Timkins,
Feminism is like humanitarianism, it is an attitude, a set of beliefs. If you'd like my definition, what I mean when I say I am a feminist, here they are. (You will pour scorn on them, I know, but perhaps others may read them with a more open mind.)
1. Men and women are people first, men and women second.
2. Women are fully as human as men.
3. Women are fully as human as their children.
4. Women's needs, desires, beliefs and ambitions need to be considered as seriously and respectfully as anyone elses, and should not always come second.
5. Women have the right to control their own bodies.
6. Women have the right to control their own lives.
7. Women have the right to dress the way they want to.
8. Women are responsible for their own choices and behaviour.
9. Women are no weaker, sillier or manipulative than men.
10. If a woman proves she can do something (run a big company, lead a country, fight on the frontline) she should be allowed to do so.
11. Women have an interesting and unique way of looking at the world that is fully as valid as mens.
12. If there is a God, s/he thinks women are every bit as valuable and important as men. S/he would let them decide if they want to be or do different things, not make fatuous rules about it, that exclusively benefit one sex.

R0bert, both do have items that depend on the situation, but in almost every single case the likelihood of a negative situation existing is much higher for women than for men. Eg. #2, in what fields is a failure by men going to be a black mark? Knitting perhaps?

And then there are the more egregiously false claims like 5, 23, & 30.
WTH is up with #34? or #20 or #4? What relevance is homosexual marriage in #29? These don't depend on perspective.

I'd like to think that you didn't actually read through Maximus' list. It may be about as fair and valid as Ambo's, in the same sense that unicorns may like to jump through clouds. There are areas where females are in a privileged position, but most of it has to do with differences that actually do exist in reality, eg. war, ability to do work that results in more injuries. There are comparitively fewer instances where unreasonable/unfair discrimination or expectations exist against men in favour of women.

The point of the checklist (which is an adaptation from a white privilege checklist btw) is to demonstrate disparity and thus show that men and women are not treated equally, not to show that no men are treated unfairly because they are men. Such unfairness should be stopped, but it is wrong not to acknowledge that the situation is stillbetter for men than it is for women.

Maximus' list is really quite weird, and the other viewpoint isn't some well-thought out and reasoned response by someone concerned with discrimination against men or extreme forms of feminism. It is an immature, homophobic and pitiful response from someone grasping at straws. I'm sure a better list could be drawn up, but that won't alter the disparity. Deustch's list does have flaws, where things are now less of an issue (14,23) and some weak claims like 15,16,24,26 etc., but it would be a huge example of false equivalency to say that Maximus' is as fair and valid.

Is anyone else kinda depressed that this is even still an issue? People should be judged on their individual merit, not on what sex they are. There's really nothing else to it. End. Of. Story.

For example, yeah, on AVERAGE men are more capable of 'fighting on the front line'. But I'm a small weedy male, and I know heaps of women who would be better at it than me. So obviously its not about being male or female. Its about how good you are at fighting on the front line.

Pretty simple when you break it down, isn't it?

Deuc, we clearly have some different perspectives on some of the issues mentioned (as I have different perspectives to Ambo and Maximus). I have not tried to do a detailed point by point analysis of the lists, I think that both are intended to be subjective and touch impressions rather than hard statistics. I've browsed both lists and can recognise some truth and some things which don't look right.

If some of Maximus's claims are "total bull" they still represent some common impressions and the way some men are coming to feel about the direction society is going. Having seen some of the family law/child support system (sorry Trinity) first hand I am very aware of the bias in that system and the utter lack of accountability which applies to some women. I know there are female exceptions who get the rough end of deal as well.

A few points from Enaj's list are especially worth plagerising (all good but some stick out)
3. Men are fully as human as their children.
4. Mens's needs, desires, beliefs and ambitions need to be considered as seriously and respectfully as anyone elses, and should not always come second.
9. Men are no more aggressive, sillier or manipulative than women.
11. Men have an interesting and unique way of looking at the world that is fully as valid as womens.

Cheers R0bert

That is very true RObert :)

Some men get stuffed around by the system.

Some women get stuffed around by the system.

Traditionally, and in not that distant a past, women have got MUCH more stuffed around by Government/Society, but I like to think that feminism, and the acknoweledgement that women are just as human as men, has helped us all become a little more equal.

Hopefully, as we all become more aware of the systemic inequalities which exist in many different situations, the system will only be able to stuff us up as 'people'! Afterall, death and taxes come to us all! :)

Now there is a happy thought to end on! *sigh*

Enaj,
Thankyou for your unsubstantiated inference that I do not have an “open mind”.

Unfortunately I have read “Animal Farm” (and I have made sure that the daughter has read it too). What started out as “equality”, certainly did not become that way eventually.

EG
“All animals are equal”, eventually became, “All animals are equal, But some animals are more equal than others.”

Eventually “equality” on Animal Farm was replaced with a form of elitism, where the pigs ruled through deceit and propaganda, and if anyone was critical of the pigs, they could be savaged by special dogs, that had been especially trained by the pigs.

Most of your 12 “feminist” policies are all about “women”, and I become very suspicious of that, as feminism can easily become a form of “elitism”. Your 12 principles of “feminism” mentions the word “women” 13 times, the word “men” 6 times, and the word “people” 0 times. Nearly all feminist text is the same. It becomes brainwashing propaganda.

The 7 original commandments on Animal Farm were gradually changed in time, and the word “pig” became increasingly incorporated. The pigs believed that they should rule Animal Farm, and they believed that they should get the best food, and sleep in the beds in the house, and the other animals had to do the work, slept in the barn, and often starved. Seems very much like the current Family Law system, where the mother gets the house, and the father becomes a payer of money to the mother.

Leaving out feminist rhetoric and propaganda, I can find the most minimal evidence to suggest that feminists are really interested in “equality”, and not the “more equal, than equal” version of equality.

Generalised talk about equality is not enough, as there has to be detailed “feminist” policies provided.

For example:- is a “man tax” a progressive feminist’s “equality” policy, or is the current system of 80/20 in Family Law a progressive feminist’s “equality” policy. That is the level of detail now necessary