For my fellow "marriage shy" men.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

San Martin:

targren:
[quote="San Martin" post="18.821782.19882360"]

We can both be completely for equality and at the same time clash on almost every issue. The three examples which you referred to as lies for example: "Patriarchy Theory", "Wage Gap" and "Rape Culture". I'm sure our opinions on those issues differ wildly. "Patriarchy Theory" as I understand it means that human societies historically have always been run principally by men and primarily benefited men. I completely agree to the veracity of that. And yes, I believe that women are disadvantaged in the world of work, specifically when it comes to higher up positions, and as a whole (not talking individual cases) have more difficulty getting those jobs and are paid less for them. I'm not 100% on whether society's attitudes towards rape can accurately be called a "Rape Culture", but I am totally sure that rape is far too common, not taken seriously enough and that far more women are directly victimised by rapists than men are.

Patriarchy: To claim that mostly men benefitted from patriarchy historically is simply incorrect: For example in Stockholm, so many men died during harsh labour in the harbor, that women actually outnumbered men in our capital(Im a swede) by about 20+ %.

A FEW men benefits from patriarchy, but in the big picture Im sure that all the soldiers, slave labourers and other people that were traditionally men would not agree that they had a better share than the average woman.
Sure, you had less responsibility and authority, but you were also more like a child as a woman, taken care of in a very harsh time.

This was true all the way to the 1950s Id say.

As for rape culture: We actually take rape more serious than murder in this culture. A murderer, sure there could be some manner of self-defence.
But a rapist? Noone even entertains the thought that it could have been a missunderstanding. Even though most people that have had sex have experienced a woman saying "no" before sex, even if she was interested later on.

Even in more traditional cultures and rougher more "macho" circles of friends, its actually EVEN MORE common to say stuff like "Id never hit a girl" or randomly blurt out "whe should excecute all rapists". Or "domestic abuse is a plague"

Noone ever says that about murderers or extreme assault cases.

OhJohnNo:

My belief is that, while the hatred is unfortunate on its own merits, "what it stands for" wouldn't get any more valid if those promoting it were any more polite. I'd be more willing to forgive the assholes I see everywhere in the movement if I viewed it as a necessary movement at all.

What is it with feminists and double think?

You've said to me, directly, that you've "spoken" to ONE mra, online I might add, and she was hardly a firm believer since she according to you dropped that hat pretty damn quickly.

You've also said directly to me that you admit you're guilty of basically putting anyone you don't like into the 'MRA' box so that you can then write them off without guilt, whether they have ever said they are an MRA, or were actually speaking as one, or on any MRA issues(as opposed to simply criticising feminists).

So basically, you've outright admitted to using the term 'MRA' as an extremely loose thing despite HAVING NEVER LOOKED ONE IN THE EYE IN YOUR LIFE, and use it as a way of simply dismissing people.

And yet you have the audacity, to write about 'forgiving the assholes in the movement'? How can you seriously write that, and think that, while at the very same time outright admitting to a heinous degree of ignorace and what can only be described as outright bigotry?

I don't believe what I'm seeing here, I really don't.

To answer your question though before honestly washing my hands of this baffling affair, Warren Farrell is indeed misquoted as saying 'before we called it date rape, we called it exciting'. I fully imagine you saw the words 'rape' and 'exciting' next to one another, the training took over, and you lost rationality until maybe reading this sentence brought you back. You cool?

Right. So, it's clumsily put, I don't deny this, but the point he was trying to make is that the feminist led charge to constantly broaden the definition of rape, the efforts lack any kind of nuance. Farrell was trying to draw attention to things that used to be part of the culture of courtship(especially among the young), things like token resistance or the idea that to some a woman may be considered easy if she makes the first move, so she waits to 'let the guy take her' because believe it or not, many women love that sort of thing. I'm having the same difficulty expressing this as he did, but maybe if women themselves would express something on this matter we'd get somewhere. But they're too busy buying up Sylvia Day novels and 50 Shades of Grey in the hundreds of millions of copies to give us some reliable info into how they view things like that.

Farrell has never spoken on proper rape and outright abhors any kind of violence, and simply called for nuance in a way that could've been smoother. Honestly, given the way things are right now and some of the stuff my wife is into, I would probably have a hard time convincing a court of law I'm not a rapist if my lady decided to use her legal super-powers on me.

Smeatza:

Even if that is the case (which I don't believe it is), why should anybody settle for a movement that treats them as a secondary priority?

Well, we come to what's probably an irreconcilable difference here: I think men's rights, as it stands, are a secondary priority.

This is exactly that I'm saying, the feminist way of addressing male expendability is to address the fact that females are valued for having children. The feminist way of addressing the male rights to children (which doesn't just cover child custody) is to address how women are expected to have and raise kids.
The male is always a secondary, and half-arsed priority. Like I said before the emphasis is clearly, and almost exclusively on the female side of things, and any benefits to males would be purely collateral, if they happened at all.

Well, yes - that's because those male problems are actually symptoms of the problems women face. If we changed the societal attitude that valued women for childbearing abilities, for example, chances are high that the attitude considering men expendable would change along with it. In fact, in this case I'm pretty sure it's impossible to change one issue without changing the other.

To be honest, this has always seemed like a self-evident truth to me. I wasn't even raised in a feminist household or anything - it just all made perfect sense to me the first time I saw it explained. I guess this is another reason I find it so hard to take the MRM seriously.

You condemn and entire group of people, call them assholes for having certain political, moral or ethical beliefs.
And not even outlandish or extreme beliefs. All they believe is that feminism does not look out for the rights of men sufficiently or whole-heartedly. And yet you feel entitled to condemn said people and make large sweeping generalisations about their character, and negative ones at that.
Wikipedia says bigotry is "Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, or intolerance."
And your views on the MRA movement fit that bill perfectly.
And anybody can be the victim of discrimination, even conservatives. I'm sure when it comes to comedy shows conservatives must be heavily underrepresented.

Nah, I still say you're wrong on this. I don't treat MRAs "with hatred, contempt or intolerance" for their beliefs, even if I disagree with them - I treat assholes with those things. Throughout my time on the internet, I've observed and interacted with a lot of people who identified as MRAs, right since long before I knew anything about the movement. Almost universally, the MRAs either acted like total douchewads or were open misogynists, which led me to the simple correlation that people who self-identify as MRAs are more likely to be assholes. In fact, thinking back, you might be the only guy I've met on the Escapist who strongly holds MRA beliefs and is tolerable to talk to.

Feminism does not have a monopoly on human and civil rights movements.
And even if feminism did adequately address the needs of men (which I don't think it does), there's still no reason why others shouldn't set up similar but separate movements. Unless you think "It's either with us or against us."

Again, this makes perfect sense - in an ideal world, people who didn't think feminism represented them could indeed form their own movement and work together with feminists to achieve their goals. Sadly, though, that hasn't panned out. I'll admit I have no idea who actually started the hostility (though you can probably guess my prime suspect, based on my expressed views) but I doubt anyone could stop it now. I fear the two groups will never work together.

Now, while this has been a productive and enlightening conversation, I'd like to call it off now if at all possible. Retro's little splosion just now has reminded me of why I typically don't like to venture into gender-related threads - they usually end in tears. If you really feel like continuing it, PM might be a better place.

OhJohnNo:

Again, this makes perfect sense - in an ideal world, people who didn't think feminism represented them could indeed form their own movement and work together with feminists to achieve their goals. Sadly, though, that hasn't panned out. I'll admit I have no idea who actually started the hostility (though you can probably guess my prime suspect, based on my expressed views) but I doubt anyone could stop it now. I fear the two groups will never work together.

Now, while this has been a productive and enlightening conversation, I'd like to call it off now if at all possible. Retro's little splosion just now has reminded me of why I typically don't like to venture into gender-related threads - they usually end in tears. If you really feel like continuing it, PM might be a better place.

Retros little splosion that you can't address directly and you know you can't, and your outright prideful refusal to see what's there. You know exactly who started, upheld, maintains and continues all hostilities(and if you can't point to actual MRA violence like I can point to multiple cases of feminist violence, the internet is at your disposal), and MRAs are the assholes? You can't even challenge what I've said, or stick up for what you said.

You honestly make me sad, and if the shoe were on the other foot, and I was saying about feminists what you're saying about MRAs(and being insulting about it, not even an academic disagreement) I'd probably have been booted off the site for misogynist attitudes.

Retrograde:

Retros little splosion that you can't address directly and you know you can't

image

Ohhh man. You're accusing me of being prideful? Now listen, dude, you didn't respond to the last post I sent you and instead saw fit to just ignore most of it so you could fit more hysterical rage in your post, and you expect me to respond to you? Nah, I read that post, had a hearty laugh and decided I wasn't going to waste my time with it when I could be posting at someone I actually kinda like instead. In fact, I've noticed this is a problem recurrent with MRAs - they throw huge, hostile walls of incoherent text at you and then act like they've won when you just cannot be bothered to refute what anyone with mild critical thinking skills can figure out for themselves. Why on earth should I debate with someone who does not understand the basic rules of debating?

I'm glad I "make you sick" (nice speed-edit thar, m8! Wouldn't want the mods catching sight of that, now would we?). If it'll make you feel more justified, the feeling can be considered mutual - let it never be said I'm not a considerate soul. Now I'm going to add you to my ignore list, because it's clear any future interactions will just drag the thread down into a pit of mod sanctions and flamewars and I don't want that.

OhJohnNo:
snip

That anyone with critical thinking skills could refute but not a single one has. You've not brought anything original up, you've not linked to anything, you've not even actually refuted a single point by my count because I don't consider someone turning around and going 'nope, that's not what I feel' any kind of counter-argument. You in fact admit to ignorance and wear it like armor. iI was hardly a wall of incoherent babbling rage, it was a wall of me being quite honestly baffled by, like I said, the doublethink and the blatant bigotry, and there really isn't any other way to describe it.

And I'M being hostile? How can you possibly consider yourself a considerate soul when you won't even consider what you say yourself, let alone what anyone else has to say?

OhJohnNo:
Now, while this has been a productive and enlightening conversation, I'd like to call it off now if at all possible. Retro's little splosion just now has reminded me of why I typically don't like to venture into gender-related threads - they usually end in tears. If you really feel like continuing it, PM might be a better place.

I'm relatively sure that I've only got one more post left in me on the subject so we might as well finish it here.

OhJohnNo:
Well, we come to what's probably an irreconcilable difference here: I think men's rights, as it stands, are a secondary priority.

Fair enough, I believe there's no reason to prioritise one over the other.

OhJohnNo:

Well, yes - that's because those male problems are actually symptoms of the problems women face. If we changed the societal attitude that valued women for childbearing abilities, for example, chances are high that the attitude considering men expendable would change along with it. In fact, in this case I'm pretty sure it's impossible to change one issue without changing the other.

See I'm not so sure that child-bearing is the only factor and therefore that the two issues are as closely related as you think.
And like I said, I'm not a Men's Rights Activist, but I know there's much more to it than just those two issues.

OhJohnNo:
To be honest, this has always seemed like a self-evident truth to me. I wasn't even raised in a feminist household or anything - it just all made perfect sense to me the first time I saw it explained. I guess this is another reason I find it so hard to take the MRM seriously.

Just as I wasn't raised in a politically skeptical household, but here we are.

OhJohnNo:

Nah, I still say you're wrong on this. I don't treat MRAs "with hatred, contempt or intolerance" for their beliefs, even if I disagree with them - I treat assholes with those things. Throughout my time on the internet, I've observed and interacted with a lot of people who identified as MRAs, right since long before I knew anything about the movement. Almost universally, the MRAs either acted like total douchewads or were open misogynists, which led me to the simple correlation that people who self-identify as MRAs are more likely to be assholes. In fact, thinking back, you might be the only guy I've met on the Escapist who strongly holds MRA beliefs and is tolerable to talk to.

You treat assholes with contempt and intolerance, by your own admission.
You believe MRA activists are assholes, or at the very least more likely to be so.
Therefore you treat MRA activists with contempt and intollerance.
Which is bigoted.
I realise this conclusion is sketchy. But in a broader sense, condemning an entire political group, every individual, no exceptions. Is always going to be a little bigoted. There's at least one good, or at the very least sympathetic apple in every group.

OhJohnNo:

Again, this makes perfect sense - in an ideal world, people who didn't think feminism represented them could indeed form their own movement and work together with feminists to achieve their goals. Sadly, though, that hasn't panned out. I'll admit I have no idea who actually started the hostility (though you can probably guess my prime suspect, based on my expressed views) but I doubt anyone could stop it now. I fear the two groups will never work together.

I think that honestly, conflict get's more views and sells more papers. News media prefer to cover only the vocal extremists when it comes to issues such as this and it's not helpful in the slightest. I'm sure there are other factors though.
I'd like to say Egalitarianism is the way forward. But that seems to be an even bigger mish-mash of different schools of thought than Feminism or the Men's Movement.

Smeatza:
I'm relatively sure that I've only got one more post left in me on the subject so we might as well finish it here.

Alright, that's fine. Thanks for the contributions - you have indeed succeeded in opening my mind a tad.

OhJohnNo:
*snip*

I'd point out that if the issues were inexorably tied, as it appears you claim, then working to resolve either would improve both, and thus the "men's issues are secondary" argument is inherently wrong since fixing men's issues would fix women's issues through the same kind of magic that it theoretically would in the other direction (which would make people who identify as feminist having a problem with men's issues even being addressed bizarre). But that's the trick -- the people claiming things like that and "patriarchy hurts men too" and the like know at some level that it isn't the case which is why focusing on their side of the issue is so important -- they know fixing something else they claim is connected won't solve their problems, no matter how much they claim the reverse is true.

IOW, culture is full of, and quite content to wallow in hypocrisy and pretending otherwise is foolish.

Without going into much of the last four pages of this thread and just going off the OP's video and whatnot, it seems to me the logical thing to do is to just not marry anyone. I've been in a relationship for five years (5yrs in September) and both of us know marriage is not happening.

That doesn't mean our relationship isn't any more important than a married couple, nor does that mean we love one another less. We simply aren't signing a document that says we are married. I guess I don't see the whole point in the marriage "thing" anyway. *shrugs*

If things go south, we can simply walk away from the whole thing and start our lives over. We won't have to go through a divorce, deal with the circus that is the US court system or anything else for that matter. It just seems to make more sense to me, but to each their own I suppose. The whole thing just seems like an easily avoidable headache.

I've been following this thread for a while, but never had anything to add really.
However, for your consideration, here's my two cents:
Marriage is a very personal thing, I believe. The state should have nothing to do with it. It should be between a man and a woman (Or gay, whatever), their friends and family, and optionally whatever church or temple they feel connected to.

Also, it shouldn't be so darn expensive. In American TV shows I am still stunned at how lavish those weddings look, even when it's working class people! Guys, you are not French royalty. :p

As for me, I do want to get married someday, just to proclaim to the world that I am taken and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
Ha!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked