Male flight from female dominated industries is a real thing. I'm not sure that would be the best approach to take, given the general trends. It's ok that Men/Women have different preferences in vocations.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Prospect: A Good Men's Rights Movement Is Hard To Find
- Thread starter Mumei
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I'm going to give it straight to all of you but mostly for myself right now. I've made all kinds of bullshit lies to employers about why I am where I am in life because I can't tell any employer as an adult male them I was perpetually abused and I had to get help. Because not only does no one care, but I look like a crazy person for even saying that. I have to lie. Because if I don't I'll never get a job anywhere. Think about that... I am a crazy person because I was perpetually abused. What the eff. And despite that, I'd actually consider myself lucky because I'm extremely observant.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Is this just a men's issue, though?I'm going to give it straight to all of you but mostly for myself right now. I've made all kinds of bullshit lies to employers about why I am where I am in life because I can't tell any employer as an adult male them I was perpetually abused and I had to get help. Because not only does no one care, but I look like a crazy person for even saying that. I have to lie. Because if I don't I'll never get a job anywhere. Think about that... I am a crazy person because I was perpetually abused. What the eff. And despite that, I'd actually consider myself lucky because I'm extremely observant.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
MRA are just the tip of the iceberg of legitimate male frustrations... Their hatefulness and arrogance allows them to say what other men do not.
The nature of masculine roles promotes quietism. It is not considered manly or tactful to argue for men's issues. There is the presumption that men will be judged as weak or whiny to air such male-related grievances. It feels as if there are few sympathetic ears to such concerns. It would be seen as unattractive to women, and pitiful by other men. Even other feminists might see it as unecessary or unconcerning or even opposed to their cause.
And aside from even being able to air these concerns, who among us wants to become an outright activist for such issues? It's easier just to go with the flow, because it ain't that bad being a man, but those issues men do have tend to go unchecked.
And in the meantime, the only ones who express such concerns are the loudest and most hateful among us, and they get the dynamics all wrong (anti-women and anti-feminists).
The nature of masculine roles promotes quietism. It is not considered manly or tactful to argue for men's issues. There is the presumption that men will be judged as weak or whiny to air such male-related grievances. It feels as if there are few sympathetic ears to such concerns. It would be seen as unattractive to women, and pitiful by other men. Even other feminists might see it as unecessary or unconcerning or even opposed to their cause.
And aside from even being able to air these concerns, who among us wants to become an outright activist for such issues? It's easier just to go with the flow, because it ain't that bad being a man, but those issues men do have tend to go unchecked.
And in the meantime, the only ones who express such concerns are the loudest and most hateful among us, and they get the dynamics all wrong (anti-women and anti-feminists).
It's more that there's not a need for a broad "men's" group in the same way there's a need for it for women. (aka feminism, in practice, due to the nature of self-interest.) They're different, and that's ok.MRA are just the tip of the iceberg of legitimate male frustrations... Their hatefulness and arrogance allows them to say what other men do not.
The nature of masculine roles promotes quietism. It is not considered manly or tactful to argue for men's issues. There is the presumption that men will be judged as weak or whiny to air such male-related grievances. It feels as if there are few sympathetic ears to such concerns. It would be seen as unattractive to women, and pitiful by other men. Even other feminists might see it as unecessary or unconcerning or even opposed to their cause.
And aside from even being able to air these concerns, who among us wants to become an outright activist for such issues? It's easier just to go with the flow, because it ain't that bad being a man, but those issues men do have tend to go unchecked.
And in the meantime, the only ones who express such concerns are the loudest and most hateful among us, and they get the dynamics all wrong (anti-women and anti-feminists).
Are you asking me as if you think I'm an MRA? Because I'm not. They helped me when nobody else would. You have called me out as a bad person in multiple topics.Is this just a men's issue, though?
Women have issues, big ones. Issues I truly care about and always have since I've been around. That's who I am. But so do men, different ones. Just as big. Possibly bigger.
The difference is some men have not only low self esteem but no support. Whereas women can much more easily get support. I care about anyone in a shitty situation. But men are simply not given much leeway for weakness or pain. Pity is a bad place to stay for any man. Good luck if you ever find yourself there.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Well, you were saying no employer would listen to your story or want to know it. Hiding your abuse is not just an issue for men, though.Are you asking me as if you think I'm an MRA? Because I'm not. They helped me when nobody else would. You have called me out as a bad person in multiple topics.
Women have issues, big ones. Issues I truly care about and always have since I've been around. That's who I am. But so do men, different ones. Just as big. Possibly bigger.
The difference is some men have not only low self esteem but no support. Whereas women can much more easily get support. I care about anyone in a shitty situation. But men are simply not given much leeway for weakness or pain. Pity is a bad place to stay for any man. Good luck if you ever find yourself there.
Aquamarine
Member
MRA are just the tip of the iceberg of legitimate male frustrations... Their hatefulness and arrogance allows them to say what other men do not.
The nature of masculine roles promotes quietism. It is not considered manly or tactful to argue for men's issues. There is the presumption that men will be judged as weak or whiny to air such male-related grievances. It feels as if there are few sympathetic ears to such concerns. It would be seen as unattractive to women, and pitiful by other men. Even other feminists might see it as unecessary or unconcerning or even opposed to their cause.
And aside from even being able to air these concerns, who among us wants to become an outright activist for such issues? It's easier just to go with the flow, because it ain't that bad being a man, but those issues men do have tend to go unchecked.
And in the meantime, the only ones who express such concerns are the loudest and most hateful among us, and they get the dynamics all wrong (anti-women and anti-feminists).
I will never understand why the modern masculine paradigm mandates that men must "suck it up" and "remain quiet," and why some men adhere to that paradigm so strongly. It's so profoundly stupid and it leads to so much suffering.
Devolution
Member
Are you asking me as if you think I'm an MRA? Because I'm not. They helped me when nobody else would. You have called me out as a bad person in multiple topics.
Women have issues, big ones. Issues I truly care about and always have since I've been around. That's who I am. But so do men, different ones. Just as big. Possibly bigger.
The difference is some men have not only low self esteem but no support. Whereas women can much more easily get support. I care about anyone in a shitty situation. But men are simply not given much leeway for weakness or pain. Pity is a bad place to stay for any man. Good luck if you ever find yourself there.
Fight gender roles.
That's feminism.
Women fought hard and long to retain what was considered "manly, strong, etc."
You guys are going to have to fight to retain what is considered "womanly, emotional, etc." And you're going to have to fight mostly other men.
There's your burden.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I had to think about that for a second, but I think I see your point. Women have been placed in a disadvantaged position across the board via patriarchy. But for men there are a number of smaller issues which may be unrelated to the broader category of being men, and might be tackled one by one (ie education, male gender roles, divorce and child custody law, etc)It's more that there's not a need for a broad "men's" group in the same way there's a need for it for women. (aka feminism, in practice, due to the nature of self-interest.) They're different, and that's ok.
I don't think there's no need for a broad men's category so much as there isn't likely to be one... There just isn't the social urgency for it.
I will give feminism credit for fighting those gender roles. In the past I was skeptical that they'd handle it but.. It is directly related to their own goals. You can't say "women can do what men can" without also saying "men can do what women can".Fight gender roles.
That's feminism.
Women fought hard and long to retain what was considered "manly, strong, etc."
You guys are going to have to fight to retain what is considered "womanly, emotional, etc." And you're going to have to fight mostly other men.
There's your burden.
It's frustrating because a lot of the hardlining MRAs assume any attention given to women being unduly shat upon means you have to completely ignore men while you're doing it. And also miss the fact that stuff like patriarchy harms men in addition to harming women.
The matter is, men get shat on and tore up the most by other men. When you get reactions like this and all the negative comments are from men, it's disheartening and concerning.
But bring up patriarchy and you get the instant reflex action of "you're accusing me of oppressing people just because I'm male" and can't get a conversation that it's a system set up to keep women down and to punish and harm any men that try to change or not follow it. They throw away people who would logically be their allies.
The matter is, men get shat on and tore up the most by other men. When you get reactions like this and all the negative comments are from men, it's disheartening and concerning.
But bring up patriarchy and you get the instant reflex action of "you're accusing me of oppressing people just because I'm male" and can't get a conversation that it's a system set up to keep women down and to punish and harm any men that try to change or not follow it. They throw away people who would logically be their allies.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
It's frustrating because a lot of the hardlining MRAs assume any attention given to women being unduly shat upon means you have to completely ignore men while you're doing it. And also miss the fact that stuff like patriarchy harms men in addition to harming women.
Fact of the matter is, men get shat on and tore up the most by other men. When you get reactions like this and all the negative comments are from men, it's disheartening and concerning.
But bring up patriarchy and you get the instant reflex action of "you're accusing me of oppressing people just because I'm male" and can't get a conversation that it's a system set up to keep women down and to punish and harm any men that try to change or not follow it.
Patriarchy as a word used to drive me up a wall. The thing that solidified it as fact was studying history. It's not just some vague "men have always oppressed women" sentiment which just sounds anti-male. No, it was a specific shift that occurred ~10,000 years ago, as the conditions of organized states tended to privilege men via the following:
1. monarchies and other property handed down through lineage demand that the childbirthing sex is kept under control.
2. Centralized states only exist because of armies, privileging the physically stronger sex.
Once I understood it as a real (and relatively recent) imbalance that occurred in all advanced states during the age of civilization, I saw the concept of patriarchy at work in my daily life, and in many of my assumptions about what men and women "naturally" are.
I would explain that history to others before assuming they understand the subject.
But bring up patriarchy and you get the instant reflex action of "you're accusing me of oppressing people just because I'm male" and can't get a conversation that it's a system set up to keep women down and to punish and harm any men that try to change or not follow it. They throw away people who would logically be their allies.
I've always felt that the term 'patriarchy' is misapplied. It is not a system set up by men to benefit men, it is a system set up by patriarchs to benefit other patriarchs, which is why 'gender binary kyriarchy' works better. It avoids the galvanizing of the discussion from the outset by not adhearing to this;
'Patriarchy' = men = bad
'Feminism' = women = good
Guess what Liu Kang Baking A Pie? This is a human issue, not a feminist one. I know your inner feminist is screaming, but I spent probably 3/4 of the past few years wondering why I should bother going on. And no one is going to cry a river over it. No one. You want me banned, why? I WANT women and men to love each other.Well, you were saying no employer would listen to your story or want to know it. Hiding your abuse is not just an issue for men, though.
And honestly giving a fuck about one genders issues is stupid. Caring about PEOPLE in rough situations is much bigger. If you're in a privileged position to help others, do us all a favor and wake the fuck up. Men vs women is the most hostile shit situation imaginable. Men need to love women and women need to love men. Balance. There needs to be a lot more love in general, and a hatred for shit. The dumb ass middling fights are hurting everyone. There is ZERO need for gender wars. On the other hand there is a HUGE need for understanding who we are and what our limits are.
I've fought here hundreds of times for any situation I've seen that was detrimental to the women and men at hand. I'm not always right, but I do my best. And I will do that forever. Gender wars are ridiculous because there are shit men, and asshole women. And I hate that as much as you do.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
That's what I was saying.Guess what Liu Kang Baking A Pie? This is a human issue, not a feminist one. I know your inner feminist is screaming
User 100115
Banned
Guess what Liu Kang Baking A Pie? This is a human issue, not a feminist one. I know your inner feminist is screaming, but I spent probably 3/4 of the past few years wondering why I should bother going on. And no one is going to cry a river over it. No one. You want me banned, why? I WANT women and men to love each other.
And honestly giving a fuck about one genders issues is stupid. Caring about PEOPLE in rough situations is much bigger. If you're in a privileged position to help others, do us all a favor and wake the fuck up. Men vs women is the most hostile shit situation imaginable. Men need to love women and women need to love men. Balance. There needs to be a lot more love in general, and a hatred for shit. The dumb ass middling fights are hurting everyone. There is ZERO need for gender wars. On the other hand there is a HUGE need for understanding who we are and what our limits are.
I've fought here hundreds of times for any situation I've seen that was detrimental to the women and men at hand. I'm not always right, but I do my best. And I will do that forever. Gender wars are ridiculous because there are shit men, and asshole women. And I hate that as much as you do.
Just so you know, myself and many others are always available here if you need a shoulder. I spend a great deal of my time on this site trying to help folk.
And you are right, it's not a gender issue. It's an asshole issue. I am sorry no one but MRAs saw fit to help you. I think that speaks more for people in general than it does for MRAs though. There are people in every circle who want to help others, they just tend to be rarer than the folk that don't.
Thank you.Just so you know, myself and many others are always available here if you need a shoulder. I spend a great deal of my time on this site trying to help folk.
And you are right, it's not a gender issue. It's an asshole issue. I am sorry no one but MRAs saw fit to help you. I think that speaks more for people in general than it does for MRAs though. There are people in every circle who want to help others, they just tend to be rarer than the folk that don't.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
What? Weird edit. When has that ever been said?You want me banned, why? I WANT women and men to love each other.
I concuur with the article. Basically because I believe that any movement - any - that is build by opposition turns invariably to shit, no matter how noble is to fight your designed enemy. You are invariably going to start seeing giants in windmills, for your mere existance depends on a big "other" to fight against. I would gladly support pro-women rights and Pro-men rights groups, but I would be hard pressed to collaborate with an "anti-sexism" type of organization.
I even called on friends and told them my plights. They were to scared to talk to me because of my depression. I even tried to make light of it and said I was past that. Suicidal female? Everyone jumps in. Suicidal male? Get him the hell out! Again, no support!
.
That's right out of my experience.
Got really sick. every-fucking-one left me
to die, I guess
Sick male? Not worth any time. Because well he could die or something. So better leave him alone. That will surely help him.
I just need to go through forums about that disease on the internet - that behaviour is typical and normally happens to males only, although the disease is not male-exclusive.
And that behaviour is everywhere. Just think about typical accidents or something like that. "100 people killed, including children + women". I understand children being mentioned, but women? Why? If they would say "100 people killed, including children + men", everyone would scream misogynist, even if there were no women killed. Men are worth shit. If the feminist patriarchy would actually exist, it would be exactly the opposite.
2. Centralized states only exist because of armies, privileging the physically stronger sex.
Privileged as in forced to participate and die on the battlefield?
What you are describing is the 1%. And yeah, fuck them. But that's not just males, because if it was, they would have died out a long time ago.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Privileged as in forced to participate and die on the battlefield?
What you are describing is the 1%. And yeah, fuck them.
The individual soldier might not be privileged in times of war, true.
But advanced centralized states rely on armies, armies tend to be comprised of strong men, and in a state whose livelihood relies on strong male warriors, the role of the female is deemed less important and subordinate to the needs of the male.
Think beyond the army of modern states where maybe the soldier is the pawn of the elites... I am just as much talking about Mesopotamia or Sparta where the soldier is revered. And while it may seem like a "natural" pattern of human society, centralized states relying on militarism to maintain that centralization of power is actually a weird new development of the last 10,000 years.
I suppose non-soldier elites, sponging off their effort, have always been in the picture, though...
.
That's right out of my experience.
Got really sick. every-fucking-one left me.to die, I guess
Sick male? Not worth any time. Because well he could die or something. So better leave him alone. That will surely help him.
I just need to go through forums about that disease on the internet - that behaviour is typical and normally happens to males only, although the disease is not male-exclusive.
And that behaviour is everywhere. Just think about typical accidents or something like that. "100 people killed, including children + women". I understand children being mentioned, but women? Why? If they would say "100 people killed, including children + men", everyone would scream misogynist, even if there were no women killed. Men are worth shit. If the feminist patriarchy would actually exist, it would be exactly the opposite.
I agree with the sentiment of everything you said.
Except where you say this indicates the lack of patriarchy.
Men are presumed to be "all right" because men are presumed to be in the power position. Women, like children, are more taken care of because they are perceived to need the help. And they do, in a society which considers them to be in a weaker position.
It is exactly the same reason why you see less male scholarships than female ones. Or less white scholarships than minority ones. Those in power, ironically, get less social support. They are presumed to have more power unto themselves.
The individual soldier might not be privileged in times of war, true.
But advanced centralized states rely on armies, armies tend to be comprised of strong men, and in a state whose livelihood relies on strong male warriors, the role of the female is deemed less important and subordinate to the needs of the male.
Now that's great. Men were forced to die on the battlefield for the well-being of the 1% + females, but hey females were totally getting oppressed.
Who made those decisions? Just a few people, that were in power. Why? Because they didn't like women? No. Because they wanted to win a war. They gave a shit about those soldiers. They wanted their soldiers to follow their orders and they didn't want those soldiers to get distracted/getting soldiers into a romantic relationship/see wounded and/or dead and/or tortured female soldiers - which could have been demotivating.
Females on the other hand did a lot in wars as well. But not directly on the battlefield and I would say that dying on the battlefield <<<<< anything else.
What did Hitler do for example? Soldiers were forced. Females were able to be nurses - in case they wanted to and much more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_militaryBy 1945, German women were holding 85% of the billets as clericals, accountants, interpreters, laboratory workers, and administrative workers, together with half of the clerical and junior administrative posts in high-level field headquarters.
If I would have lived back then, I surely would have wished that I would have been a woman.
That's one of the worst examples to bring up. How many men died in the 2 world-wars? Quite a lot I would say. And noone gave a shit. Oh right, they got a tombstone somewhere for dying. And the few that survived got a medal. Yay. That makes them totally important.
You are talking about the 1%. Those are the ones, that think that they are important. Typical men are disposable humans. They don't matter at all.
And while it may seem like a "natural" pattern of human society, centralized states relying on militarism to maintain that centralization is actually a weird new development of the last 10,000 years.
That's not weird. It makes sense for the few, who are in power. Those, that are in power, normally want more power. And how do you get more power? By talking? Nope. By force of course. By having stupid
Think back when there were kings and queens. Most people were oppressed back then to work + die for just a few people.
I agree with the sentiment of everything you said.
Except where you say this indicates the lack of patriarchy.
Men are presumed to be "all right" because men are presumed to be in the power position. Women, like children, are more taken care of because they are perceived to need the help. And they do, in a society which considers them to be in a weaker position.
Replace "weaker" with "more valuable" and I would agree.
Why mention them specifically in news reports? Because they matter. You don't mention people, that don't matter e.g. typical men.
If for example a celebrity dies in a plane crash, news reports would say "100 dead, including children + women. Sean Connery was also killed".
That wouldn't mean that "Sean Connery" was weak. It would mean that Sean Connery matters.
It is exactly the same reason why you see less male scholarships than female ones. Or less white scholarships than minority ones. Those in power, ironically, get less social support. They are presumed to have more power unto themselves.
And I guess less and less males are getting a degree is also caused by "males being in power"? I guess they don't need one, because well they are already in power so who cares, right?
http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2012/09/04/race-and-gender-in-higher-education/
cyclonekruse
Member
That might or might not be true. Women also put pressure on men to be manly and masculine. It's a little more subtle, perhaps, but might be just as strong. As long as women (on average) prefer to date/have sex with guys who are traditionally masculine, they are exerting pressure for men to conform to that role.Fight gender roles.
That's feminism.
Women fought hard and long to retain what was considered "manly, strong, etc."
You guys are going to have to fight to retain what is considered "womanly, emotional, etc." And you're going to have to fight mostly other men.
There's your burden.
But you're correct that other men will also resist the change and fight those that do exhibit more feminine characteristics. My personal hypothesis as to why is that, for most men, they aren't born into masculine behaviors but rather it's a long, nigh-constant molding process that turns boys into "men." Something similar assuredly happens for women, but I don't see the clamp down on emotions like I do for men (or experienced for myself for that matter). I think it's fairly observable. Young boys are allowed a little leeway for feeling sad or emotional. But slowly and steadily that gets stamped out with constant reminders to "man up" or "suck it up" or "be a man" or "take it like a man" or "stop being such a girl/whiny bitch." (It's worth noting that the same reinforcement is used to promote physical strength in men as well.)
The result of this long and arduous process is emotionally stunted adult males. And those males value their masculinity (as defined by being tough physically and emotionally) precisely because it was so hard to achieve. If you sink that much effort into something, you don't want it to be devalued in any way. And, I think there's a little bit of the mentality of "If I had to go through it, my son will have to go through it." Similarly to how seniors in frat houses don't want the freshman to have it any easier than they did.
blame space
Banned
anything good is hard to find.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
2. Centralized states only exist because of armies, privileging the physically stronger sex.
This is one way of looking at it.
MRAs will often say - and I don't necessarily disagree, as despite the stupidity of the people making such arguments, there IS validity to this idea - that outside of the top 1% who have generally benefited from such wars, it has turned men into a more expendable gender, whereas women, the childbearing gender (as well as the gender who would engage in many of the support functions - cleaning, cooking, child rearing, etc. - that grease the gears of a state), have generally been seen as more worthy of protection. The idea of "patriarchy", nebulous as it really is, all things considered, is a big contributor to this, but generally speaking, it's also a simple byproduct of men's innately more violent, unstable nature mixed with the fact that we seem more willing, historically, to turn fatal levels of such violence on one another. It's a complicated problem.
That might or might not be true. Women also put pressure on men to be manly and masculine. It's a little more subtle, perhaps, but might be just as strong. As long as women (on average) prefer to date/have sex with guys who are traditionally masculine, they are exerting pressure for men to conform to that role.
But you're correct that other men will also resist the change and fight those that do exhibit more feminine characteristics. My personal hypothesis as to why is that, for most men, they aren't born into masculine behaviors but rather it's a long, nigh-constant molding process that turns boys into "men." Something similar assuredly happens for women, but I don't see the clamp down on emotions like I do for men (or experienced for myself for that matter). I think it's fairly observable. Young boys are allowed a little leeway for feeling sad or emotional. But slowly and steadily that gets stamped out with constant reminders to "man up" or "suck it up" or "be a man" or "take it like a man" or "stop being such a girl/whiny bitch." (It's worth noting that the same reinforcement is used to promote physical strength in men as well.)
The result of this long and arduous process is emotionally stunted adult males. And those males value their masculinity (as defined by being tough physically and emotionally) precisely because it was so hard to achieve. If you sink that much effort into something, you don't want it to be devalued in any way. And, I think there's a little bit of the mentality of "If I had to go through it, my son will have to go through it." Similarly to how seniors in frat houses don't want the freshman to have it any easier than they did.
This is, perhaps, part of the picture, but I've thought for a while that gender roles are ALSO a pretty big part of tribal affiliation and identity. How one tribe/group externally expresses masculinity can be VERY different from how another tribe does so, even if the "core" is the same. I recall reading Jared Diamond talking about how tribes in Papua New Guinea tended to carry with them still the idea that even neighboring tribes are "barbarous cannibalistic monsters", and I've long wondered if the revulsion I might feel when I see very effeminate guys in tight clothing with a lot of skin showing is, beyond simple visceral dislike of seeing that much of a guy's body, not dissimilar to what I might feel at a watering hole when it is visited by a differently-dressed man from another tribe.
most of the organisations for MRA are a joke, and quite insulting to everyone in my opinion.
I still feel there is a need for them to campaign for things like family court battles which in the UK are quite frankly predecided the woman will get most or full custody unless it's obvious she's terrible.
One of the few job fields where men are massively underrepresented is teaching but there's very little promotion to try and get men to apply, yet there's a load of things to push women into becoming engineers and physicists (which is fine, i just want some more balance)
Men and women can both be excellent parents, doctors, nurses engineers etc
I still feel there is a need for them to campaign for things like family court battles which in the UK are quite frankly predecided the woman will get most or full custody unless it's obvious she's terrible.
One of the few job fields where men are massively underrepresented is teaching but there's very little promotion to try and get men to apply, yet there's a load of things to push women into becoming engineers and physicists (which is fine, i just want some more balance)
Men and women can both be excellent parents, doctors, nurses engineers etc
GreatMightySymp
Member
I will never understand why the modern masculine paradigm mandates that men must "suck it up" and "remain quiet," and why some men adhere to that paradigm so strongly. It's so profoundly stupid and it leads to so much suffering.
I've never understood it either. My father acts like that all the time and it annoys the hell out of me.
Going back to the original thread topic, I don't see an issue with men grouping together to tackle specific issues that feminism isn't really suited to handle as it's not tied to its general goals, but the MRAsphere is entirely the wrong way to go at it and just hurts the causes they should be trying to help fix --- they're basically acting the same way the SJWs on Tumblr do in terms of hurting their cause.
These opinions are always fascinating. It looks like magical thinking to me, you don't really know why or how but somehow fixing some other thing indirectly related at best (when I say at best I mean in the most contrived theoretical models possible, where a single factor like "patriarchy" is at the core of all societal problems) is going to fix all the issues men have.
What magical thinking? It's detached, logical and long term thinking. Every time a social movement upended an old status quo there have been periods of often brutal consequences for the formerly powerful. After a while things tend to settle in a new balance of power that causes the least overall societal friction.
The major male rights related problems in my opinion indeed stem from the old patriarchal (for lack of a better word) way of viewing the world. Men are tough, aggressive, cannot nurture etc. They need to grin and bear it. Women are emotional, passive, nurturing etc. Courts for example majorly side with women in custody cases because the law still views the sexes through old lenses. The viewpoint hasn't fully shifted yet. It will. No one is "after" men. And yeah these issues deserve to be brought forth but "men's rights" is too wide an umbrella. And I have yet to see a "men's rights" platform discussion that didn't quickly devolve into a cesspit of misogyny.
Fenderputty
Banned
That might or might not be true. Women also put pressure on men to be manly and masculine. It's a little more subtle, perhaps, but might be just as strong. As long as women (on average) prefer to date/have sex with guys who are traditionally masculine, they are exerting pressure for men to conform to that role.
This is very true. Media doubles down on this. Should I be Indiana jones when I grow up or Hugh grant in any roll he's ever played?
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
The breaking down of gender stereotypes and their accompanying social expectations is the binding force between feminism and men's rights. Women have just been working at breaking down those stereotypes for a LOT longer than men have.
I'm starting to think that the existence of MRA groups is a good thing in the sense that having a grouped fringe response to so-called aggressive feminism allows us to point out the absurdity of the positions MRA groups hold and explain how these attitudes really harm both genders and that the principles of feminism aren't about taking things away from men but rather making sure both sexes are treated fairly without judgement.
What magical thinking? It's detached, logical and long term thinking. Every time a social movement upended an old status quo there have been periods of often brutal consequences for the formerly powerful. After a while things tend to settle in a new balance of power that causes the least overall societal friction.
Are you saying there is or will be a violent uprising against men? Otherwise Ï don't really see what sense this makes.
The major male rights related problems in my opinion indeed stem from the old patriarchal (for lack of a better word) way of viewing the world. Men are tough, aggressive, cannot nurture etc. They need to grin and bear it.
You might be confused as to what "paternalism" imply. Notice the "pater" at the beginning of the word. The idea that men are "agressive" and "dangerous" is completely antithetic to the concept of men as providers that take care of the "weaker" members of the family. Any ideology that pretends that "paternalism" is responsible at the same time for the views that men are "protectors" and the idea that they're "predators" is confused at best, misleading at worst.
The idea that men are "agressive" and "dangerous" is completely antithetic to the concept of men as providers that take care of the "weaker" members of the family. Any ideology that pretends that "paternalism" is responsible at the same time for the views that men are "protectors" and the idea that they're "predators" is confused at best, misleading at worst.
Mmm, I don't think the two concepts are necessarily contradictory. I mean, who do you think the "protectors" are supposed to be protecting their charges from?
As far as whether patriarchal views could be responsible for both ideas, well, both concepts are outgrowths of the idea that women are weaker, yes? If women are weaker, then they can be taken advantage of by strong men who choose to do so ("predators"), and have no recourse. Thus, the men who have taken on the responsibility of guarding them must step in and be their "protectors," warding them from those who would do them harm.
Mmm, I don't think the two concepts are necessarily contradictory. I mean, who do you think the "protectors" are supposed to be protecting their charges from?
As far as whether patriarchal views could be responsible for both ideas, well, both concepts are outgrowths of the idea that women are weaker, yes? If women are weaker, then they can be taken advantage of by strong men who choose to do so ("predators"), and have no recourse. Thus, the men who have taken on the responsibility of guarding them must step in and be their "protectors," warding them from those who would do them harm.
Right. And that sort of dynamic - between male protection on the one hand (through a father, brother, husband, or adult son) on the one hand, and the threat of male violence on the other hand - is one of the primary ways that highly patriarchal societies implicitly police women's ability to participate in public life. Even in societies like ours, which aren't "highly patriarchal" the way that, say, Saudi Arabi might be, phenomena like street harassment (and the way that the presence of a male figure like a husband or boyfriend limits said harassment) presents a similar dynamic of harassment on the one hand, and implicit protection on the other hand.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.