Woman's Hour  permalink

Masculism

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 50 of 70
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by justpeachy (U11179778) on Monday, 26th May 2008

    Is masculism a growing movement?

    How many men would describe themselves as a masculist?

    Does a masculist want the same rights and opportunities as women, and how far should this go? For example, women can be known by the title Ms, Miss or Mrs - do masculists object to there not being a male equivalent?

    JP

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by pippafox (U4007326) on Monday, 26th May 2008

    que?
    plese describe 'masculist'

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by justpeachy (U11179778) on Monday, 26th May 2008

    pippafox

    This is the definition in wikipedia:

    "Masculism (or Masculinism) consists of social theories, political movements, and moral philosophies primarily based on the experiences of men. Although masculism provides a general critique of social relations, many of its active proponents also seek to analyze gender inequality and promote men's rights, interests, and issues."

    A google search on masculism brings up some interesting results if yo

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Redbookish (U1335018) on Monday, 26th May 2008

    Mon, 26 May 2008 13:06 GMT, in reply to justpeachy in message 3

    But what rights might masculinists want that they don't have?

    Do they want 100% of all Board Directorships in large companies instead of only 80% or so? Do they want 0% of the poverty of single-parent families instead of, ooh, maybe around 20%? Do they want ALL divorced men to be much better off after divorce than their ex-wives instead of just 80% of them? Do they want 100% of th higest earners to be men instead of, oh say, only 80% of those high earners (pesky women, grabbing as much money as they can earn, aren't they grabbing it out of the mouths of all those deserving and oppressed men?)

    Would they like their titles to reflect their marital status?
    So unmarried men (whatever their age) should be formally addressed as "Master"
    Married men can be "Mister"

    And those pesky radicals who don't want their marital status to be a matter for comments?
    well, what /could/ they be called? "Bloke" ????

    -- oooo those radical masculinists, only out to cause trouble, or maybe they're embarrassed because they can't catch a woman, and how come they've left it till they're 50 to think about having children, selfish blokes, only out to go drinking, buying flash sports cars, drinking designer beers, and having fun ....

    Oh yes, I can really see all that catching on ...

    Give me a break!

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by ravaged-not-ruined (U6684173) on Monday, 26th May 2008

    ...will they burn their string vests and y-fronts?

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Redbookish (U1335018) on Monday, 26th May 2008

    Mon, 26 May 2008 13:17 GMT, in reply to ravaged-not-ruined in message 5

    and their smelly socks?

    Oh yes please

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by pippafox (U4007326) on Monday, 26th May 2008

    thanks for the explanation, Justpeachy, I get the gist…
    and why not.... not all men are competetive, power hungry board/bored members or alpha male, testosterone ridden types.

    therefore what of your uncompetetive average joe, where is his niche? i can see the identity crisis. women have quite rightly fought for status and equality and continue to do so.

    so go on get the bonfires going, shed the constrictive y-fronts … make a stand.

    but what of titles? master ?, nah, smacks of something quite unholy. I never bothered with the term ms myself .

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by davser (U1195784) on Monday, 26th May 2008

    <quote>Do they want ALL divorced men to be much better off after divorce than their ex-wives instead of just 80% of them?

    How much of that is to do with the fact that men in general earn more as opposed to women getting the worst out of divorce settlements which as we all know just doesn't happen.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by TooManyPosts (U2440869) on Monday, 26th May 2008

    If men are disadvantaged unfairly in some way then I see nothing wrong in campaigining against that, even if women are unfairly disadvataged in other ways. An individual shouldn't be treated unfairly as part of a collective punishment against their group. That's the sort of thinking that would say that people from a poor neighbourhoos are entitled to burgle those from a richer neighbourhood, as it's unfair that richer people are richer with the advantages this brings.

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by PeterPiper (U1589324) on Monday, 26th May 2008

    Yes Quantum, and That is what I have been doing here.

    On the lighter side I would like to see women chatting men up more, inviting them out for the first meal and paying for the first drink, bringing a little gift (box of chocs etc), paying little compliments as men have done since the dawn of time - ok there was a motive. In other words taking more of the initiative in romance

    Peachey, I don't see anything like masculism being generally accepted but most men would like to see equality going in both directions - wahtever you call that - sex equalism.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by Jade (U3798468) on Monday, 26th May 2008

    I did hear that there was a meeting but very few showed up - I think it involved asking for directions.

    Hubs thought there might be some merit in it, til his mate told him that it was a really good place to get to know your feelings and lose your inhibitions about hugging other men. Crying is encouraged, as is the wearing of lovely soft fabrics.

    I took this as a good opportunity to discuss our relationship. In detail. For a good long while.

    Bless him, he's off fishing now.


    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by Nora-Bella (U5768358) on Monday, 26th May 2008

    Masculist .... sounds like some sort of sea food, smiley - biggrin smiley - winkeye

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by Redbookish (U1335018) on Monday, 26th May 2008

    Mon, 26 May 2008 17:41 GMT, in reply to Richard Tovey in message 10

    most men would like to see equality going in both directions - wahtever you call that - sex equalism. 

    So would women, and we're still working on it -- see my rough statistics above. When women actually are treated as the equals they are, and compete (in areas where competition seems necessary) on the same terms as men; when men acknowledge the masculine advantage they still have, THEN we might be able to talk about sex equality.

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by TooManyPosts (U2440869) on Monday, 26th May 2008

    In reply to Redbookish in message 13

    How many men have to altogether agree, before individual men can discuss it?

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by PeterPiper (U1589324) on Monday, 26th May 2008

    Red,

    I see no sign of women supporting equality of opportunity in childcare, where it is still seen as appropriate to offer childcare support, childcare training and creche facilitiies only to women - even surestart in some places - nor in nursing where Sister and Matron are seen as appropriate titles, titles such as nanny. I see no sign of the same sorts of encouragement through advertising to bring men into primary teaching. And there are still mums and tots clubs.

    I see no sign that men have the right to be on the birth certificate without going to court (sometimes twice) so do not have parental responsibility easily without the mother's decision that he should.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by PeterPiper (U1589324) on Monday, 26th May 2008

    I see no sign of the automatic right for a man to know his own child.

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by flamethetruthwillout (U11171471) on Monday, 26th May 2008

    Davser,

    "How much of that is to do with the fact that men in general earn more as opposed to women getting the worst out of divorce settlements, which we all know just doesn't happen.

    Well unless I'm from planet Zed Davser, it bally well does, don't make me laugh smiley - steam

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by PeterPiper (U1589324) on Monday, 26th May 2008

    You're from planet Zed then.

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by davser (U1195784) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008

    Yup, you are a zedder.

    Women, in general, get a far better deal out of divorce than men.

    www.timesonline.co.u...

    The balance of power in divorces tilted away from wives yesterday as a judge warned that ex-husbands could not be expected to provide women with a share of future earnings for life.

    England’s reputation as the most female-friendly place for divorce was dented when a wife who did not have a job was refused £1.5 million compensation for loss of her banker husband’s future pay.

    The key sentence is "Englands reputation as teh most female friendly place for divorce..."

    So how is Zed? Never been myself.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by crumbs (U11179023) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008

    Women, in general, get a far better deal out of divorce than men.  

    Davser, re the article you've liked to – this is always the argument that is used about divorce, hugely wealthy people where the wife gets a large settlement. Incidentally, her husband wasn't left penniless was he?

    In this case they had met at university – Oxford – so her earning potential, if she had been single, would probably have been pretty good. As it was, she met her husband, chose a career in teaching (probably because it would fit in with childcare) then left the profession and became a housewife when he was offered a job in Japan.

    Should she have stayed in the UK to protect her career while he moved over there?

    Would you prefer it if, after a 20-year marriage, she was left penniless?

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by flamethetruthwillout (U11171471) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008

    Davser and Richard, I am not from planet Zed, but nor was I divorced in the U.K. I was divorced in South Africa, and though married ICOP, ended up with a token payment, which amounted to very little especially when converted from rands to pounds. My ex made sure that my visa expired so that I was in an incredibly vulnerable posiion, with the threat of deportation hanging over me. (WE Had the kids first, and married later, I had not been married for 5 years or more so was not naturalised, and my ex refused to write a letter to help me extend it, kept the children out of school, (school fees have to be paid out there)then used the fact that I was not working (As I was illegal and looking after the kids)to say that I was an unfit mother. As I have explained on another thread, I sympathise with anyone who is being manipulated by the system, male or female. I am not saying my ex was Everyman, but he certainly made sure he made the most of his position overseas.

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by albback (U11643252) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008

    flame, that happened years ago and in other country. What it's got to do with legislation in this country, God only knows.

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by flamethetruthwillout (U11171471) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008

    No, it happened last year in another country (the finalised divorce). Davser said that it didn't happen to women, he didn't specify a country, so it wasn't specifically about the legislation in this country. I was pointing out that it can happen to women as it happened to me and my experience is every bit as relevant as anyone elses.

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by albback (U11643252) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008

    Sorry flame, what you say about Davser's message is inacurate in every detail.

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by crumbs (U11179023) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008

    Do they want ALL divorced men to be much better off after divorce than their ex-wives instead of just 80% of them? 

    Red, can you tell me where you got that number from? Most people seem to think it's the other way around, men are constantly portrayed as the 'victims' of divorce but it's never seemed that way to me (certainly doesn't reflect the reality as I've seen it) and it would be good to be able to quote the numbers back to them!

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by flamethetruthwillout (U11171471) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008

    What exactly is innacurate in every detail?

    Davser said in message 8 "How much of that is to do with the fact that men earn more as opposed to women getting the worst out of a divorce settlement which we all know doesn't happen"

    THe words which were relavant for me were "as opposed to women getting the worst out of a divorce settlement, WHICH WE ALL KNOW DOESN'T HAPPEN. if it never happened, it would not have happened to me now would it?

    You presumed to think it was "years ago" Wrong., but you don't apologise for presuming that. I am not interested in arguing with someone who seems to want to argue for the sake of it, have better things to do with my time thanks.

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by Redbookish (U1335018) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008

    Tue, 27 May 2008 14:30 GMT, in reply to kamy in message 25

    slighty pulled out of the air, kamy, but recalling study after study (proper scholarly ones) which show that men's income INCREASES after divorce by anything up to 40%.

    The idea that men are skinned alive by greedy grasping women divorcing them is another misogynist myth.

    But if you google a combination of words along the lines of "income outcomes after divorce" you'll find useful information.

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by crumbs (U11179023) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008

    Thanks Red - that particular myth is one that makes my blood boil. The comments at the end of that Times article davser quoted make fairly depressing reading and confirm (yet again) that misogyny is alive and well and by the looks of it living mainly in the USA!

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by davser (U1195784) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008

    So having your family ripped away from you is off set by a potential increase in financial wealth?

    My point was that in the UK women get a better deal out of divorce tan men, hence teh reputation as England being the most women friendly country in the world for divoce settlements.

    AS for other countries I wouldn't comment, never having lived there.

    If anyone can provide a link which says that Englnd is the most male friendly country for divorce I'd be glad to have a read.

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by flamethetruthwillout (U11171471) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008

    Yes, I nearly did have my family ripped away from me. My ex is moving back to the U.K. where he resided for years, in less than week. I hope he has grown up alot. He made it quite obvious where his priorities lay by his behaviour during marriage, divorce and lack of maintenance.

    You only made that comment later, I was responding to your earlier comment, which made no mention of countries, just that it never happened to women.

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by davser (U1195784) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008

    I thought it would be obvious that I was talking about the UK considering that this is a UK mb.

    The link and the statement regarding England as being most female friendly divorce country should have further reinforced this.

    My apologies if I wasn't entirely specific.

    I trust in future that you will mention any possible country affected or referred to by any issue in any of your posts.



    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by BraveGirl (U2819255) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008

    Well, when my husband and I divorced (many years ago)I didn't want or ask for anything for myself but for a modest monthly amount of child support for our 3 year old son. The amount we agreed on just covered the cost of his day nursery, which meant that I could carrying on working full time to support us both. He paid this for just two months then stopped - kept making excuses about being broke because of the expense of starting his new life as he'd walked away with nothing. True, he'd even left me to take on the overdraft on our joint account. A couple of years later he married again and had another child - then divorced again, - she was luckier than me as she had wealthy parents who supported her through it.

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by susie (U2345418) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008



    Rather depends what you call a 'better deal'? It all sounds a bit vague.

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by davser (U1195784) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008

    "as a judge warned that ex-husbands could not be expected to provide women with a share of future earnings for life. "

    "Mr Justice Charles said in the High Court that anyone given an adequate lump sum could not expect a share of future earnings. "

    I think that is what is considered as a better deal.

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by susie (U2345418) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008

    Most of the women I know who are divorced have only had financial support for the children, not for themselves and certainly not for a lifetime.

    Is it seen as a 'good deal' when the man refuses to pay, or has taken on other family commitments that lessen his ability to pay for children he already has? I know quite a few women in that position.

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by Redbookish (U1335018) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008

    Tue, 27 May 2008 15:46 GMT, in reply to susie in message 35

    Why oh why are men permitted to plead that the expense of a "new" family means they're too poor to afford to support their "old" family? Stories like BraveGirl's make me think that men like that should be temporarily sterilised and not permitted to have more children if they're not grown up enough to support the ones they already have.

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by davser (U1195784) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008

    Is it seen as a 'good deal' when the man refuses to pay or has taken on other family commitments that lessen his ability to pay for children he already has?  

    Is it seen as a good deal when the man keeps paying maintenance whilst the women ensures no access to his kids?

    Are you saying that men shouldn't have kids with new partners as that will reduce their disposable income? Thats pretty cold and calculated IMO.

    Matter of interest - if a women takes up with a new partner does the father of the kids pay less due to the fact that the new partner will contribute to the new household?

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by flamethetruthwillout (U11171471) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008

    As I keep reiterating I responded to your words, with my experience. You said it never happened to women, I said it happened to me. Simple.

    The link and the statement did verify this for me, but as I had already made my initial statement, that was neither here nor there, and I did verify for you in a later statement that I was divorced in S.A. just as you verified that you were talking about the U.K.

    My apologies too, if I wasn't specific, but I am a woman, they were still my experiences, and I am still reeling from them. And THAT, is what I was rsponding too. Regardless of the country, but I shall indeed mention the country in future.

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by davser (U1195784) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008

    think that men like that should be temporarily sterilised and not permitted to have more children if they're not grown up enough to support the ones they already have.  

    And your view of single mothers who have kids by different fathers e.g. Shannon Matthews mother?

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by davser (U1195784) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008

    flamethetruthwillout


    No bother, messy break ups can affect anyone.

    Hopefully you wont be reeling for too much longer.

    I hope that didn't come across as being trite as it isn't intended to be.

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by flamethetruthwillout (U11171471) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008

    No problem Davser, just glad it has been cleared up.

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by Redbookish (U1335018) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008

    Tue, 27 May 2008 16:16 GMT, in reply to davser in message 37

    Are you saying that men shouldn't have kids with new partners as that will reduce their disposable income? Thats pretty cold and calculated IMO. 

    So it's better that that man's first family live in poverty because he's putting his limited resources into his second family? That's a pretty heartless point of view, IMO.

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by TooManyPosts (U2440869) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008

    In reply to Redbookish in message 36 Why oh why are men permitted to plead that the expense of a "new" family means they're too poor to afford to support their "old" family?  It's understandable if the old family get less than they used to, but the share between all the children should be as equal as possible.

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by emanemanem (U10705619) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008

    Hi RT,

    You've not been lucky with your dates then? I frequently buy my lovely man flowers, chocolates and little gifts, pay for meals out and the theatre, and I am always tellng him how lovely he looks. Better luck with your next date!

    More seriously, why are some people moaning here about England being the most "female friendly" country when it comes to divorce? That need not mean it is anti-male, just working towards equality perhaps? Surely that is something to celebrate?

    I don't see many female friendly divorce deals anyway. The divorced women of my age and acquaintance seem to be much poorer than their ex-husbands. The women have often had to neglect their career to bring up a family, follow a man around the country when he gets promoted, even abroad too. Then when they get to their 40/50s and the children leave home he ups and offs with a working woman in her 20/30's, having a fine old time buying new toys (cars, motorbikes, boats...) and going on romantic trips. The wife gets no maintainance as she has no kids at home and manages on the part time job she has or gets any work she can with a thin CV, earning perhaps what a recent college leaver might expect.

    Glad to say my friends in this position have done well for themselves, retraining, being enterprising. But its hard to start out all over again with no financial backing.

    Em

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by listener (U10967204) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008

    The women have often had to neglect their career to bring up a family, follow a man around the country when he gets promoted, even abroad too. Then when they get to their 40/50s and the children leave home he ups and offs with a working woman in her 20/30's, having a fine old time buying new toys (cars, motorbikes, boats...) and going on romantic trips. The wife gets no maintainance as she has no kids at home and manages on the part time job she has or gets any work she can with a thin CV, earning perhaps what a recent college leaver might expect 

    Isn't this their own fault? On another thread I mentioned how I could not be this person as I had been brought up to want and have a career. Why should the woman be the one to 'give up her career', etc to follow her husband around the country? More fool them is all I can say

    (I know - a bit cruel and heartless but surely these women have brains - why haven't they used them?)

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by symi01 (U2427502) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008

    kamy;

    "Would you prefer it if, after a 20-year marriage, she was left penniless?"

    Surely that is a risk she took by giving up her own career and her earning power to become financially dependant on her husband and if anything goes wrong with a partnership there can surely be nothing more damaging to ones self confidence as an adult than the knowledge that you are a maintained dependant.

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 45.

    Posted by crumbs (U11179023) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008

    listener, didn't you say on the other thread that "I don't doubt that it is better to have somebody at home so that the kids aren't 'latch-key'. "

    It shouldn't necessarily be the woman who gives up her career, but if someone's going to be at home when the kids get in from school then one parent will probably have to.

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by symi01 (U2427502) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008

    Redbookish;

    "So it's better that that man's first family live in poverty because he's putting his limited resources into his second family? That's a pretty heartless point of view, IMO."

    Surely what is best is that all women accept that they are 50% responsible for the maintenance of any children they may have with a partner and that they plan their lives based on the fact although that relationships can break up they still have 50% responsibility for maintaining any children financially.

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 47.

    Posted by listener (U10967204) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008

    kamy - the somebody at home need not be the mother - that's my point. My children went to a child minder until I got home from work. Other people use au pairs, grandparents, neighbours, work from home, after school clubs, flexible working hours, etc. It doesn't require the mother to stay at home to prevent the kids being 'latch-key'

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by symi01 (U2427502) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008

    emanemanem;

    "The women have often had to neglect their career to bring up a family, follow a man around the country when he gets promoted, even abroad too."

    Who forces a woman to neglect her career to bring up a family and has it become a criminal offence not to follow a man around the country or abroad.

    A partnership is a 50-50 arangement where the womans career has equal importnace to the mans.

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

This was the BBC Radio 4 messageboard.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

The Radio 4 messageboard is now closed.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Other BBC Messageboards

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.