Causes I endorse/care about.

[conuly]

1. Anti-infant-circumcision. This is *routine* circumcision, mind. If there's an actual medical reason behind it, I support it. I also will not comment if people do this for religious reasons, provided that this is actually part of their religion.

2. Breastfeeding. And I'm never having kids, so this one's a bit weird.

3. Linguistic rights. Primarily, the right to not be told "the way you speak is wrong". I understand the various reasons behind a need for a standard dialect, but please. Just say "this way is more appropriate for this situation". Forget that right and wrong nonsense. (Unless somebody is actually wrong. It does happen)

4. Anti-Bush. BUSH SUCKS.

5. Pro-reproductive rights.

6. Pro-equality-of-all-sorts (racial, sexual, sexualorientational, whatever, equal is good)

7. Anti-death-penalty. Especially when it's being called upon by people who claim to be "pro-life". Liars.

8. Pro-helping-people-out. Yeah, if you're so pro-life, you should want to support this life once it's born as well. Abortion rates *rose* during Bush's term.

9. Anti-war. I don't like killing people.

10. Pro-Dudley-Fic. *coughs*

11. Autistic Advocacy. Technically, this goes under number 6, but I thought I'd give it a special mention. *special mention*

Hm.... That may be it. Icky number, 11, but it'll do.

Comments

[ruthanolis.livejournal.com]

6. Pro-equality-of-all-sorts (racial, sexual, sexualorientational, whatever, equal is good)

So does that mean you're all for supporting mens equality?

[neurotica0.livejournal.com]

Wanting equality for women means wanting women to be equal to men, so that in and of itself is men's equality.

Ex: A common feminist conception is that men should receive the same paternity benefits as a woman's maternity benefits.

[ruthanolis.livejournal.com]

Getting equality for women might work for some of mens equality. But there's a lot of things political correctness won't allow anymore, but women are quite able to have.

Like say, groups based on gender. It's apparently discriminatory for men to be members of men only clubs. But not for women to be part of women's only clubs. For a simple example, check out the women's only gym classes. And then check how many men's only classes there are as well. Usually the first is >=1 and the second is <0 .... =\

[neurotica0.livejournal.com]

Hmm, well I would personally disagree with that. It makes sense to me that some people might like to work out without members of the opposite sex around.

I see what you mean now. Things like that can be tricky right now, with women still so far behind in many rights. It causes some areas to get overcorrected. (Like having all-women gym classes make up for the fact that we don't get equal pay or that our reproductive rights are quickly dwindling to reprocutive whats?.) It's a valid concern, and I'm not exactly sure how to deal with it, because I think there are cases where people are more comfortable being seperated from the opposite sex, and they should be able to seek that comfort.

[ruthanolis.livejournal.com]

Actually, I can understand that. And even the women's only gym classes [which really is a weak argument]. But the point is that while we fight for true equality the majority groups usually get overlooked. Like white, christian, males for one.

The problem I see in the end is not women's equality or inequality. It's the overenthusiasm for equality at the cost of others.

‡ shrugs ‡ I hate politics. =\

[innerbrat]

The gym classes are a weak argument, but are there any other examples you can give where white, christian males have their rights impinged upon?

[mortaine.livejournal.com]

College admissions?
Scholarships?
Prayer circles?
Rape counselling -- this one, actually, is huge. God help you if you are male and get raped, because no one else will.
Identifying medical issues that were once primarily female, like eating disorders.

Most of the "rights" in question are usually considered privileges, not rights, though (although there's an amendment covering that-- Amendment 9: rights that are in the Constitution do not mean that you don't have other rights). If you want to talk bare-bones Constitutionally-mentioned rights, white men have been known to get into trouble for espousing and vocally promoting pro-white-men beliefs in public (free speech).

However, the big distinguishing trait in inequality would be poverty: white Christian males who are rich do not generally run into discrimination. White Christian males who live in trailer parks and have four dogs named "Dawg"..... Martin Luther King, Jr. actually realized this and started working towards financial equality towards the end of his life, but, of course, no one talks about that because it would be Communist.

[innerbrat]

If you want to talk bare-bones Constitutionally-mentioned rights,
Actually, I do not define my values by the American Consititution. I define rights by what I consider important, which makes this argument subjective, but meh.

I have very little time for most of the rape councilling groups in my area, for men or women, but the groups that helped and supported me the most were there for men as well as women. I have nothing but praise for the actions of FOROM in my area, and indeed in general.

Women scholarships are usually trying to a deficiency. I'm a scientist, and am lucky in that my area is about 50/50 in it MF ratio (at least in my age group), but up the road is a the biggest technology college in the country that has a sex ratio of something like 1 to 5. Scholarship funds, of course, are usally privately sourced: those which specify race/nationality/gender almost certainly are, and such things can be open to whosoever the benefactor likes.
College admissions, well, I'd need to see an example.

Prayer circles, well, I just don't care. Most religions discriminate against everyone at some point or other.

However, the big distinguishing trait in inequality would be poverty
Sorry, I don't understand how your final paragraph shows that SWPMs are discriminated against for being SWPMs.

[mortaine.livejournal.com]

Actually, I do not define my values by the American Consititution. I define rights by what I consider important, which makes this argument subjective, but meh.

Which is why I brought that up-- I also believe that people conveniently say "that's a privilege, not a right" when they want to take a right away from a person. For example, I believe that anyone able to pass a basic driving competency test (including physical capability) should be allowed to get a license. And yet, in my state, you have to also be willing to be fingerprinted in order to do that.

Sorry, I don't understand how your final paragraph shows that SWPMs are discriminated against for being SWPMs.
I actually didn't try to exemplify this, but if you have ever seen a "white trash" man try to get a job, a home loan, or even a little bit of respect when portrayed in the media, then you know what I'm talking about-- if you are white and male and rich, no one can touch you. If you are white and male and poor, then you're trash, a redneck, a hick, uneducated, unsophisticated, and you probably eat roadkill*. I suppose you could say it's about stereotyping, and then treating someone differently based on your expectation of who they ought to be.

Sometimes, even a redneck has a hard time catching a break.

[mortaine.livejournal.com]

Prayer circles, well, I just don't care. Most religions discriminate against everyone at some point or other.

Forgot to address this one: I think I was referring to the more general "women's only prayer circle" type of thing, where the church itself is open to men, but that the prayer circle is really just for the ladies. But my experience with churches is close to nothing, so I am really conjecturing on this one.

[ruthanolis.livejournal.com]

‡ comes back from weekend of gaming and not sleeping ‡

I know that gym classes are a [very] weak argument. But it is an example of the situation at the smallest end [plus at the time, I was in a bit of a rush and couldn't think of any bar the stupidly obvious]. The point was that women's "liberation" had overbalanced the scales of equality in some areas, and just didn't seem to care.

In the end, I find that I have work around/put up with it because there is little that can be done while governments attempt to legislate common sense.

[neurotica0.livejournal.com]

Wow, it is so past my bedtime.
Please excuse my typos.

[ruthanolis.livejournal.com]

I only saw one, and it's not a big deal. I've made worse. =D

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

The reason there are women's only clubs is because women need a safe space. Walk into a gym and really look at who's there. Most gyms I've been to, it's been all men, and the women are only there for the women only classes (I got sick of the leering and the "hey little missy"s enough that the women only classes become a good idea). Men's groups are rather default.

[ruthanolis.livejournal.com]

Men's groups are not default. Mixed groups are default.
Perhaps you [or a male friend] should walk into a gym and ask what classes they have for men only. You'll find the answer will probably [almost certainly] be none.
The reasoning for women's groups is valid and acceptable. I'm fine with them in concept. But, it is discriminatory to not hold men's groups, or at least say that they could be held were there enough interest. Some men don't go to gym's for the exact reasons women want women only gym classes.