I agree that you would be roughly a 3.5 on this scale, from what I’ve seen you write on my Swedish blog. Which is an unusually balanced place to be for a feminist

I could in some respects call myself a feminist. Still, I acnowledge the reality of the core points of the critisism that you listed. I see the need for de male voice in the gender debate. I do not think it posible today for women to voice all male problems and vice versa.

I have my believs at level 3.5 (or maby 4 depending on topic). In other words i´d like to see a challange of traditional gender rolls in those issues where these rolls no longer helps us. I agree with Patrik Brown´s ananlysis that some feminists actually preserve gender rolls and exploit the benefits of them.

I see both men and women struggeling with the downsides to their rolls. I see women have challanged their roll and that men are starting to do the same. Most importantly men has started to claim their right to bonding whith their children. I see that there are still a call fore a womans movement, thogh not a prodominant one, but one side by side with the growing mens mowement.

As Hamus I also see a level 7, the opposit of the most radical feminists, when playing whith thoughts of a society without women.

But what we need is not masculine dominance, but a better balance. And I think there’s only one thing missing before that can be achieved - for women to try and see things from men’s point of view. The fact that they do not have to is, I think, women’s greatest privilege.

Its not that they don’t see the men’s perspective. Just like you say they cherry pick the female gender roles that suit them they cherry pick the male perspectives that suit them. They will shout from the mountain stories about men who feel entitiled to access to women’s bodies but they will ignore those men when they tell stories of the women that abused them which caused the anger that led to that sense of entitlement. In fact its a perfect 180 of what they do with women. When a woman is telling the stories of abuse they suffered at the hands of men in their lives they are all ears but when that woman goes vigilante and kills her abuser the last thing they want to hear is said woman did a bad thing.

Why else do you think there was a wildfire about the man in PA that killed those three women at the gym but barely a spark about the woman in Kuwait who went to her exhusband’s wedding and burned down a tent killing 41 women and children?

A part of me believes to stop looking at feminism completely and just focus on men´s rights.

A part of me wanted to do the same until I realized that some of the things that MRAs are doing actually goes hand in hand with the things feminists are doing.

MRAs wanting dads to have a bigger role in the lives of children goes hand in hand with feminists wanting women to have a bigger role in the job place (because someone has to bring home the bacon and someone had to take care of the little ones).

Feminists wanting noncustodial (well they call them deadbeats) parents to pay child goes hand in hand with MRAs who are pointing out judges and courts that treat noncustodial parents extremely unfairly when it comes to child support orders.

And the list goes on…

I don’t exactly agree that the male role has more disadvantages than the female one. I think the current, feminist-inspired situation - where women can pick and choose what they want out of their role to a far greater extent than men can, are held to lower standards of accountability - is harsher on men than on women.

But what we need is not masculine dominance, but a better balance. And I think there’s only one thing missing before that can be achieved - for women to try and see things from men’s point of view. The fact that they do not have to is, I think, women’s greatest privilege.

Looking at this list I would say I am somewhere in between 5 and 6. I want a stronger MRM as feminism is dominating the discourse and believe that the male gender role has more disadvantages than the female one. I still wouldn´t go so far and call it oppression, which I think is a too strong word as men and women in the western world usually live a fairly good (privileged compared to other parts of the world) life . As I also believe there must be a balanced discussion (a MRM that is just the reversal of feminism is equally bad) I am really in between 5 and 6. Probably, depending on the topic at hand between 4-6 (of course the female role has its downsides as well). A part of me believes to stop looking at feminism completely and just focus on men´s rights. You can see me fail doing so regularly on my blog…

If you believe that…you’re sliding down a slippery slope into “gender bigot” status?

Care to point out where any of that ISN’T true?

I think you need to create a couple more categories above #6, and assign the “woman hater” label to that group.

I’m a strong 5, but I have no problem with the number 6 either -> Concerning War and Love, everything’s allowed, no?. The number 6 is the ultimate Phallic position, and counting it out would have the same effect as castrating oneself. This is like: “We own the atomic bomb, but we would never use it - except you force us to do it.” Something like that.

I realize that this Gender ‘Conflict’ resembles the Cold War a lot. And speaking of Socialism vs. Capitalism (did I speak of this?) I think this whole Stages 1 to 6 thing is a dialectical one, you know. Like in ‘dialectical materialism’ and such. We just have to analyse our position in the historical process… okay I admit I drunk two beer already tonight. cheers:

C.

Also, I don’t really think it’s optional. If there are no declared gender-ideals for young people to conform with they will simply create them, and from the look of things, that isn’t going to be terrible constructive.