Gender Wars and How to Serve the Greater Good?

[engendertruth]

Recently I have been drawn to a recent topic known as the Gender Wars. I have blogged on it because I would like to see more men and women working together rather than against each other.

I just wanted to pick other people's brains here because I am coming up against a bit of a brick wall, I question if I just add to the problem if I begin blogging on the unfairness of life against men/women, the oppression of genders like almost ALL other blogs in this topic tend to do.

Then I even question if there is a problem, IS there a Gender War as it is been suggested or is this really about people wallowing around in their own personal frustrations making the personal into political? We have the Men's Rights Movement on the one hand, then the Feminists on the other, both movements can sometimes seem so relevant, but there are so many confusions and distortions of truth on both sides. I just want to find the viewpoint that is true, and works well for others...I am not sure I can find it?

I think there are problems, I would like to inject a new rationale to raise the bar of these discussions a little. I think it will do much for young people such as myself to have an alternative to anger directed at one gender or another. But I have to be careful, I don't want to add more fuel to the fire... if you know what I mean?

Does anyone else have any viewpoints on this? Has anyone else picked up on this topic? Or am I just going insane?

[Kingston]

Good that you are thinking about these issues. I have watched the feminist movement, the New Man, and all that..

Do research before you make a commitment to either side, because you are likely to dig yourself in if you make a career / ego out of it.

Personally I think it is a non-issue. Women have been liberated enough to pursue there own destiny, and fighting for complete "equality" creates only more conflict now. I wife can leave a bad guy, and will get loads of alimony. If the witch saps your male energy, take a mistress and inform the feaks that you are off to make love to a real woman .

Make love, not war.

PS: Funny video's by the way

[cdn2wheeler]

One issue I have with the whole "gender war" thing - from both male and female perspectives - is the apparent assumption that it's some sort of zero-sum game framed in the context of conflict. That is, if a woman wants something, be it power or money or status or whatever, that means that a man loses power, money or status. And the way that the feminist movement frames this search for "equality" seems to make it very clear that it's a war.

Well, for one, it's not a zero-sum game. Never has been. A capable person, regardless of gender rising to a position of power (or whichever context one wishes to consider) moves everyone forward.

And secondly, it's not a war. Framing it as such only forces the other side, whichever side that is, into a defensive position. Nobody wins in a war, there are just different levels of losing.

Some of the stuff coming from the hyper-feminist camp is little short of hatred. If the same things were said about, say, a racial or ethnic group that they say about men, they'd probably be locked up.

[openeyes]

Most sites I come across are apt to pick sides. One of the main authors I've read who has worked well in bridging the divide is Warren Farrell:

"Warren Farrell’s understanding of both sexes is symbolized by his being, on the one hand, on the boards of four national men’s organizations, and on the other hand, being the only man in the US to be elected three times to the Board of Directors of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Similarly, he has started over 600 men's and women's groups, and over 200,000 women and men have attended his workshops worldwide. He is the only person chosen to speak at both of former California Governor Wilson’s 1995 conferences – his Conference on Men and his Conference on Women."

Warren Farrell - Author of Why Men Earn More, Father and Child Reunion, Why Men Are the Way they Are and The Myth of Male Power

[cdn2wheeler]

Originally Posted by openeyes

Most sites I come across are apt to pick sides. One of the main authors I've read who has worked well in bridging the divide is Warren Farrell

I had never heard of this fellow until cruising through his website. Maybe, just maybe, there's some hope after all..!

[engendertruth]

cdn2wheeler, I agree with you totally. I don't see it as a Zero Sum game either. It seems the only way to describe the issue in the shortest time possible. Maybe it is from there - the perception that there IS a war - a new definition could be thought about... I don't know.

Thank you for the link to Warren Farrell, at least it give me some form of hope, (and someone to study as a 'model' for a future direction) ... I would really like to see more of a mainstream understanding of how best to build bridges between the sexes rather than the division that is happening at the moment.

It is (I admit) tempting and easier to delve into all the different positions, and discussions, and debates, but I am tired of them now (I have been following many for over 2 years now), there is nothing new, nothing resolved or learnt from it, so I'd like to help move it to the next level, as it were.

I am open to any other suggestions as to how to tackle such an issue.

[cdn2wheeler]

Originally Posted by engendertruth

I am open to any other suggestions as to how to tackle such an issue.

Well, let's first define if there really is an issue. Gender bias appears very real and can be very damaging. As a general rule, men get reamed in divorce and custody disputes, and women seem to have a more difficult time in the corporate world. (Gross generalizations, I know, for we are all aware of anecdotal evidence to the contrary.)

What I'd be interested in learning is how the perception of these issues colours our lenses; that is, since we seem to be inundated with shrill assertions from and about both genders, how that makes itself aware in the boardroom, the bedroom, the courtroom and the living room.

Let me give you an example: A very dear friend of mine is currently in a nasty divorce dispute that's been going on for over 3 years now. Both sides are entrenched in their positions. I'm convinced, though, that if each side put away their victim mentality - the man thinking, "She's just out for my money and to take my children away, just like all bitter manipulative women," and the woman thinking, "I wish he were dead, I hate him so much, he's a complete a$$ like all men" (that's a quote, by the way) - they could come to some mutually-agreed arrangement.

But they won't. I can't help but wonder if it's some sort of social conditioning that keeps them in their present state of mind.

[engendertruth]

I can't help but wonder if it's some sort of social conditioning that keeps them in their present state of mind.

Interesting you should say that, I have read a lot of sources that suggest the Feminist Movement is linked to Marxism.

It is claimed that Feminists adopted a lot of Marxist propaganda techniques for the movement and this is where some of the more damaging ideas about male roles in family life began. I began reading some of Erin Pizzey's work today, and she has some rather interesting views on the Feminist Movement based on her experiences back in the 1970s with their (in her words) hijacking of the refuges she set up for men, women and children who were victims of domestic violence. Apparently the Feminist Movement turned the issue of domestic violence to women as innocent victim whereas men are the perpetrator when the truth is men and women usually display the behaviour of violent parents before them - women were just as likely to be initiators of violence as were men. If any of you are interested you can follow this link here

There is also a further assertion from some members of the Men's Rights Movement that Marxism was concerned with destroying the family and therefore Feminism had the same aims by their association with 'Marxist ideology'. I really need to do more research in this area before I can agree (or disagree) with this theory myself. It has been well-documented in MRM circles as far as I can tell.

I have read a lot of information on this topic, from all sides and as you said it is a matter of determining if what may be thought as an issue, is really an issue at all!!

I have often wondered if we could change our perceptions of the issues that face men and women at the moment whether these issues of gender bias would go away?

[cdn2wheeler]

Originally Posted by engendertruth

I have often wondered if we could change our perceptions of the issues that face men and women at the moment whether these issues of gender bias would go away?

Hard to say, really. I know that in my personal experience - being passed over for job opportunities because of some "employment equity" standard that essentially barred middle-aged white men from having their background, experience and education considered - it's hard not to fall into the victim role. In the case of jobs, the spectre of the zero-sum game raises its ugly head. More people than jobs, so if one person is offered a position that means another person has to do without. (It's not exactly like that, but I think you get the general drift.)

The role of victim is basically perpetrated and enforced by the system which categorically denies a certain segment of the population access to particular jobs. If the employment equity programs were dismantled, then selections would truly be based on qualifications rather than gender/colour/whatever (in a perfect world, anyway).

So the perception of gender bias, at least in this case, is the wellspring of victimization resulting from employment equity programs. Not everyone is so evolved that they can see that, for better or worse, employment equity is essentially here to stay. I know I'm not. When I get rejected for a position that I'm suited for, and someone with less experience, education and background gets the role because they happen to be (insert employment equity standard here), it hurts, dammit.

[engendertruth]

You make a very good point, cdn2wheeler, and I have to say I agree with you.

There is also another attitude that arises from this. If you are part of a certain demographic who these programs are designed to aid, it is assumed that the only reason you got a position in the workplace is that you were helped rather than there being any basis of qualifications or suitability for the job. It cannot do much good for relations between the demographic groups, put it that way!

By the way, talking about this subject here is very enlightening, it is refreshing to not feel in a position where I have to defend myself in some way. It is interesting how, at some point during discussions of this nature and on this topic, it can be easy to cling to personal positions and biases rather than look at the wider perspectives. As I said, I would like to think past that, but discussing this topic daily in different circles on each side of the debate can make one jaded. Thank you all for providing some insight into this subject.

[Michael Chui]

It's worth pointing out that, even if women have been "liberated" in many countries, they are also not liberated in many others.

So, here are my two cents on the subject as a whole.

I'm personally as disinterested as they come when we talk about the benefits of non-discrimination, like access to jobs or legal settlement. I'm more concerned, in a sense, about the link between sex and gender. This article might be of interest:

Metrosexual - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think that, if you can remove that link between sex (male or female) and gender (man or woman)--indeed, if you can remove the notion of gender altogether--from the minds of the masses, then there won't be any gender wars, because one's sex will no longer have a strong bearing on one's role in society.

Isn't that, after all, what sexism is? To assume a gender, a social construction, based on a sex, a biological fact?