"White anti-feminist men in Japan"

[kireikoori]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

Different but equal.

I'm personally not a fan of "different but equal".
I dislike gender roles. But the equal part is fine.

Racialists will say the same about race.
That the races are different but equal.
Personally I don't like the sound of that.

By the way there are many types of feminism.
Many of them I consider egalitarianism, some I do not.

[Sketchy]

Originally Posted by MissMisa

No, I don't live in Japan, I live in England. In England to find someone who is anti-feminist is quite rare, as there is a lot of English history behind feminism which I think people who are knowledgeable about it really appreciate. Those people do exist in England but as far as I know it's quite uncommon to find someone with those views. A lot of men joke about women in such a manner but I don't think they actually believe we shouldn't have equal rights.

I think there's a difference between men who are anti-feminist and and men who are against equal rights.

Feminism has certain images associated with it which aren't all appealing, I think there a lot of men that are anti-feminist in this regard. But that doesn't mean they've ever questioned womens rights.

[Wasabista]

Originally Posted by MissMisa

Are you only referring to modern day feminists, or feminists that have done things for us in the past, or both? Women have been the victims of long standing opression, and are still facing it today.

Well, I'm mostly concerned about modern "victim feminists," the ones who claim, for example, that 20% or 30% of women have been raped at some point in their lives (the claim is false, and probably a deliberate lie).

But the problem for me is the idea that "women have been oppressed for thousands of years," and at last women have courageously won their freedoms, and now we men owe you big time. This line of thought can be easily dismantled.

First, we have to distinguish between two types of societies:
1) Modern nation-states like the United States, where slavery is illegal, the judiciary is largely independent, a culture of adherence to the law prevails, peaceful dispute mechanisms exist, soldiers stay in their barracks and borders are well defined and secure.

2) The world as it was from the development of agriculture to the first world war: No international law, in many cases no law of any sort as we would recognize it, shifting borders, daily violence, constant warfare.

Feminists claim they've been oppressed, but how can that be? Women were never forced to go to war. Men were. Women did not have to defend their households with their lives. Men did. If a woman was accosted in the market, who took vengeance? Her husband, or her brother. Women have always been PROTECTED by men.

Women's quest for meaningful jobs today is a real one, and an important one, but it is also recent. The word had no meaning in traditional agricultural/industrial societies, when all work was a horror chamber.

Did women have hard lives? Oh yes. Harder than men's? Hell, no. Not by a long, long shot.

And that is why, across the face of this vast Earth and throughout all recorded history, there are no records of a feminist revolution anywhere. None.

...Until the late 19th to early 20th century, when the following happened.

1. Women asked men for the vote.
2. Men, surprised to hear that they wanted it, gave it to them.
3. Er, that's it.

Not a shot fired. Revolution, indeed!

[quixote73]

Just a general question for the men here who have identified as anti-feminist and live or have lived in Japan: do you feel that Japan is a more comfortable place for you than your home countries?

[kireikoori]

Types of feminism I agree with:

Amazon feminism:
The type of feminism that rejects the gender role of women as the weaker sex.
It lays focus on the power of women. It seeks to promote female athleticism and warriorhood, and other things that have to do with physical strength and skill. And in such steering society towards one where women can stand on the same ground as men. The amazon feminists' dream is for a day when all sports are co-ed and women can still do as well and win as much as the men, and where women are in the draft.

Gender feminism:
Also known as equity feminism. This is a type of feminism that focuses on equality, and has no misandrous undertones. And like amazon feminism, a main target is gender roles.

Equality feminism:
Pretty much the same thing as gender and equity feminism.
It's anti-gender roles and anti-misandry.

Sex-positive feminism:
It believes that sex is ok for a woman and criticizes Victorian morals applied to women as much as the porn industry. And that the acceptance of porn and as loose sexual lifestyle being accepted is more forward than rejection of pornography based on inequality within the genre. Sex-positive feminists seek to work with a growingly sex-positive world and work to make it more equal for women. For instance, pornography that can appeal to women better instead of being universally patrifocal, and the end to the studs vs. sluts double standard.

Postmodern feminism:
Has a large focus on gender and language. But I have been told it has quite a different interpretation of how language should be changed to create a more equal world. One that I appear to agree more with. Instead of just outright saying "don't say that" it works with the context of language and how the meaning of words change. For instance, probably less likely to use the word womyn because the meaning wife-man is no longer commonly known or meant when saying it.

Types of feminism I don't agree with:

Fat feminism:
Just an excuse for fat people to be feminist. These are the people criticizing Fat Princess. And while they make a point that women are more objectified than men, discrimination is just a part of that bigger problem. And they're just using an excuse to be fat.

Difference feminism:
I'm completely at odds with the idea that "women are different, but equal or better". This ideology seeks to praise the things that are percieved as good or better about women. It's often misandrous, and often becomes separatist feminism.

Separatist feminism:
I dislike any separation of the sexes. All girl-schools, and ect. And separatist feminism, like the name implies, is where women and men live as separately as possible. Imagine a world like Magical Girl Squad Alice. And being separatist feminism, this often lends itself to lesbianism, asexuality, and even misanthropy.

Lesbian feminism:
Really, it's just an excuse for man-hating lesbians to say they're feminists.
These people are often separatist feminists, of course. Now I don't have anything wrong with lesbians or any GLBT people, personally I think we're all deep down, innately bisexual. But I don't agree with lesbian feminism.

Religious and ethnic feminism:
Really, it's just a way to bring unnecessary cultural elements into a political ideology which has no cultural affiliations and needs none called feminism.

Radical feminism:
Radical feminism is the ideology that capitalism is inherently sexist, and of course, must be overthrown. Now, I'm a socialist myself, even. But I think big business has nothing to do with sexism. While it's true that since big businesses popped up in a time that was sexist and women weren't allowed involvement, that doesn't make the system itself sexist.

[MissMisa]

Originally Posted by JoshAussie

I hate feminists but that doesnt mean i dont believe in equality. Women shouldnt be held back from doing things and I literally cant think of anything (besides serving in a combat role in the military) that women arent allowed to do (in my country atleast) and id say its the same for most "developed" countries. In countries were there are feminists that actually have things to complain about.. Theres probably alot worse things happening to both gender anyway.

EDIT: As to feminists in countries such as Australia, England, America Etc .. When will it stop? Do you want to work and be the provider of the household raise the children and do everything else?? If so.. go for it. Sounds good to me.... a relationship is always going to require both genders to fill certain roles. And it doesnt matter if its the wwoman working and the man being a stay at home dad. But women can work so its not like this cannot be accomplished. Its just like their argueing because they want to do everything and like i said above. If my future wife was Superwomen and could do all those things and actually really wanted to why would i not let her??

Just quickly to the thing about men being the primary carer of the child whilst the woman works. I dont think the instincts are in me to watch a child all day everyday. Im sure many many many other men also feel more comfortable in a "hunting and gathering" role. And im sure many Women would also prefer the maternal role. So whats the problem? You can do everything men can do.. I know my mum and dad make about the same Money they both make alot but my dad has been doing his job for over 15 years, My mum recently just got a new job as my baby brother is at the age where she is able to work and she got a job paying just as much as my dad within a few weeks of searching. (i wont say exactly how much my parents make but its high above the average in Australia.) Also my mum dropped out of school at year 10 i think and my dad finished with top marks at a private school. So Women saying "it cant be done" Are either just looking for something to bitch about (feminist) or dont have any motivation.

There is nothing at all wrong with a women staying at home, and a man going to work, if that's what they both to want to do. What the actual problem is, is not having that choice. That's what women fought for, and that's what we get in more devoped countries.

As for, 'will it stop,' to be honest Josh, I don't think it will. Even though things have changed vastly for developed countries, there will always be discrimination in places there because the world isn't perfect.

As for feminists in devoped countries, they are allowed to speak out, and speak out for the women who are not allowed.

Originally Posted by Wasabista

Well, I'm mostly concerned about modern "victim feminists," the ones who claim, for example, that 20% or 30% of women have been raped at some point in their lives (the claim is false, and probably a deliberate lie).

But the problem for me is the idea that "women have been oppressed for thousands of years," and at last women have courageously won their freedoms, and now we men owe you big time. This line of thought can be easily dismantled.

First, we have to distinguish between two types of societies:
1) Modern nation-states like the United States, where slavery is illegal, the judiciary is largely independent, a culture of adherence to the law prevails, peaceful dispute mechanisms exist, soldiers stay in their barracks and borders are well defined and secure.

2) The world as it was from the development of agriculture to the first world war: No international law, in many cases no law of any sort as we would recognize it, shifting borders, daily violence, constant warfare.

Feminists claim they've been oppressed, but how can that be? Women were never forced to go to war. Men were. Women did not have to defend their households with their lives. Men did. If a woman was accosted in the market, who took vengeance? Her husband, or her brother. Women have always been PROTECTED by men.

Women's quest for meaningful jobs today is a real one, and an important one, but it is also recent. The word had no meaning in traditional agricultural/industrial societies, when all work was a horror chamber.

Did women have hard lives? Oh yes. Harder than men's? Hell, no. Not by a long, long shot.

And that is why, across the face of this vast Earth and throughout all recorded history, there are no records of a feminist revolution anywhere. None.

...Until the late 19th to early 20th century, when the following happened.

1. Women asked men for the vote.
2. Men, surprised to hear that they wanted it, gave it to them.
3. Er, that's it.

Not a shot fired. Revolution, indeed!

I don't think you really know that much about the opression of women to be honest. Of course many men went through horrible suffering too. I am completely against any type of descrimination or gender roles, and that includes men.

Many men did not want women to have the vote. If they just gave it to us, then the suffragettes would not have existed. Feminists are not all women, many men are also feminists too, and were also very supportive of the suffragettes. It was not a case of men vs women, it was a case of them vs authority who believed that women's opinions were less valid and were less intelligent, therefore making their vote innaccurate. This is obviously not the case. After a long struggle, many protests, and hunger strikes, the women finally did get the vote. After a women chucked herself under the kings horse to draw attention to the cause. We did not just get it like that.

[SatoriOne]

Im a dude and Id love to find a woman who could bring home the bacon on her salary alone. That way Id be the house husband. Id clean and cook, and look after the kids. Then when they get old enough to go to school Id play tennis at the local rec club, go shopping midday and chat with friends over tea.

[Nyororin]

Why not stop looking at gender to begin with, and actually look at ability?
Because in my mind, that`s what it boils down to. I DON`T agree with "Amazon" feminism, because it pushes women as something they are not - ie. the stronger sex. Gender roles don`t just drop out of the sky one day - they are usually founded in some level of fact. When it comes to body size and muscular development, men do have the genetic advantage.

If a woman is indeed on equal ground with a man in sports or some activity, then she should be given all the same opportunities to compete as men. But the fact of the matter is that in a lot of cases, that is just not true. You end up with women who want to be put into places even when they AREN`T just as strong or just as capable. And that is not true equality. If a man is indeed more capable, then there is no reason his spot should be given up just so a woman can get it.

Sex-positive feminism is fine and all in regards to not discouraging sex for women - but somehow manages to completely miss out on the fact that the female brain is wired differently when it comes to sexual stimulation. Saying that the porn industry is biased toward males is just silly - I could make the same argument and say that the romance novel industry is biased toward females. There is a reason for this. In general, men find straight sexual imagery stimulating, while women find more subtle and romantic "thoughts" to be arousing. Pushing pornos for women is like pushing romance novels for men.

I usually find that the word "feminism" is used to push some form of female superiority... Otherwise why not refer to it as egalitarian?

The groups who fought in the past for equality for women can not, and should not, be compared with the modern groups that fly the flag of feminism. Every group that has done something good in the past should not be given a free pass for any wrongs committed in the future by those who use the same name. (Although the groups in the past weren`t really calling themselves feminists to begin with...)

[MissMisa]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

Why not stop looking at gender to begin with, and actually look at ability?
Because in my mind, that`s what it boils down to. I DON`T agree with "Amazon" feminism, because it pushes women as something they are not - ie. the stronger sex. Gender roles don`t just drop out of the sky one day - they are usually founded in some level of fact. When it comes to body size and muscular development, men do have the genetic advantage.

If a woman is indeed on equal ground with a man in sports or some activity, then she should be given all the same opportunities to compete as men. But the fact of the matter is that in a lot of cases, that is just not true. You end up with women who want to be put into places even when they AREN`T just as strong or just as capable. And that is not true equality. If a man is indeed more capable, then there is no reason his spot should be given up just so a woman can get it.

Sex-positive feminism is fine and all in regards to not discouraging sex for women - but somehow manages to completely miss out on the fact that the female brain is wired differently when it comes to sexual stimulation. Saying that the porn industry is biased toward males is just silly - I could make the same argument and say that the romance novel industry is biased toward females. There is a reason for this. In general, men find straight sexual imagery stimulating, while women find more subtle and romantic "thoughts" to be arousing. Pushing pornos for women is like pushing romance novels for men.

I usually find that the word "feminism" is used to push some form of female superiority... Otherwise why not refer to it as egalitarian?

The groups who fought in the past for equality for women can not, and should not, be compared with the modern groups that fly the flag of feminism. Every group that has done something good in the past should not be given a free pass for any wrongs committed in the future by those who use the same name. (Although the groups in the past weren`t really calling themselves feminists to begin with...)

I somewhat agree with you on this point. But not all feminists whine about nothing. There are still real issues in the world that need changing, and that's the reason why feminists do still exist. I'm not talking about the ones who whine about nothing important, I'm talking about the ones that get stuck in with real issues that matter, such as a women's right to education in the middle east, a women's right to speak out, a women's right to not be forced into marriage, and so on. Of course, there are issues for men too, they should not be forced to marry either, and so on, and all these issues are important and do need to be delt with in some way or another.

I don't believe that feminists are trying to say women are better. Maybe your experiances are different to mine, but I've never encountered a feminist women who thought they are better than a man. That's not really the point in the feminist movement, and never was. Those kind of people are not what a feminist should be like - there are bad apples within every organisation. As for the word 'feminism' I don't really think that promotes that women are better. but that depends how you want to interpret it. There are many men feminists too who are not put off by the term.

Originally Posted by SatoriOne

Im a dude and Id love to find a woman who could bring home the bacon on her salary alone. That way Id be the house husband. Id clean and cook, and look after the kids. Then when they get old enough to go to school Id play tennis at the local rec club, go shopping midday and chat with friends over tea.

Go for it! Gender roles work in both ways, and it would be perfectly fine if that's what you wanted to do with your life. Nobody should say that because you are man you should go out and work - as long as someone is looking after the children, and someone is earning money, gender is totally irrelevant.

[kireikoori]

Originally Posted by JoshAussie

Isnt it a fact that Males are biologically larger and more muscular than females?

It's about steering things to a more equal left with culture.
Women will never become as strong as men if we don't nurture it.

There are several animal species that women are socially and physically dominant. It would take many thousands of years, but if women took up athleticism as much as men, they would eventually make it to our level.