meant to be confrontational, which creates a level of anxiety for some. You can't simply ignore these people by calling them idiots. It doesn't really do much to actually help feminism and other social movements.

If you mean the dishonest shits, they are most definitely not being ignored, and have been brought up, pilloried, and refuted countless times. If you mean people caught in the middle, well, how else do you want change to be carried out? Change is not a question of meekly asking for better rights for you and your kind. Change is a matter of making demands that you want equality, that you want to be treated as a human being, and you will settle for nothing less. No one has received recognition for being passive, deferential.

If they're being rattled by us asking to be recognized as human beings, then perhaps they should look into why they feel so threatened. Is it that they're fearing they will lose their rights in society? Well good news, feminists have also argued countless times that men shouldn't be stripped from their homes, jobs, recognitions, and the clothes on their backs for simply being men.

Is it that they're fearing they will no longer be top dogs simply because they have dicks? Well, boo hoo? If you fear that you will lose your social status simply because your female coworkers will be paid equally, or that women will have opportunities beyond the kitchen, then that's something else you'll have to examine within yourself, too. That is an extremely unhealthy attitude to have in this year of our Lord 2017, and your female friends (or girlfriend/wife if applicable) will probably not appreciate it from you.

I'm not talking those idiots that think that males are the only group that build up society. I'm talking about ways in which males can take pride in their own identity in a truly gender equal society. Women can always celebrate their identity based on the struggles they managed to overcome throughout history based on their gender, but would a men be able to celebrate their identity based on their gender without being misogynistic?

In other words, it has always been easier for men to gain achievements than women throughout history. So in what way are their accomplisment simply not being "trivalised" for being male? I think that's a big issue for identity politics to consider. Everyone wants to feel a sense of pride in their own identity, regardless of the level of advantages their identity confer.

But who is doing that? Who is literally trivializing male accomplishments for the sake of them having been made by men? Is Einstein being disregarded now by feminists? Is Martin Luther King being discredited simply because he was a man? What about all the Ancient Greek philosophers?

Who is actually saying these things? It can't be an issue to consider because this is such a non-issue to begin with. It's tilting at windmills. There is no point in wasting thought on something that just does not exist. You might as well worry about the geocentrics and flat Earthers polluting science with their incredibly valid theories. This isn't a zero sum game where women's recognition ipso facto means all men's accomplishments are nullified and voided. This is just a group that has been historically been disenfranchised being given efforts to alleviate the utter historical weight that has been put on them for so long.

...

Also on another note, I find it deliciously ironic too that so many of these men who bitch about not having a Men's Recognition Day or something overlap greatly in a venn diagram with men who bitch about people wanting to be "special snowflakes". This is literally wanting a special day just for your own gender that's ... already ..... well recognized literally everywhere else.

[Terralthra]

It's worse than that. There is an International Men's Day. It's 19 November. Has been for years. Funny how "Men's Rights Activists" don't know that, and only bother to ask about it on International Women's Day.

[ray245]

How is the wording vague? "Black Lives Matter" says what it says: people of color's lives matter, and they shouldn't be treated like dirt. It seems like only a pedant of the highest order would construe that as "Black Lives Matter, BUT YOU DIDN'T SAY 'TOO' OR 'ALSO', you're being so exclusive!!" That's like, basically looking for an excuse to trash on the groups. That's going to happen no matter what term they use even if they added "too", "also", or some other synonym, and the only way to get around such people would be to name the movement something insanely long as to be unsupportable.

But that's the point. Using the word "too" creates a sense of commonality between groups. Wording does have an impact on how people view things, especially for people that aren't interested in doing more research on a particular topic. It's about marketing a topic.

I mean, look at how anti-SJWs love to trash on the term "intersectionality" without actually knowing the meaning behind it. If people can't be bothered to go and Google these things and instead perhaps only listen to their favorite conservative echo chamber, well, that's their problem, not ours. You can't placate a group that isn't willing to listen.

There's been a breakdown in communication in the Internet age. With people being increasingly selective of the communities they chose to be a part off, you cannot expect the vast majority of people to suddenly google the topics in depth and be ready to change their views so readily. The rise of Trump is a symptom that the current methods aren't working well.

But the reason why people accepted some of the bullshit largely stems from the fear of the movements and change itself. Such movements are by and large meant to be confrontational, which creates a level of anxiety for some. You can't simply ignore these people by calling them idiots. It doesn't really do much to actually help feminism and other social movements.

If you mean the dishonest shits, they are most definitely not being ignored, and have been brought up, pilloried, and refuted countless times. If you mean people caught in the middle, well, how else do you want change to be carried out? Change is not a question of meekly asking for better rights for you and your kind. Change is a matter of making demands that you want equality, that you want to be treated as a human being, and you will settle for nothing less. No one has received recognition for being passive, deferential.

And the demands are largely met based on the willingness of the dominant groups take listen. The civil rights and suffrages movement aren't won by simply making demands alone. The suffrages movement willingly support the war effort in WW1 was seen as a major reason why they won their rights. Building a sense of commonality is important if you want rights to be achieved without using armed struggle.

Take this as an example:



How you chose to frame an issue does matter.

If they're being rattled by us asking to be recognized as human beings, then perhaps they should look into why they feel so threatened. Is it that they're fearing they will lose their rights in society? Well good news, feminists have also argued countless times that men shouldn't be stripped from their homes, jobs, recognitions, and the clothes on their backs for simply being men.

Except the message is lost in the transmission. It's being misconstructed into something that implies women are superior to men in most ways other than grunt physical labour.

Is it that they're fearing they will no longer be top dogs simply because they have dicks? Well, boo hoo? If you fear that you will lose your social status simply because your female coworkers will be paid equally, or that women will have opportunities beyond the kitchen, then that's something else you'll have to examine within yourself, too. That is an extremely unhealthy attitude to have in this year of our Lord 2017, and your female friends (or girlfriend/wife if applicable) will probably not appreciate it from you.

I think this is about trying to redefine the concept of masculinity that evokes the real sense of fear. Traditional male gender roles are being challenged by the feminist movement. This isn't a bad thing on its own, but it does suggest that people do feel worried about being able to define themselves in identity terms.

But who is doing that? Who is literally trivializing male accomplishments for the sake of them having been made by men? Is Einstein being disregarded now by feminists? Is Martin Luther King being discredited simply because he was a man? What about all the Ancient Greek philosophers?

Are those accomplishments being seen in an exclusively male context? In what way is their success celebrated for their male identity specifically?

Who is actually saying these things? It can't be an issue to consider because this is such a non-issue to begin with. It's tilting at windmills. There is no point in wasting thought on something that just does not exist. You might as well worry about the geocentrics and flat Earthers polluting science with their incredibly valid theories. This isn't a zero sum game where women's recognition ipso facto means all men's accomplishments are nullified and voided. This is just a group that has been historically been disenfranchised being given efforts to alleviate the utter historical weight that has been put on them for so long.

Those people who deem feminism as something ought to be challenged or trivialized? The ramifications of disenfranchised groups wanting to celebrate and be proud of their identity are that everyone else wants to be able to do the same. It's why those opposed to feminism is taking the term "men's rights".

Also on another note, I find it deliciously ironic too that so many of these men who bitch about not having a Men's Recognition Day or something overlap greatly in a venn diagram with men who bitch about people wanting to be "special snowflakes". This is literally wanting a special day just for your own gender that's ... already ..... well recognized literally everywhere else.

Part of the reason why people bitch about others wanting to be "special snowflakes" is they want to be "special snowflakes" themselves. Afterall, apparently being "special snowflakes" creates a nice warm fuzzy feeling.

It's worse than that. There is an International Men's Day. It's 19 November. Has been for years. Funny how "Men's Rights Activists" don't know that, and only bother to ask about it on International Women's Day.

I would say that there isn't exactly any big movement to celebrate that day, particularly on the social media.

[Joun_Lord]

I can see both sides of this.

One the one hand its a day for women, its about celebrating female rights and accomplishments and junk. Its their day. Talking about men's contributions is like talking about your daddy on Mothers Day. Women fought long and hard to get equal rights, to not be treated like cattle (sometimes worse), to be given all the same rights and opportunities as anyone born with a penis. Even against an entire society constructed to keep them down, violence, thousands of years of entrenched behavior, organized religion, and that limitless supply of human stupidity women stood strong for their rights and thats a goddamn epic accomplishment that needs applauded and celebrated.

But on the other hand there is nothing wrong with acknowledging the fact that men have stood right alongside women. Men have been an integral part of the equal rights fight. The saying goes something like that behind every good man there is a good woman, well the reverse can be true too. The day is about women's rights and to not acknowledge the contributions of men would be like ignoring the contributions of Abe Lincoln, JFK, and Lyndon Johnson when talking about civil rights. Men were right out there with the ladies protested against them not being able to vote, talking 'bout unequal pay, stood up to the society, and protected their rights and freedoms.

But but again the day seems to have mutated to be about women in general and not just women's rights so talking about men even in relation to women kinda misses the point. Its like talking about the accomplishments of Senaturds on Presidents Day. Sure Senators have contributed much to society and Presidents in particular with some Presidents even being former Senators but its not their day. Or it would be like on your birthday your family talking about your sibling, how they taught you to swim by trying to drown you or some other garbage of how they impacted your life. Yeah they did (sometimes literally) and thats something that needs highlighted but its not their day.

Ultimately I think Trudeau's talking about men for IWD fits the theme in a "meta" sort of way. Women's rights is all about giving the women the ability to decide their own lives, to choose what to believe and what to say and not be second class or submissive to men (unless they choose to be, possibly with PVC and leather involved). Mrs Trudeau choose to talk about men's contributions to equal rights and because of the female rights movement she has that right, that in my opinion really symbolizes women's rights.

[Dragon Angel]

Ray, next time please pack your replies more densely, because separating each paragraph is extreme quote spaghetti.

But that's the point. Using the word "too" creates a sense of commonality between groups. Wording does have an impact on how people view things, especially for people that aren't interested in doing more research on a particular topic. It's about marketing a topic.

This logic could be used to apply to any movement though, and in fact, had been. The Civil Rights Movement? "What civil rights, you already have civil rights, it's not like you're all slaves!" If you called "BLM" "Black Lives Matter Too" they'll say "How do black lives not already matter, it's not like there are roving bands of racists out to lynch you!" oh wait that is already being said.

There's been a breakdown in communication in the Internet age. With people being increasingly selective of the communities they chose to be a part off, you cannot expect the vast majority of people to suddenly google the topics in depth and be ready to change their views so readily. The rise of Trump is a symptom that the current methods aren't working well.

https://www.google.com/search?q=black+lives+matter
https://www.google.com/search?q=intersectionality
This is really too difficult? I mean, the second one literally has a card at the top explaining what it is. The very first item. If people are too fucking lazy to do this then what makes you think a vigorous debate or a pamphlet or whatever is going to change their minds? They won't even click on any sources you give them!

And the demands are largely met based on the willingness of the dominant groups take listen. The civil rights and suffrages movement aren't won by simply making demands alone. The suffrages movement willingly support the war effort in WW1 was seen as a major reason why they won their rights. Building a sense of commonality is important if you want rights to be achieved without using armed struggle.

Building commonality is good, but it is not the only way these movements were won. The Civil Rights Movement had the backing of factions that were willing to resort to violence if rights for black people were not granted. As much as people love to trot out MLK as if his method of nonviolent resistance was the only way the movement worked, that is sorely incomplete. The choice was between strong words from MLK, or stronger actions from the violent factions. They chose the former. To use another example, the Stonewall Riot was one of the key moments that sprung the quest for gay rights to existence.

A movement has to have teeth in order to win its freedoms, because if it doesn't, the people in power simply will not care.

Take this as an example:



How you chose to frame an issue does matter.

Context? And in any case, you'd still run into the people who will just misrepresent it anyway for who the fuck knows.

Except the message is lost in the transmission. It's being misconstructed into something that implies women are superior to men in most ways other than grunt physical labour.

Misconstructed by whom? Antifeminist talking heads? This is an argument as old as feminism existing. It's not going to go away by rebranding feminism into some long useless phrase.

I think this is about trying to redefine the concept of masculinity that evokes the real sense of fear. Traditional male gender roles are being challenged by the feminist movement. This isn't a bad thing on its own, but it does suggest that people do feel worried about being able to define themselves in identity terms.

The only people confused about this are the people who listen to bullshit arguments from noted antifeminists.

Are those accomplishments being seen in an exclusively male context? In what way is their success celebrated for their male identity specifically?

Those people who deem feminism as something ought to be challenged or trivialized? The ramifications of disenfranchised groups wanting to celebrate and be proud of their identity are that everyone else wants to be able to do the same. It's why those opposed to feminism is taking the term "men's rights".

Why are they deeming feminism to be trivialized? What is the point? This reads like some poor justification for hating gays having laws making them equal because it grants them "extra rights". That's bullshit; the laws are meant to fight against prejudice and make sure people can't discriminate. Straight people don't need those laws because there was never a concept as straight discrimination to begin with.

This applies to recognition days. White people have always been historically recognized for their works. Men have always been historically recognized for their works. They have almost the entirety of human history as the space for recognition. People of color, women, LGBTQ, etc., though? Not. This is not a difficult concept to understand.

I would say that there isn't exactly any big movement to celebrate that day, particularly on the social media.

The solution to that isn't to whine that the other day exists. That's useless. That accomplishes nothing but giving people of that day contempt for you.

[Block]

Dragon Angel, Ray is saying it's marketing, and he's right. Would it have hurt anything if the BLM movement had started as All Lives Matter? Now, you know and I know that was what most of the supporters meant, but branding is important, as is disarming obvious and lazy criticisms before they start. Same thing with Feminism, which is obviously a very broad and unfocused label. What would it hurt to rebrand as Egalitarianism and make a concerted effort to be inclusive of men, their partners in building an equal society? There are branches of Feminism that do that, some that are actively misandryst, but it's easier to promote partnership to improve the situation if you're able to include the majority in the group. Yes, intersectionality has become a big buzzword, but people still let themselves be broken up into these tiny groups and dismissed because they're not willing to die on each other's hills when it comes down to it.

[ray245]

Ray, next time please pack your replies more densely, because separating each paragraph is extreme quote spaghetti.

This logic could be used to apply to any movement though, and in fact, had been. The Civil Rights Movement? "What civil rights, you already have civil rights, it's not like you're all slaves!" If you called "BLM" "Black Lives Matter Too" they'll say "How do black lives not already matter, it's not like there are roving bands of racists out to lynch you!" oh wait that is already being said.

I think there is a huge difference between asking for civil rights and saying "Black Lives Matter", because the former does imply seeking equality than the latter.

https://www.google.com/search?q=black+lives+matter
https://www.google.com/search?q=intersectionality
This is really too difficult? I mean, the second one literally has a card at the top explaining what it is. The very first item. If people are too fucking lazy to do this then what makes you think a vigorous debate or a pamphlet or whatever is going to change their minds? They won't even click on any sources you give them!

Apparently so because people are living in their own bubble.

Building commonality is good, but it is not the only way these movements were won. The Civil Rights Movement had the backing of factions that were willing to resort to violence if rights for black people were not granted. As much as people love to trot out MLK as if his method of nonviolent resistance was the only way the movement worked, that is sorely incomplete. The choice was between strong words from MLK, or stronger actions from the violent factions. They chose the former. To use another example, the Stonewall Riot was one of the key moments that sprung the quest for gay rights to existence.

A movement has to have teeth in order to win its freedoms, because if it doesn't, the people in power simply will not care.

At the same time, not building any real bridges, or at the least failing to give off the impression that there's a bridge for others means an armed struggle. You can arm yourself to the teeth for all you want, but unless you're absolutely willing to wage an actual civil war and win it, you need to build commonality.

Context? And in any case, you'd still run into the people who will just misrepresent it anyway for who the fuck knows.

It's just a polling study, but it does show how framing your demands matters. Lowering implies a sense of reduction of existing rights and laws (even if that isn't the case), whereas giving implies that you're playing an active part in helping others.

Misconstructed by whom? Antifeminist talking heads? This is an argument as old as feminism existing. It's not going to go away by rebranding feminism into some long useless phrase.

I'm not talking about rebranding feminism in this thread. I think the feminism wording is fine and probably less confrontational sounding than BLM. I'm specifically talking about Sophie Gregoire Trudeau's decision to acknowledge her husband's role in promoting feminism and this is about what role can men play in the feminism movement.

It goes back to the question can men be feminist, or merely just "allies" in the movement.

I think this is about trying to redefine the concept of masculinity that evokes the real sense of fear. Traditional male gender roles are being challenged by the feminist movement. This isn't a bad thing on its own, but it does suggest that people do feel worried about being able to define themselves in identity terms.

The only people confused about this are the people who listen to bullshit arguments from noted antifeminists.

The desire to listen to and accept bullshit does have its roots somewhere. It's the same as the slaveowners who fear their entire family will be impoverished due to abolition. Their views are wrong, but that does not mean their sense of fear has no origins. If you keep ignoring some of the root causes for some problematic beliefs, you'll end up with another Trump presidency.

Are those accomplishments being seen in an exclusively male context? In what way is their success celebrated for their male identity specifically?

Those people who deem feminism as something ought to be challenged or trivialized? The ramifications of disenfranchised groups wanting to celebrate and be proud of their identity are that everyone else wants to be able to do the same. It's why those opposed to feminism is taking the term "men's rights".

Why are they deeming feminism to be trivialized? What is the point? This reads like some poor justification for hating gays having laws making them equal because it grants them "extra rights". That's bullshit; the laws are meant to fight against prejudice and make sure people can't discriminate. Straight people don't need those laws because there was never a concept as straight discrimination to begin with.

This isn't about laws protecting minorities. This is about seeking the sense of being a "special snowflake". The way I see it, those who attacks recent identity politics supporters for being "special snowflakes" are the people that wants to be "special snowflakes" themselves.

This applies to recognition days. White people have always been historically recognized for their works. Men have always been historically recognized for their works. They have almost the entirety of human history as the space for recognition. People of color, women, LGBTQ, etc., though? Not. This is not a difficult concept to understand.

True, but there's no real exclusivity about being White. What seems to upset people is that they feel their own personal struggles are being dismissed because they come from a more privileged background. It's being told "you had it easy" that really upset quite a few people.

The solution to that isn't to whine that the other day exists. That's useless. That accomplishes nothing but giving people of that day contempt for you.

I'm not saying whining is the solution. However, I would say celebrating International Men's day isn't something people would go around posting on social media. It's tied to modern challenges of redefining or abolishing male genders roles entirely. There are people that want to take pride in their own sense of self and identity. The problem is whether that can be possible without being misogynistic in any way.

That's the heart of the problem identity politics have to answer. If a minority ethnicity, women or LGBT can feel pride in their own identity for overcoming the challenges posed by society, then that becomes something that a majority ethnic group, men and etc would want to feel as well. Everyone wants to feel "special".

Dragon Angel, Ray is saying it's marketing, and he's right. Would it have hurt anything if the BLM movement had started as All Lives Matter? Now, you know and I know that was what most of the supporters meant, but branding is important, as is disarming obvious and lazy criticisms before they start. Same thing with Feminism, which is obviously a very broad and unfocused label. What would it hurt to rebrand as Egalitarianism and make a concerted effort to be inclusive of men, their partners in building an equal society? There are branches of Feminism that do that, some that are actively misandryst, but it's easier to promote partnership to improve the situation if you're able to include the majority in the group. Yes, intersectionality has become a big buzzword, but people still let themselves be broken up into these tiny groups and dismissed because they're not willing to die on each other's hills when it comes down to it.

It really doesn't help that some social movements are being worn as a brand.

[Dragon Angel]

Dragon Angel, Ray is saying it's marketing, and he's right. Would it have hurt anything if the BLM movement had started as All Lives Matter? Now, you know and I know that was what most of the supporters meant, but branding is important, as is disarming obvious and lazy criticisms before they start. Same thing with Feminism, which is obviously a very broad and unfocused label. What would it hurt to rebrand as Egalitarianism and make a concerted effort to be inclusive of men, their partners in building an equal society? There are branches of Feminism that do that, some that are actively misandryst, but it's easier to promote partnership to improve the situation if you're able to include the majority in the group. Yes, intersectionality has become a big buzzword, but people still let themselves be broken up into these tiny groups and dismissed because they're not willing to die on each other's hills when it comes down to it.

Then you take away from the focus the movement is trying to represent. "Black Lives Matter" is worded the way it is because cops tend to not view black lives as valuable as whites. "All Lives Matter" suffers from the fact that its message is not within its brand. People will lose the point of it besides researching deeper into the matter, of which Ray has already asserted will not happen. You run into a similar problem using your own logic, but on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Feminism was branded feminism at the time because it stated that women deserved equal rights, equal opportunity to men. "Egalitarianism" loses the message inherent to the original cause. It becomes forgettable because you no longer get the thought of "hmm women are perhaps not being treated in a very good way right now" when you read it every time.

(I mean, I personally wouldn't care if people used the word "egalitarianism" but it seems like every time I've heard that mentioned in recent years it was used as an attack on the concept of feminism itself. In other words, not in an honest context. Intended to completely distract the conversation.)

If you want to talk about branding, there is a reason brands generally want their names to be as reflective of their purposes as possible. What you propose is a horrible branding methodology.

[Block]

Umm All lives Matter is absolutely on message for what BLM is trying to accomplish. It's actually more on message, because you're saying all lives matter the same amount, so start acting like it. Branding for social movements is different than for a product where you're trying to target specific psychographic subsets, instead you're trying to be as all inclusive as you can. The depth of message comes after you draw in as big an audience as possible. You can't really dilute a social movement in the same way you do a brand name for products, unless you try to take on too many issues at once.

[Dragon Angel]

I think there is a huge difference between asking for civil rights and saying "Black Lives Matter", because the former does imply seeking equality than the latter.

You missed the point. The former also may imply, to nonbelievers, that black people do not have civil rights already. If you took it to mean the entirety of the population, then imply that everyone already does not have civil rights. The problem with this game is that it can take infinite turns. You're going to have people misrepresenting any slogan to mean anything, and if you want to cover all bases then the slogan turns into an overly long paragraph that is no longer a slogan.

Apparently so because people are living in their own bubble.

Then how do you propose to reach them? If they won't bother to move outside their bubble then it's trying to win a victory in a burning house.

At the same time, not building any real bridges, or at the least failing to give off the impression that there's a bridge for others means an armed struggle. You can arm yourself to the teeth for all you want, but unless you're absolutely willing to wage an actual civil war and win it, you need to build commonality.

I, uh, what? "Armed struggle"? "Civil war"? Can you rephrase this in less dramatic terms?

I'm not talking about rebranding feminism in this thread. I think the feminism wording is fine and probably less confrontational sounding than BLM. I'm specifically talking about Sophie Gregoire Trudeau's decision to acknowledge her husband's role in promoting feminism and this is about what role can men play in the feminism movement.

As I mentioned to Block, there is a reason feminism and BLM are worded the way they are, shared between the movements. The reason I even brought up All Lives Matter was because you brought it up in your post.

The desire to listen to and accept bullshit does have its roots somewhere. It's the same as the slaveowners who fear their entire family will be impoverished due to abolition. Their views are wrong, but that does not mean their sense of fear has no origins. If you keep ignoring some of the root causes for some problematic beliefs, you'll end up with another Trump presidency.

Who is ignoring the root causes? I already told you, these matters have been constantly refuted time after time. There is only so many ways to restate something before you realize those people just aren't going to listen.

You have to show me where these people are being ignored. We can try reaching to them, but if they aren't going to bother stepping out of their echo chambers of racism or whatever, that is not the problem of the activists. That's a problem of the people themselves. It's grossly unfair to say activists must take responsibility for those people's lack of interest.

This isn't about laws protecting minorities. This is about seeking the sense of being a "special snowflake". The way I see it, those who attacks recent identity politics supporters for being "special snowflakes" are the people that wants to be "special snowflakes" themselves.

You missed the point again. I made that comparison because these types will also view marginalized community protection laws as snowflake-ism. "Why are they gaining extra rights, why am I not being given extra rights too??"

True, but there's no real exclusivity about being White. What seems to upset people is that they feel their own personal struggles are being dismissed because they come from a more privileged background. It's being told "you had it easy" that really upset quite a few people.

"You had it easy" is not the message. "You don't suffer discrimination based on things like your name sounding too foreign to be recruited" and statements like that are the message. Which are ... statements of objective fact. I'm not going to believe you intentionally strawmanned that, but you perhaps got that message from yet another dishonest source.

I'm not saying whining is the solution. However, I would say celebrating International Men's day isn't something people would go around posting on social media. It's tied to modern challenges of redefining or abolishing male genders roles entirely. There are people that want to take pride in their own sense of self and identity. The problem is whether that can be possible without being misogynistic in any way.

That's the heart of the problem identity politics have to answer. If a minority ethnicity, women or LGBT can feel pride in their own identity for overcoming the challenges posed by society, then that becomes something that a majority ethnic group, men and etc would want to feel as well. Everyone wants to feel "special".

This is begging the question. "Identity politics" (god fuck I hate that term) has already answered that. Part of it includes "Don't trash on women while you're celebrating your manhood." Do you literally see the movement explicitly trying to forbid men from posting accomplishments with things like #MANLY? Do you literally see the movement, aside from several extremists, saying men should be silenced? Because I see feminists actually campaigning against those extremists. I see feminists saying men also have societal expectations that are toxic, and should also be abolished.

People who say feminism isn't addressing these matters are not looking or have a hatchet against it already.

[Dragon Angel]

Umm All lives Matter is absolutely on message for what BLM is trying to accomplish. It's actually more on message, because you're saying all lives matter the same amount, so start acting like it. Branding for social movements is different than for a product where you're trying to target specific psychographic subsets, instead you're trying to be as all inclusive as you can. The depth of message comes after you draw in as big an audience as possible. You can't really dilute a social movement in the same way you do a brand name for products, unless you try to take on too many issues at once.

But are cops focusing police violence on whites just as much as they focus on blacks? No, not close. Hence, why it is known as Black Lives Matter. Police abuse also affects whites, but it does so to a much lesser degree than it has for black communities. Take this from me, a white as fuck trans woman who knows how cops also tend to discriminate against LGBTQ and especially trans people. I'm pasty white, and even I still acknowledge that black people are going to have that so much worse.

Also it's ironic you mention "try to take on too many issues at once" because that is literally what generically branding All Lives Matter or Egalistarianism does. You've defeated your own argument.

I also acknowledge logically that rules made to curb police abuse against black people will also roll over to curb police abuse against LGBTQs, because lawmakers are going to make checks against police power apply as broadly as they can.

[ray245]

You missed the point. The former also may imply, to nonbelievers, that black people do not have civil rights already. If you took it to mean the entirety of the population, then imply that everyone already does not have civil rights. The problem with this game is that it can take infinite turns. You're going to have people misrepresenting any slogan to mean anything, and if you want to cover all bases then the slogan turns into an overly long paragraph that is no longer a slogan.

Sure, there will always be people that misrepresent slogans. However, certain slogans is by and large far easier to misconstrue than others.

Then how do you propose to reach them? If they won't bother to move outside their bubble then it's trying to win a victory in a burning house

I would think that message like Sophie Trudeau is helpful to the process? This is helping to define the roles others can play in fighting for equal rights.

I, uh, what? "Armed struggle"? "Civil war"? Can you rephrase this in less dramatic terms?

You do know that there were movements calling from armed response during the civil rights movement and carving a seperate state from the US?

As I mentioned to Block, there is a reason feminism and BLM are worded the way they are, shared between the movements. The reason I even brought up All Lives Matter was because you brought it up in your post.

I'm using BLM mainly because it is becoming a movement that is seen as burning any sense of commonality between different ethnicity in the US. I do not think that is the intention of BLM in any way, but the people challenging the movement are being rather effective in sending out a very different message.

Who is ignoring the root causes? I already told you, these matters have been constantly refuted time after time. There is only so many ways to restate something before you realize those people just aren't going to listen.

Adopting a confrontational attitude is never really going to change their mind. People are far less likely to listen to you if the first thing they hear from you is insults.

You have to show me where these people are being ignored. We can try reaching to them, but if they aren't going to bother stepping out of their echo chambers of racism or whatever, that is not the problem of the activists. That's a problem of the people themselves. It's grossly unfair to say activists must take responsibility for those people's lack of interest.

Reaching them? Like how? What we are getting is everyone calling the other side with mere insults and idiots to be mocked.

You missed the point again. I made that comparison because these types will also view marginalized community protection laws as snowflake-ism. "Why are they gaining extra rights, why am I not being given extra rights too??"

That's the problem with how things are being portrayed. Put it this way, people are far more happy to give equality to others than allow others to gain equality. It's like charity. Giving to charity makes people feel differently from paying taxes to help the poor.

"You had it easy" is not the message. "You don't suffer discrimination based on things like your name sounding too foreign to be recruited" and statements like that are the message. Which are ... statements of objective fact. I'm not going to believe you intentionally strawmanned that, but you perhaps got that message from yet another dishonest source.

But that's the message people are feeling. Emotions aren't exactly logical, even more so when you're competing with others for limited space ( be it university places, jobs and etc).

This is begging the question. "Identity politics" (god fuck I hate that term) has already answered that. Part of it includes "Don't trash on women while you're celebrating your manhood." Do you literally see the movement explicitly trying to forbid men from posting accomplishments with things like #MANLY? Do you literally see the movement, aside from several extremists, saying men should be silenced? Because I see feminists actually campaigning against those extremists. I see feminists saying men also have societal expectations that are toxic, and should also be abolished.

Feminism is essentially a movement that tries to remove gender boundaries and to a large extend the concept of gender roles. What's so good about being #MANLY when it still relies on certain traditional assumptions about male gender roles? Is being a Soldier manly? Is being strong physically manly?

At the same time, as much as we want to, extremists do tend to have a far louder voice than their size would imply. It's been 16 years since 9/11 and we are still struggling to tell the world most Muslims aren't Islamic fanatics.

People who say feminism isn't addressing these matters are not looking or have a hatchet against it already.

I think the feminism is addressing the issues. It's why Emma Watson launched her campaign as He for She. The problem is it does not heavily involve men in trying to redefine a new role for being a male. I think Sophie Trudeau is trying to do that by bringing up her husband. However, there are a number of women who is really pissed off with her for doing so.

Feminism needs to be seen as a movement which men can take an active part in trying to redefine new roles for being men. If not, you'll end up with all the "men rights movement" popping up.

[Dragon Angel]

Sure, there will always be people that misrepresent slogans. However, certain slogans is by and large far easier to misconstrue than others.

"Black Lives Matter" is not equivalent to "Only Black Lives Matter". It takes a certain amount of bias to insert the extra meaning, and that bias is going to find fault with anything you give it.

I would think that message like Sophie Trudeau is helpful to the process? This is helping to define the roles others can play in fighting for equal rights.

It can be helpful, but it comes across as very tone deaf to do it on International Women's Day of all days, a single day of the year that was specifically set aside to promote women's achievements. In light of that, how else should it come across to activists? Her actions, no matter how well-intentioned, are very much overshadowed by her timing.

Choose another day. Not this one day to promote your unity. Just let women have the spotlight for one fucking day without having men shoved into the picture as if we're all pretending men don't exist. That's just plain rude.

You do know that there were movements calling from armed response during the civil rights movement and carving a seperate state from the US?

Yes I do since I'm the one who mentioned it. What I mean is I have no idea what you're saying, because it starts from the assumption there is absolutely no outreach to build bridges from BLM, or that there was none in the Civil Rights Movement. Both of which are false.

I'm using BLM mainly because it is becoming a movement that is seen as burning any sense of commonality between different ethnicity in the US. I do not think that is the intention of BLM in any way, but the people challenging the movement are being rather effective in sending out a very different message.

How are they burning any sense of commonality? You haven't demonstrated that. All you've been doing is asserting it.

Adopting a confrontational attitude is never really going to change their mind. People are far less likely to listen to you if the first thing they hear from you is insults.

Reaching them? Like how? What we are getting is everyone calling the other side with mere insults and idiots to be mocked.

These arguments were used against black activists in the Civil Rights Movement too. People took Martin Luther King's strong words as mockery, as insults. Even supposed liberals. This is nothing at all new. Strong language is going to be interpreted as "insulting" simply because it is strong and not deferential to authority. And that is the problem at hand: You cannot make gains in society if you are deferential and meek.

That's the problem with how things are being portrayed. Put it this way, people are far more happy to give equality to others than allow others to gain equality. It's like charity. Giving to charity makes people feel differently from paying taxes to help the poor.

This ... makes no sense, unless you work from the assumption every human is that narcissistic. "Oh how MERCIFUL of you to give me equality, oh masters! Please let me keep it, please!" That's an awfully cynical view.

But that's the message people are feeling. Emotions aren't exactly logical, even more so when you're competing with others for limited space ( be it university places, jobs and etc).

This is the thought process of an immigrant-fearing Trump voter, who is already operating on alternative facts anyway...

Feminism is essentially a movement that tries to remove gender boundaries and to a large extend the concept of gender roles. What's so good about being #MANLY when it still relies on certain traditional assumptions about male gender roles? Is being a Soldier manly? Is being strong physically manly?

At the same time, as much as we want to, extremists do tend to have a far louder voice than their size would imply. It's been 16 years since 9/11 and we are still struggling to tell the world most Muslims aren't Islamic fanatics.

Being "manly" is anything a male-identified person wants to be. As long as it doesn't trash on the existence of femininity. Just as being "womanly" is anything a female-identified person wants to be. There are people who consider wearing pink T-shirts to be manly because it shows great confidence in light of a patriarchal view on color schemes. There are people who consider female athletes in all sports to show the strength of femininity.

The reason the extremists seem "louder" (and did you really have to bring radical Islam into this discussion...) is because shits like Sargon make it their life long mission to cherry pick tweets and Tumblr posts and insert whateverthefuckothersocialmediabullshit and harp on them as if they are at all representative. And this dishonesty is being treated as just as valid as feminism itself. Dishonesty. A case of someone spinning alternative facts to satisfy their own narrative that they militantly push.

I think the feminism is addressing the issues. It's why Emma Watson launched her campaign as He for She. The problem is it does not heavily involve men in trying to redefine a new role for being a male. I think Sophie Trudeau is trying to do that by bringing up her husband. However, there are a number of women who is really pissed off with her for doing so.

Feminism needs to be seen as a movement which men can take an active part in trying to redefine new roles for being men. If not, you'll end up with all the "men rights movement" popping up.

Well, I told you why those women are probably pissed off. I told you what the concepts of masculinity and femininity mean in feminism. I told you that a number of those are just a short Google away. It's really up to you if you want to consider those or not, or just continue to think these have not already been addressed.

[Vendetta]

"All Lives Matter" was a slogan designed to distract from what BLM was founded to promote: that the lives of black people matter as well, in addition to the lives of white people. The people who twisted it to somehow mean black lives matter "more" were people who had a hard right agenda to push. This is something that I understood since the day it was coined without looking extensively at my commie leftist circles, and I really don't know why people don't bother to research it more.

The wording of the term doesn't help, because it is exactly something that can be twisted into meaning something else entirely. But more importantly, the challenges of identity politics is not merely to raise awareness of the current problems, but also figuring out how to build bridges. If people are opposed to you are paranoid, you aren't helping the situation by making them even more paranoid.

The term "Black Lives Matter" came about because police in the United States need to be reminded of it.

[Block]

Umm All lives Matter is absolutely on message for what BLM is trying to accomplish. It's actually more on message, because you're saying all lives matter the same amount, so start acting like it. Branding for social movements is different than for a product where you're trying to target specific psychographic subsets, instead you're trying to be as all inclusive as you can. The depth of message comes after you draw in as big an audience as possible. You can't really dilute a social movement in the same way you do a brand name for products, unless you try to take on too many issues at once.

But are cops focusing police violence on whites just as much as they focus on blacks? No, not close. Hence, why it is known as Black Lives Matter. Police abuse also affects whites, but it does so to a much lesser degree than it has for black communities. Take this from me, a white as fuck trans woman who knows how cops also tend to discriminate against LGBTQ and especially trans people. I'm pasty white, and even I still acknowledge that black people are going to have that so much worse.

Also it's ironic you mention "try to take on too many issues at once" because that is literally what generically branding All Lives Matter or Egalistarianism does. You've defeated your own argument.

I also acknowledge logically that rules made to curb police abuse against black people will also roll over to curb police abuse against LGBTQs, because lawmakers are going to make checks against police power apply as broadly as they can.

No, I haven't defeated my own argument, at all. Focus on specific issues, try to include everyone in how you present your arguments. Unlike when Occupy tried to have an inclusive tent but then had 25+ demands and no clear policy goals. It's very clear you're not going to get what I'm saying because you have no interest in understanding what I'm saying. That's fine.

[ray245]

Sure, there will always be people that misrepresent slogans. However, certain slogans is by and large far easier to misconstrue than others.

"Black Lives Matter" is not equivalent to "Only Black Lives Matter". It takes a certain amount of bias to insert the extra meaning, and that bias is going to find fault with anything you give it.

I would think that message like Sophie Trudeau is helpful to the process? This is helping to define the roles others can play in fighting for equal rights.

It can be helpful, but it comes across as very tone deaf to do it on International Women's Day of all days, a single day of the year that was specifically set aside to promote women's achievements. In light of that, how else should it come across to activists? Her actions, no matter how well-intentioned, are very much overshadowed by her timing.

Choose another day. Not this one day to promote your unity. Just let women have the spotlight for one fucking day without having men shoved into the picture as if we're all pretending men don't exist. That's just plain rude.

You do know that there were movements calling from armed response during the civil rights movement and carving a seperate state from the US?

Yes I do since I'm the one who mentioned it. What I mean is I have no idea what you're saying, because it starts from the assumption there is absolutely no outreach to build bridges from BLM, or that there was none in the Civil Rights Movement. Both of which are false.

I'm using BLM mainly because it is becoming a movement that is seen as burning any sense of commonality between different ethnicity in the US. I do not think that is the intention of BLM in any way, but the people challenging the movement are being rather effective in sending out a very different message.

How are they burning any sense of commonality? You haven't demonstrated that. All you've been doing is asserting it.

Adopting a confrontational attitude is never really going to change their mind. People are far less likely to listen to you if the first thing they hear from you is insults.

Reaching them? Like how? What we are getting is everyone calling the other side with mere insults and idiots to be mocked.

These arguments were used against black activists in the Civil Rights Movement too. People took Martin Luther King's strong words as mockery, as insults. Even supposed liberals. This is nothing at all new. Strong language is going to be interpreted as "insulting" simply because it is strong and not deferential to authority. And that is the problem at hand: You cannot make gains in society if you are deferential and meek.

That's the problem with how things are being portrayed. Put it this way, people are far more happy to give equality to others than allow others to gain equality. It's like charity. Giving to charity makes people feel differently from paying taxes to help the poor.

This ... makes no sense, unless you work from the assumption every human is that narcissistic. "Oh how MERCIFUL of you to give me equality, oh masters! Please let me keep it, please!" That's an awfully cynical view.

But that's the message people are feeling. Emotions aren't exactly logical, even more so when you're competing with others for limited space ( be it university places, jobs and etc).

This is the thought process of an immigrant-fearing Trump voter, who is already operating on alternative facts anyway...

Feminism is essentially a movement that tries to remove gender boundaries and to a large extend the concept of gender roles. What's so good about being #MANLY when it still relies on certain traditional assumptions about male gender roles? Is being a Soldier manly? Is being strong physically manly?

At the same time, as much as we want to, extremists do tend to have a far louder voice than their size would imply. It's been 16 years since 9/11 and we are still struggling to tell the world most Muslims aren't Islamic fanatics.

Being "manly" is anything a male-identified person wants to be. As long as it doesn't trash on the existence of femininity. Just as being "womanly" is anything a female-identified person wants to be. There are people who consider wearing pink T-shirts to be manly because it shows great confidence in light of a patriarchal view on color schemes. There are people who consider female athletes in all sports to show the strength of femininity.

The reason the extremists seem "louder" (and did you really have to bring radical Islam into this discussion...) is because shits like Sargon make it their life long mission to cherry pick tweets and Tumblr posts and insert whateverthefuckothersocialmediabullshit and harp on them as if they are at all representative. And this dishonesty is being treated as just as valid as feminism itself. Dishonesty. A case of someone spinning alternative facts to satisfy their own narrative that they militantly push.

I think the feminism is addressing the issues. It's why Emma Watson launched her campaign as He for She. The problem is it does not heavily involve men in trying to redefine a new role for being a male. I think Sophie Trudeau is trying to do that by bringing up her husband. However, there are a number of women who is really pissed off with her for doing so.

Feminism needs to be seen as a movement which men can take an active part in trying to redefine new roles for being men. If not, you'll end up with all the "men rights movement" popping up.

Well, I told you why those women are probably pissed off. I told you what the concepts of masculinity and femininity mean in feminism. I told you that a number of those are just a short Google away. It's really up to you if you want to consider those or not, or just continue to think these have not already been addressed.

[Dragon Angel]

No, I haven't defeated my own argument, at all. Focus on specific issues, try to include everyone in how you present your arguments. Unlike when Occupy tried to have an inclusive tent but then had 25+ demands and no clear policy goals. It's very clear you're not going to get what I'm saying because you have no interest in understanding what I'm saying. That's fine.

> says the term feminism is "broad and unfocused"
> explained to that feminism was meant to target women's empowerment hence the name
> says a social movement can't be diluted unless too many issues taken at once
> misses the entire point of 'egalitarianism' doing exactly that
> states "focus on specific issues" as if feminism was not meant to do just that

I'm not sure I'm the one who has no interest in understanding the opposite side here.

[ray245]

Sorry for the mistake. I've somehow ate my own reply.

"Black Lives Matter" is not equivalent to "Only Black Lives Matter". It takes a certain amount of bias to insert the extra meaning, and that bias is going to find fault with anything you give it.

I know it's not. But it's extremely easy for a lot of people to see it as black lives deserve more attention over non-black people who are suffering in other ways.

It can be helpful, but it comes across as very tone deaf to do it on International Women's Day of all days, a single day of the year that was specifically set aside to promote women's achievements. In light of that, how else should it come across to activists? Her actions, no matter how well-intentioned, are very much overshadowed by her timing.

It is both tone deaf and helpful at the same time. It is drawing attention to how men can take part in international women's day. It's similar to LGBT who actively invite heterosexuals to take part in gay pride parade with them.

Choose another day. Not this one day to promote your unity. Just let women have the spotlight for one fucking day without having men shoved into the picture as if we're all pretending men don't exist. That's just plain rude.

I don't think there are other days as effective as this one. This shows that women are willing to bring their male partners to celebrate a day dedicated to womenhood. This shows just how willing feminist are in building a sense of connections.

Yes I do since I'm the one who mentioned it. What I mean is I have no idea what you're saying, because it starts from the assumption there is absolutely no outreach to build bridges from BLM, or that there was none in the Civil Rights Movement. Both of which are false.

The civil rights movement isn't being labelled as an exclusively black movement. It intersects with a wide variety of protest movement and helped non-blacks as well.

How are they burning any sense of commonality? You haven't demonstrated that. All you've been doing is asserting it.

Do you not think it's a problem when this allowed some racist groups to define themselves as "all lives matter"? It's ceding the perceived moral high ground to others.

These arguments were used against black activists in the Civil Rights Movement too. People took Martin Luther King's strong words as mockery, as insults. Even supposed liberals. This is nothing at all new. Strong language is going to be interpreted as "insulting" simply because it is strong and not deferential to authority. And that is the problem at hand: You cannot make gains in society if you are deferential and meek.

The same Martin Luther King that constantly talks about building a better future US for both white and blacks? It's not about being deferral and meek. It's about emphasising how the other group can take an active part in the process.

This ... makes no sense, unless you work from the assumption every human is that narcissistic. "Oh how MERCIFUL of you to give me equality, oh masters! Please let me keep it, please!" That's an awfully cynical view.

You're talking a world where a civil war is needed to end slavery. There's a very strong appeal in being seem as a liberator, especially in thr American context.

This is the thought process of an immigrant-fearing Trump voter, who is already operating on alternative facts anyway....

And that's enough to flip several Democrat stronghold states to the Republican party. The ignorant holds massive amount of power in the US.

Being "manly" is anything a male-identified person wants to be. As long as it doesn't trash on the existence of femininity. Just as being "womanly" is anything a female-identified person wants to be .

And that itself is a deconstruction of gender roles. If everyone is allowed to define category easily, then there's no real categories left.

There are people who consider wearing pink T-shirts to be manly because it shows great confidence in light of a patriarchal view on color schemes. There are people who consider female athletes in all sports to show the strength of femininity..

And those are the process and new ideals that men can be actively involve in. But that can't happen if feminism is seen as an exclusively female activity.

The reason the extremists seem "louder" (and did you really have to bring radical Islam into this discussion...) is because shits like Sargon make it their life long mission to cherry pick tweets and Tumblr posts and insert whateverthefuckothersocialmediabullshit and harp on them as if they are at all representative. And this dishonesty is being treated as just as valid as feminism itself. Dishonesty. A case of someone spinning alternative facts to satisfy their own narrative that they militantly push.

But those misinformation are very effective in undermining the appeal of supporting feminism among many guys. If we are unable to make Muslims look less threatening to the West, what makes you think the current approach is working? Sophie Treadu is breaking away from the norm, and I think this approach could see a bigger change. It's akin to the Selma march. Willing let yourself be harmed to show you aren't the real threat.

Well, I told you why those women are probably pissed off. I told you what the concepts of masculinity and femininity mean in feminism. I told you that a number of those are just a short Google away. It's really up to you if you want to consider those or not, or just continue to think these have not already been addressed.

I know why they are pissed off, and why they have legit reason to feel that way. But it's also about sacrificing ground to get the message across, because humans are too stupid to be convinced by mere logic alone. It's akin to letting yourself be beaten up in Selma in order to gain sympathy votes.

Having Justin Trudeau be the face of males supporting feminism is going to do a lot more to change people's mind than Emma Watson saying that at the UN.

[Dragon Angel]

I don't think there are other days as effective as this one. This shows that women are willing to bring their male partners to celebrate a day dedicated to womenhood. This shows just how willing feminist are in building a sense of connections.

Then perhaps we should introduce the whites who gave all applicable black people opportunities to make their achievements during black history month. After all, shoehorning them will make a great sense of connection between whites and blacks and not at all distract from the accomplishments black people made with their strength, with their knowledge and wisdom. The white man's burden must be recognized you see.

I know it's not. But it's extremely easy for a lot of people to see it as black lives deserve more attention over non-black people who are suffering in other ways.

The civil rights movement isn't being labelled as an exclusively black movement. It intersects with a wide variety of protest movement and helped non-blacks as well.

Do you not think it's a problem when this allowed some racist groups to define themselves as "all lives matter"? It's ceding the perceived moral high ground to others.

The same Martin Luther King that constantly talks about building a better future US for both white and blacks? It's not about being deferral and meek. It's about emphasising how the other group can take an active part in the process.

Look at the hate mail MLK received back in his day and get back to me on this one.

You're talking a world where a civil war is needed to end slavery. There's a very strong appeal in being seem as a liberator, especially in thr American context.

And that's enough to flip several Democrat stronghold states to the Republican party. The ignorant holds massive amount of power in the US.

Toxic American ultra patriotic pride / nationalism is what got us into messes like the War on Terror, the First Great Recession, and Trump's immigrant and refugee fear mongering in the first place, and you're speaking of pandering to that same attitude to end racial divisions. It's like you're saying the American Left should move even further to the right--not in a policy sense, but in attitudes--to accomplish anything at all. Which has been debunked enough times here that I'm not going to repeat it.

And that itself is a deconstruction of gender roles. If everyone is allowed to define category easily, then there's no real categories left.

Why is that a problem?

And those are the process and new ideals that men can be actively involve in. But that can't happen if feminism is seen as an exclusively female activity.

But those misinformation are very effective in undermining the appeal of supporting feminism among many guys. If we are unable to make Muslims look less threatening to the West, what makes you think the current approach is working? Sophie Treadu is breaking away from the norm, and I think this approach could see a bigger change. It's akin to the Selma march. Willing let yourself be harmed to show you aren't the real threat.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I don't know what to say to you dude. From what I've seen, any time feminists attempt to reach out to men and assure them they can be part of the movement too, the movement is also considering their positions in society, there has always been a gaggle of naysayer cynics looking to paint feminists as exclusive authoritarians. Then we have people like you saying "this approach is obviously not working" every single time with little to no knowledge of the context, making it almost impossible to actually set a standard that can be humanly achieved.

From previous experience, Trudeau's action is just going to be a blip on the radar, rendered as a footnote to activists and completely forgotten by antifeminists anyway. You're not really going to see any change of any significance besides recognition from those feminists as her putting her foot in her mouth.

I know why they are pissed off, and why they have legit reason to feel that way. But it's also about sacrificing ground to get the message across, because humans are too stupid to be convinced by mere logic alone. It's akin to letting yourself be beaten up in Selma in order to gain sympathy votes.

Having Justin Trudeau be the face of males supporting feminism is going to do a lot more to change people's mind than Emma Watson saying that at the UN.

How much ground should feminists be willing to sacrifice before it becomes unreasonable? Why should feminists be willing to sacrifice ground if antifeminists will not offer concessions in return? Once again, this is like the one way street between Democrats conceding to Republicans. Understanding is a two way street; feminists have addressed issues regarding masculine positions in society, so when are the antifeminists going to be expected to have a modicum of acknowledgement for feminists?

Also great job devaluing the contributions and significance of women's voices toward our own rights. This is not ahistorical or condescending at all.

[ray245]

Then perhaps we should introduce the whites who gave all applicable black people opportunities to make their achievements during black history month. After all, shoehorning them will make a great sense of connection between whites and blacks and not at all distract from the accomplishments black people made with their strength, with their knowledge and wisdom. The white man's burden must be recognized you see.

That's seem to be what some white are demanding for.

Look at the hate mail MLK received back in his day and get back to me on this one.

And the same time Martin Luther is still widely acknowledge to be NOT Malcom X.

Toxic American ultra patriotic pride / nationalism is what got us into messes like the War on Terror, the First Great Recession, and Trump's immigrant and refugee fear mongering in the first place, and you're speaking of pandering to that same attitude to end racial divisions. It's like you're saying the American Left should move even further to the right--not in a policy sense, but in attitudes--to accomplish anything at all. Which has been debunked enough times here that I'm not going to repeat it..

No I'm not saying liberals should move to the right. But change isn't archived by mere logical reasoning alone.

Why is that a problem?

I never said this is a bad thing. I'm saying this is the root of some male's paranoia.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I don't know what to say to you dude. From what I've seen, any time feminists attempt to reach out to men and assure them they can be part of the movement too, the movement is also considering their positions in society, there has always been a gaggle of naysayer cynics looking to paint feminists as exclusive authoritarians. Then we have people like you saying "this approach is obviously not working" every single time with little to no knowledge of the context, making it almost impossible to actually set a standard that can be humanly achieved.

From previous experience, Trudeau's action is just going to be a blip on the radar, rendered as a footnote to activists and completely forgotten by antifeminists anyway. You're not really going to see any change of any significance besides recognition from those feminists as her putting her foot in her mouth.

I don't think this is a mere footnote. It is sending a very clear and direct message that women are willing to acknowledge the role of men by such a gesture.

How much ground should feminists be willing to sacrifice before it becomes unreasonable? Why should feminists be willing to sacrifice ground if antifeminists will not offer concessions in return? Once again, this is like the one way street between Democrats conceding to Republicans. Understanding is a two way street; feminists have addressed issues regarding masculine positions in society, so when are the antifeminists going to be expected to have a modicum of acknowledgement for feminists?

Because I don't believe change can happen otherwise. It's extraordinary hard to convince a community to give up their advantages, unless it does somehow appeal to their ego. I think the notion of a "white men's burden" has a role in shaping the civil rights movement. Individual minds might be changed, but wider societal thinking is far harder to change.

Women got a right to vote because women leaders supported WW1 in the name of nationalism.

Also great job devaluing the contributions and significance of women's voices toward our own rights. This is not ahistorical or condescending at all.

I think that all forms of rights movement or independence movement does rely on dominant party being willing to concede. If not you do end up with some sort of actual revolution or civil war.