Is this site religious?

No.

What does it mean to be (gender) Equality Agnostic?

Gender Equality Agnosticism is a form of Egalitarianism, specifically limited to gender equality. In brief, it is the belief that equality is not a men’s issue, or a women’s issue—it is a human rights issue and therefore needs to be pursued from a standpoint that takes on the position of both sexes.


Equality is defined as: The state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.

Agnostic is defined as: A person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic. Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.

Source—www.Dictionary.com

...Read more...

Get a balanced perspective on gender equality, read both sides of the same story:

Feminism

MRM

A Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) look at Celebgate

To understand the MRM position you first need to know some basic underlying concepts.

The MRM expanded upon the first-wave feminist concept of ‘woman-as-child’ with two concepts called ‘woman-as-innocent’ and ‘man-as-perpetrator’.

I’ll discuss feminism’s woman-as-child in more detail next week as I think it makes an unbelievable amount of sense.  For the purpose of this conversation let’s simplify it to mean that women don’t receive the same rights as men, but they do receive protections that are normally only awarded to children. First wave feminism (before achieving equal rights) promoted woman-as-child to basically look like this:

No female rights


Male privilege —>
Male rights
Female gender obligations



Male gender obligations
‘Child’ protections
<—Female privilege


No ‘Child’ protections

As feminism has achieved many of its goals in western culture, the MRM portrays the gender landscape to now look more like this:

‘Positive discrimination/Affirmative action’ laws in addition to equal rights
<—Female privilege
Discriminatory law against men
No male gender obligations, as well as choice as to whether to follow female gender role
<—Female privilege
Male gender obligations
‘Child’ protections
<—Female privilege
No ‘Child’ protections

If you think that’s an extreme position, consider that the Men’s Rights Movement is considered to be counter-theory.  It was created largely as a balance mechanism in response to second wave feminism and promotes the opposite position being promoted by feminism—in short if the MRM is extreme, it is so merely as a reflection of the extreme position of modern feminism.

Woman-as-innocent presents the concept that because women are treated like children, we view them as innocent in the same way that children are viewed as innocent.  Men on the other hand receive no such protections so they are societally seen as perpetrators.  How does it work?

  • Picture a man and a child in a confrontation, who do you assume is the aggressor?
  • Picture a man and a woman in a confrontation, who do you assume is the aggressor?
  • Add violence, then rape, then murder—as you add each new facet, who do you assume is the aggressor even though you know almost nothing about the situation? 

Got your answers?  Now add this information—(Australian stats available with a little math via the Australian Bureau of statistics) 4/5 rape victims are women, 4/5 murder victims are men, men are 20 times more likely to be the subject of violence than women are to be raped and men are more frequently the target of violence than women.  Did your assumptions reflect those findings?  If not, you’re experiencing woman-as-innocent and man-as-perpetrator.

If you were to ask a Men’s Rights Activist (MRA) why Celebgate happened they would most likely acknowledge that women are sexually objectified, then add that there is nothing wrong with that. 

Men focus on physicality, that’s not societal, that’s biological—the male brain works differently to the female brain in areas of sexuality.  

Saying it is wrong for men to focus on the physical, just because women have a sexual emotional requirement, is sexist.  

It has been scientifically proven that the male brain responds differently to visual stimuli, therefore asking men to not objectify women as part of their sexuality, is like asking women not to emote as part of theirs.  The Celebgate leak may promote objectification, but objectification does not equal sexual stigma and the fall out of Celebgate is the attached stigma, not the objectification—after all, don’t we all want to be objectified a little bit?  No one however wants to be the target of stigma.

Sexual stigmatisation is not a patriarchal concept: A) patriarchy does not exist, B) ‘Men’, want sex, therefore stigmatising sex is counterproductive to the male objective of obtaining sex. If anything, the stigmatisation of sexuality is a ploy by conservative women, propagated by feminism.  If sex had no stigma, if everyone could have sex whenever they want with whomever they want without judgement (something most men are clearly in favour of), the inherent value of sex would diminish.  If sex has reduced value, women lose the power obtained by controlling the flow of sex. 

Females that want to sexually control men, promote slut-shaming and sexual stigma to keep in line the women who would devalue the female power base by making sex readily available.

If women are seen as victims as part of this scandal and men receive no empathy, it’s because of women-as-innocent and man-as-perpetrators.

I personally identify as Gender Equality Agnostic, which means I also identify with some positions promoted by the MRM, though feel it is biased towards the male gender in the same way that feminism is biased towards the female gender.



No comments:

Post a Comment