Poll: Poll: Social Liberation of Guys, good movement idea or not?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

So....
This week I've read about a male robber being held captive for 3 days, drugged with viagra, and used as a sex toy for a hairdesser. A man getting his penis castrated for attempting to file a divorce against his abusive wife, and NOW a women's talk show about how this is apparently HILARIOUS and COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the reversed role.

I've thought before about how many things in first world society is becoming sexist towards guys: guys can't wear dresses nor makeup, can't do certain jobs without being considered gay, can't be in any way feminine without being considered gay or unmanly, HAVE to know and like sports, HAVE to like beer, are considered the root of all evil, don't have any rights about their genetic material, are considered more evil in general than women, are considered more stupid than women, "cant multi task", etc etc.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to have a group dedicated to fighting this? I see a lot of rage around, but an organized group (especially if it becomes well known) has a lot more impact than general rage. I know there are a few groups sort of like this, but they are generally associated with the anti-feminism movement during the rise of women's equality.

I would suggest that the goal of this movement is to stand against the seen and unseen double standards of society, to fight for social inequalities, and to take a stance on equality. In no way of manner will this group fight against women having the same rights as men, It will deal with rights and social standards women have that men don't have.

...... I'm hoping I won't be ignored due to the length of this post.....

Society isn't becoming sexist towards guys, it's always been sexist. We've come a long way towards women's liberation, and it's time men caught up. Personally i don't think feminism can succeed so long as there is perceived enmity between the genders.

Whenever this topic crops up, there is an enormous tendency to assume that all oppression against men comes from women.

Think about it logically. Do women really benefit from the consistent oppression of men? Do men as a group have a disproportionately low degree of influence in society? Do restrictive male gender scripts really place them on an unfair footing in comparison to female gender scripts, and if so, in what areas? How are those areas socially valued in relation to, say, areas in which male gendered traits and scripts are highly valued?

So who is benefiting here? Who creates a situation in which 'being a man' is deeply inscribed around certain tropes and anyone falls outside of those tropes is gay or sissy? Who actually reaps the rewards? Who is socially exalted and accorded respect and influence?

Anyone who thinks feminism is responsible here hasn't read enough feminism. Feminism in general is very good at explaining the oppression of men on a wider social level. Patriarchy doesn't mean 'every man rules over every woman with an iron fist', it means that social dominant men (patriarchs) benefit from the organization of society around traits which they themselves can demonstrate. It's not just women who suffer from that, it's not even necessarily women who suffer most. It also doesn't mean women can't complicit in creating or reinforcing a patriarchal system, but to assume an equal and opposite level of cross-gender oppression is kind of flawed.

There is no such thing as a socially dominant femininity which benefits from the subordination and oppression of men. Sure, there are individual women who wield considerable power, but there is no hegemonic system which supports their existence. Society isn't organized around valuing a small range of female-gendered traits as indicative of authority, trustworthiness and social legitimacy. There is no matriarchal power which functions in an equal and opposite fashion to patriarchal power.

Well yah that stuff is sort of funny, to be fair we also laugh alot at anti-feminism jokes too, like she hit the doorknob or justifying pimp slapping.

This isn't really a clear cut show of anti-masculinity I think you're just overacting.

... Consider for the past 12,000 years that men have been going around raping and pillaging, engaging in the most stupid wars out of the most trivial causes and of course with the benefits of comfort and sex at the expense of everyone in their way... women... children...

We have this heroic image of war... but the reality is that when a city would be conquered if there was an 8 year old out in the streets... she would be rape just as every other women the men found (probably left until more developed women had been taken)...

The fact that society has developed means that groups who in the past who would be... frowned upon... or beaten to death in some fashion, are now tolerated has allowed them to come forward, notably women being able to speak with the same weight as men and have the same jobs. The other main change is homosexuality no longer needs to be kept in the closet.

Firstly, do address the first thing, men being taken and in effect sexually abused... did you hear this? And if so did you confront it?
If not then your guilty for these views being present too. "Evil prevails when good men do nothing", an iconic and now ironically sexist comment referring to Hitler and his rise to power. Still if they are allow to express this view unchallenged then the person may just not know there is something wrong... and then they don't think about their words and everything stays the same...

The greater, fight for the unseen social inequalities... what's the point...
People are still racist when they don't know about it...

Humanity and society changes very slowly... women's rights only changed because the generation along side the women who wanted more freedoms and then the later generations still didn't... they didn't change they just died off and then change started to occur and then more and more to increasing degrees.

People must make up their own minds, that is done through increasing intelligence and getting people to think more and more. Getting a more open minded society is the goal. We can't force views on others, lest we become who the previous generation were before us...

Alright, while the case of the woman raping the rober for 3 days and the woman who cut off her husbands dick are indeed disturbing, they aren't signs of anti-male ideology anymore than a man raping a woman or a man cutting off a woman's clit isn't indicitive of anti-female ideology, rather they are both just indicitive of human cruelty with the victim's gender being used against them (assuming of course that the events I just mentioned, both real and hypothetical, were not motivated by some form of gender hating ideology, something we probably wouldn't know untill asking the person why they did it)

Now, the women's talk show that thinks these events are funny? Okay, there is a possibility that that may indeed be sexist, but that is assuming of course that they laugh because creulty to a man is funny to them, while it may be possible they laughed just because they think that human cruelty, regardless of gender/sex/race/religion, is funny. Then again I don't really know, since I'm not familiar with which talk show you're talking about. Could you clarify?

evilthecat:
Whenever this topic crops up, there is an enormous tendency to assume that all oppression against men comes from women.

Think about it logically. Do women really benefit from the consistent oppression of men? Do men as a group have a disproportionately low degree of influence in society? Do restrictive male gender scripts really place them on an unfair footing in comparison to female gender scripts, and if so, in what areas? How are those areas socially valued in relation to, say, areas in which male gendered traits and scripts are highly valued?

So who is benefiting here? Who creates a situation in which 'being a man' is deeply inscribed around certain tropes and anyone falls outside of those tropes is gay or sissy? Who actually reaps the rewards? Who is socially exalted and accorded respect and influence?

Anyone who thinks feminism is responsible here hasn't read enough feminism. Feminism in general is very good at explaining the oppression of men on a wider social level. Patriarchy doesn't mean 'every man rules over every woman with an iron fist', it means that social dominant men (patriarchs) benefit from the organization of society around traits which they themselves can demonstrate. It's not just women who suffer from that, it's not even necessarily women who suffer most. It also doesn't mean women can't complicit in creating or reinforcing a patriarchal system, but to assume an equal and opposite level of cross-gender oppression is kind of flawed.

There is no such thing as a socially dominant femininity which benefits from the subordination and oppression of men. Sure, there are individual women who wield considerable power, but there is no hegemonic system which supports their existence. Society isn't organized around valuing a small range of female-gendered traits as indicative of authority, trustworthiness and social legitimacy. There is no matriarchal power which functions in an equal and opposite fashion to patriarchal power.

OH MY GOD, THANK YOU.

TL;DR: The answer is called feminism. Get yourself feministing.

evilthecat:
Whenever this topic crops up, there is an enormous tendency to assume that all oppression against men comes from women.

Think about it logically. Do women really benefit from the consistent oppression of men? Do men as a group have a disproportionately low degree of influence in society? Do restrictive male gender scripts really place them on an unfair footing in comparison to female gender scripts, and if so, in what areas? How are those areas socially valued in relation to, say, areas in which male gendered traits and scripts are highly valued?

So who is benefiting here? Who creates a situation in which 'being a man' is deeply inscribed around certain tropes and anyone falls outside of those tropes is gay or sissy? Who actually reaps the rewards? Who is socially exalted and accorded respect and influence?

Anyone who thinks feminism is responsible here hasn't read enough feminism. Feminism in general is very good at explaining the oppression of men on a wider social level. Patriarchy doesn't mean 'every man rules over every woman with an iron fist', it means that social dominant men (patriarchs) benefit from the organization of society around traits which they themselves can demonstrate. It's not just women who suffer from that, it's not even necessarily women who suffer most. It also doesn't mean women can't complicit in creating or reinforcing a patriarchal system, but to assume an equal and opposite level of cross-gender oppression is kind of flawed.

There is no such thing as a socially dominant femininity which benefits from the subordination and oppression of men. Sure, there are individual women who wield considerable power, but there is no hegemonic system which supports their existence. Society isn't organized around valuing a small range of female-gendered traits as indicative of authority, trustworthiness and social legitimacy. There is no matriarchal power which functions in an equal and opposite fashion to patriarchal power.

I hear the argument that you want us to avoid a lot, sadly. There's this need for many people despite the fact they're in power, to be the victim or underdog, but at the same time to still justify doing whatever they want on the basis that they're the majority and should have absolute control.

So you get things like the 'War on Christmas', where supposedly the country's this overwhelming majority of Christians to the point where having another holiday added to your greeting is an insult, but somehow still can't manage to stay in power long enough to keep those insidious atheists or Jewish from slipping their evil other holidays in.

Like to their mindset, in regard to the above issue, this super powerful league of legislative women leaders spawns in just in time to pass a bill disenfranchising men on this one issue, then conveniently vanishes so women still get to be payed 75 cents to the dollar that a man makes for the same job.

Now, don't get me wrong, a man being raped or hurt is no fucking laughing matter, and isn't any more tolerable just because he's a man. Anybody that thinks it's OK to harm somebody because the victim is the 'acceptable' gender (or race, etc.) to be hurt is a horrible fucking person. There I said it.

But there isn't this stealth cabal of women leaders that just show up and overturn the vastly white male congress for just 25 minutes, long enough to oppress men a juuuust a little bit, then vanish back into the ether.

There are groups out there that are for male empowerment, it's just that a lot of them are run by people who go their hearts broke in high school, and the purpose of those groups is to get a bunch of guys that got their hearts broke in high school so they can bitch about girls.

The reality of the situation is that issues like what is and isn't masculine is generally forced on men by men, while the individual cases of men being raped and mutilated are just that, individual cases that don't have any bearing on a larger conspiracy by women to keep men "in their place."

Ledan:

I've thought before about how many things in first world society is becoming sexist towards guys: guys can't wear dresses nor makeup, can't do certain jobs without being considered gay, can't be in any way feminine without being considered gay or unmanly, HAVE to know and like sports, HAVE to like beer, are considered the root of all evil, don't have any rights about their genetic material, are considered more evil in general than women, are considered more stupid than women, "cant multi task", etc etc.

Really that's nothing new. 50 Years ago a 'real man' worked down the pits, drank his body weight in beer every week and could list the line-up of his favourite football team and how many goals each player had this season. Anyone who didn't fit that criteria was a pansy.

Who do you think came up with that stereotype? Women or other men? For the entire history of humanity men have had the same gender role restrictions that women had, we think a man should do X, Y & Z or there's something wrong with him.

Really there are no serious ramifications of these stereotypes. When was the last time you didn't get a job because you didn't like beer? These stereotypes are meaningless, as long as it is not used to discriminate there are no real issues with it.

The issue here is not liberating man, it's removing social privileged status from women. There is no solid reason that women should be treated preferentially over men, for the same reason that there is no solid reason that men should treated preferentially over women.

Ledan:
...don't have any rights about their genetic material...

What are you talking about? A father has a right to visit their child, unless some authority says otherwise. If you're implying that women are typically favoured in custody cases etc, then there's a good reason for that - namely that they've carried a baby inside them for 9 months, and stand to lose a lot more from the ordeal than the male.

I kind of don't see a reason for such a group. Aside from some 'affirmative action'-type discrimination policies, there's nothing against men.

The whole homophobic crap is rather silly, yes, but how do you propose to fight that? The only way to achieve an end to those silly reasonings is to abolish religion as a whole, which is the deeper cause of the stereotypes surrounding men and women. But then again, no society is quite ready for that advancement yet, so it'll never work.

The best you can do is just point out how silly it is when you encounter it, and that's that. If enough people do that, the idiots who scream gay at everything will be forced to shut up sooner or later.

Don't know how to break this to you, but all of the examples in your OP are ways that patriarchy also hurts men. No, it's not "sexism", you have... failed to notice that men still have the institutional/systemic power? But what hurts women also hurts men, patriarchy is a broken system. Your fight is with it.

Fighting for the equal treatment and inalienable right to harmless plurality in all matters for all individuals is always a good idea.

No reason to limit this to unfair treatment of individuals who happen to be men though. And that thing with the hairdresser and the robber was kind of hilarious in all its absurdity.

Ledan:
are considered more stupid than women, "cant multi task", etc etc.

Somewhat off-topic, but the "can't multitask" topic is valid, and is not a prejudice. At least not on its own.

There is a physical difference between male and female brains. You may or may not be aware that the two hemispheres of your brain have different functions. Its easiest to describe them with one being for logic (math, science, etc.) and the other for creativity (art, social skills, etc.). The female brain has significantly more communication between the two hemispheres. The male brain has significantly more communication within one of the two (usually but not always the logic side). As a result, we tend to end up with male specialists, and female multitaskers.

As to the topic. Why not just social liberation for all? Screw jerking society around between the flavor of the week for "oppressed" individuals.

Comando96:
... Consider for the past 12,000 years that men have been going around raping and pillaging, engaging in the most stupid wars out of the most trivial causes and of course with the benefits of comfort and sex at the expense of everyone in their way... women... children...

This, to me, is a very very potent remark. Perhaps we are at a crossroads in society (north american society) that the tide has shifted. Men (straight men mostly)experience the same humiliation and degradation that women and children have suffered for years....and having it mocked and used as comedy pieces.

We still live in a very hyper macho society, (gay cross dresser fella here...believe me I know),and perhaps this is a very blatant form of 'retaliation'against the past.

I'm not saying it's right...but perhaps that is whats happening now.

Alucard788:
This, to me, is a very very potent remark. Perhaps we are at a crossroads in society (north american society) that the tide has shifted.

Well, it's become pretty accepted a theory that natural selection of humans has radically changed. Before, the more women you fucked, consensual or otherwise, the better you were off in terms of passing on their genes.

However, with the rise of birth control, and the empowerement of women in some parts of western society, it no longer works like that. A real woman will only have children with you if you are a reliable partner, and otherwise it's not going to happen.

So nowadays, the natural selection is not on how much power you can throw around to hurt others, but how good a father you are. The loose cannons do not get to reproduce, and will become extinct of the course of a few milennia.

Heronblade:

Ledan:
are considered more stupid than women, "cant multi task", etc etc.

Somewhat off-topic, but the "can't multitask" topic is valid, and is not a prejudice. At least not on its own.

There is a physical difference between male and female brains. You may or may not be aware that the two hemispheres of your brain have different functions. Its easiest to describe them with one being for logic (math, science, etc.) and the other for creativity (art, social skills, etc.). The female brain has significantly more communication between the two hemispheres. The male brain has significantly more communication within one of the two (usually but not always the logic side). As a result, we tend to end up with male specialists, and female multitaskers.

You are really oversimplifying this. I'll let Wikipedia explain for me:

Wikipedia:
Broad generalizations are often made in popular psychology about certain function (e.g. logic, creativity) being lateralised, that is, located in the right or left side of the brain. These ideas need to be treated carefully because the popular lateralizations are often distributed across both sides.[1]

Further, while the claim of superior female multitasking is popular in pop-media, actual evidence has yet to be published.[1]

Because of the lack of evidence and because of the way that the brain develops in response to the kinds of activity it is engaged in, I think it's very dangerous to say that there is an inherent structural difference in the male brain and female brain that leads to different ways of thinking or capabilities. It could very well be that our cultural notions of how women should behave influences the kind of thinking girls engage in as children, which affects how they develop. Which means that there is no reason other than cultural bias that says men could not develop that same capacity.

evilthecat:
Whenever this topic crops up, there is an enormous tendency to assume that all oppression against men comes from women.

Your post is good and for the most part I agree with it, but I also think it goes too far and appears to suggest that oppression of men only comes from other men. And that would not be true. While a lot of the enforcement of the male gender role in western society does come from men, the role of women in supporting that role should not be ignored.

There is a tendency which can be seen among women of all ideologies but I have encountered especially among women who were, shall we say, lay-feminists, who attempt to elevate the status of women by hi-lighting women's ability to do all things that were traditionally considered the domain of men, while simultaneously elevating the things they believed women could do that either men couldn't, or they believed men had an inherent lesser capacity for. Heronblade's multitasking is a good example of that, but other examples I've seen include child-rearing, social skills, emotional intelligence, aesthetic sense, cleanliness, language ability, and educating children. While I wouldn't exactly call this oppression in general yet, it's not exactly a trivial hypocrisy either.

Alucard788:

Comando96:
... Consider for the past 12,000 years that men have been going around raping and pillaging, engaging in the most stupid wars out of the most trivial causes and of course with the benefits of comfort and sex at the expense of everyone in their way... women... children...

This, to me, is a very very potent remark. Perhaps we are at a crossroads in society (north american society) that the tide has shifted. Men (straight men mostly)experience the same humiliation and degradation that women and children have suffered for years....and having it mocked and used as comedy pieces.

We still live in a very hyper macho society, (gay cross dresser fella here...believe me I know),and perhaps this is a very blatant form of 'retaliation'against the past.

I'm not saying it's right...but perhaps that is whats happening now.

You can understand why people do it, you can understand their motives.

Well I can understand the reasons murder and rape occurred after battles. The soldiers are frustrated, they have suffered the loss of their friends the emotionally crippling sense of loss, then on top of that they have just engaged in adrenaline pumping battle.
They want to feel good and forget. Also some may want revenge... how best to do this in a city you have free reign of? Oh thats right, Alcohol to have fun and help them forget the battle, and Sex to have fun, if the women feel violated then it for fills their need for revenge on the people for losses and hardships.

I can understand it. That doesn't make it fucking right ;)

Just to use you as an example, I try to be a modern person... but cross dressing homo-sexual...
I am a smart person with a conscientious view of things, I would be rather creeped out by you but I wouldn't say or do anything as against you... its what you do, its what you like. I don't... therefore I stand in a different corner xD
If I'm honest, by far it is the cross dressing that would get me most xD I'm fine with someone being gay, so long as they don't touch me (I have a form autism too so there are very few people who can touch me without me jumping away).

I'm a bit weird in term of the macho society thing. Physically I am a very strong person but I think about the effects of what I do and what it will do to others. When I witness others being dicks I'll confront that and often get them to go away, rarely I'll get them to re-consider what their saying.

Now people who are different will, always be viewed differently, but there needs to be the distinction between viewing someone differently, and viewing them in a derogatory manner, viewing them "Because their different they are inferior" or because they are different they are "fair game". Thats wrong. Me sanding in a different corner is me being the most respectful(...maybe not the best word but thats all I can think of...). I don't understand it, but there you go. Someone who would take the piss out of you, other than being bigoted simple minded pricks, is in the wrong. They have the right not to agree, but they do not have the right to treat you any differently. ie the actions taken by some against homosexuals in the US actually breaks the constitution of the states, one silly example, a man refused to make rainbow cup cakes UPON finding out the customers were gay. What a bigoted prick :P

Heronblade:

Ledan:
are considered more stupid than women, "cant multi task", etc etc.

Somewhat off-topic, but the "can't multitask" topic is valid, and is not a prejudice. At least not on its own.

There is a physical difference between male and female brains. You may or may not be aware that the two hemispheres of your brain have different functions. Its easiest to describe them with one being for logic (math, science, etc.) and the other for creativity (art, social skills, etc.). The female brain has significantly more communication between the two hemispheres. The male brain has significantly more communication within one of the two (usually but not always the logic side). As a result, we tend to end up with male specialists, and female multitaskers.

As to the topic. Why not just social liberation for all? Screw jerking society around between the flavor of the week for "oppressed" individuals.

It is invalid, since I can multitask and my friends can multitask. Whenever I try to say that to a woman who is laughing about how men can't multi-task, she says science is on her side and smirks.
How exactly do you define multi-tasking? If it's being able to do and think about multiple tasks and ideas at once, I can definitely do it. I frequently play videogames and watch tv at the same time, while listening and engaging in the conversations around me. When I cook I am not solely focused on that task but my mind wanders.
Where is the proof that men CANNOT multi-task? I'm not saying may or may not be biologically primed to be better at it, but men can definitely do it.

Katatori-kun:
Your post is good and for the most part I agree with it, but I also think it goes too far and appears to suggest that oppression of men only comes from other men. And that would not be true. While a lot of the enforcement of the male gender role in western society does come from men, the role of women in supporting that role should not be ignored.

That's not really my intention.

If only men supported patriarchy, then patriarchy as a system wouldn't be effective, and I think the role of women in supporting patriarchy has always been something feminists have been interested in (or had a horrified fascination with). I think there has been a shift in feminist thinking here away from terms like 'false consciousness' and towards terms like 'hegemony'. False-consciousness implies that women are essentially brainwashed to act against their interests, hegemony is a little more sophisticated. It implies that women can and do benefit from supporting patriarchal systems, but I think it's very hard to deny that they do so to a much lesser extent.

Complicit women are extremely important to the functioning of patriarchy. The possession of women and power over women is a huge part of what separates dominant men from non-dominant men, and there are rewards to be gained from playing your role in accordance with that. You can extend the theory further, in fact. Non-dominant men can also benefit from playing their role in the system. Gay or effeminate men can derive limited legitimacy by acting as a camp foil to the masculinity of straight men, or by accepting the social role of 'honorary women'. The system wouldn't be very effective if playing your role didn't carry rewards. The issue is that those rewards are unequal. Certain people can expect to benefit hugely more than others.

Katatori-kun:
There is a tendency which can be seen among women of all ideologies but I have encountered especially among women who were, shall we say, lay-feminists, who attempt to elevate the status of women by hi-lighting women's ability to do all things that were traditionally considered the domain of men, while simultaneously elevating the things they believed women could do that either men couldn't, or they believed men had an inherent lesser capacity for. Heronblade's multitasking is a good example of that, but other examples I've seen include child-rearing, social skills, emotional intelligence, aesthetic sense, cleanliness, language ability, and educating children. While I wouldn't exactly call this oppression in general yet, it's not exactly a trivial hypocrisy either.

Think about those things though.

A lot of those things are linked to domestic tasks, with which women have usually been associated. Are domestic tasks socially valued compared to more public roles? Maybe in some predominantly female circles, but consider their monetary value. Consider whether they facilitate the independence of those who perform those tasks? Do they accord influence and respect across society as a whole?

When we talk about women having better social skills, we actually mean a very specific thing. We mean the ability to talk openly about emotions. The ability to be persuasive or seductive. The ability to lie or to mask ones true feelings. The ability to be subtle in navigating the social world. The reason these things are female gendered is because, historically, men have not required these skills, or have not been seen as requiring them. Men have never had to appeal to women to get what they want, the only forms of social interaction they have been required to excel at is instrumental commands and homosocial bonding. These are things men are still very good at, the only difference is that these forms of communication have lost the instant authority that they used to carry.

Is the stereotypical gay men any less socially skilled or aware than the stereotypical woman?

A lot of these things have been open to men for a long time. The reason they have not been taken up is not because women have exerted their enormous social influence to bar men from these worlds, but because there is a social understanding supported by both men and women that 'real men' don't do these things. Again, who benefits from these understandings? The women who are still stuck performing menial domestic tasks and having to play girly to get anywhere at the office, or the men who get to be manly by not doing these things?

evilthecat:
Whenever this topic crops up, there is an enormous tendency to assume that all oppression against men comes from women.

Think about it logically. Do women really benefit from the consistent oppression of men? Do men as a group have a disproportionately low degree of influence in society? Do restrictive male gender scripts really place them on an unfair footing in comparison to female gender scripts, and if so, in what areas? How are those areas socially valued in relation to, say, areas in which male gendered traits and scripts are highly valued?

So who is benefiting here? Who creates a situation in which 'being a man' is deeply inscribed around certain tropes and anyone falls outside of those tropes is gay or sissy? Who actually reaps the rewards? Who is socially exalted and accorded respect and influence?

Anyone who thinks feminism is responsible here hasn't read enough feminism. Feminism in general is very good at explaining the oppression of men on a wider social level. Patriarchy doesn't mean 'every man rules over every woman with an iron fist', it means that social dominant men (patriarchs) benefit from the organization of society around traits which they themselves can demonstrate. It's not just women who suffer from that, it's not even necessarily women who suffer most. It also doesn't mean women can't complicit in creating or reinforcing a patriarchal system, but to assume an equal and opposite level of cross-gender oppression is kind of flawed.

There is no such thing as a socially dominant femininity which benefits from the subordination and oppression of men. Sure, there are individual women who wield considerable power, but there is no hegemonic system which supports their existence. Society isn't organized around valuing a small range of female-gendered traits as indicative of authority, trustworthiness and social legitimacy. There is no matriarchal power which functions in an equal and opposite fashion to patriarchal power.

This doesn't change the point of the movement. What the group would be about would be to combat the social stereotypes and social prejudices against men, by other men or by women. I am NOT blaming feminism for the social standard that men have to uphold, I am just saying that I think that since the feminist movement was so succesful in freeing women from their social standards, caused by men AND women.

Ledan:

It is invalid, since I can multitask and my friends can multitask. Whenever I try to say that to a woman who is laughing about how men can't multi-task, she says science is on her side and smirks.
How exactly do you define multi-tasking? If it's being able to do and think about multiple tasks and ideas at once, I can definitely do it. I frequently play videogames and watch tv at the same time, while listening and engaging in the conversations around me. When I cook I am not solely focused on that task but my mind wanders.
Where is the proof that men CANNOT multi-task? I'm not saying may or may not be biologically primed to be better at it, but men can definitely do it.

1) It's not that men can't multitask, it's that they might be not so good at it on average.

2) It might also depend on what the multitasking is.

3) Who really gives a shit?

Mostly (3).

* * *

If anyone is really bothered by the fact the other gender might be better at a couple of things than their own, they would do better trying to work out what their deep-down insecurity problems are.

Dags90:
TL;DR: The answer is called feminism. Get yourself feministing.

I wasn't aware that the fight for the rights of women was insuring men aren't oppressed in the process. I might as well try to harvest peaches off an apple tree.

Who am I to suggest we drop this confrontational attitude though? I see it's serving this thread well enough already.

Esotera:

Ledan:
...don't have any rights about their genetic material...

What are you talking about? A father has a right to visit their child, unless some authority says otherwise. If you're implying that women are typically favoured in custody cases etc, then there's a good reason for that - namely that they've carried a baby inside them for 9 months, and stand to lose a lot more from the ordeal than the male.

he is talking about abortion but that aside I guy can be just as attached to a unborn child as a woman.

evilthecat:
That's not really my intention.

Fair enough then.

When we talk about women having better social skills, we actually mean a very specific thing. We mean the ability to talk openly about emotions. The ability to be persuasive or seductive. The ability to lie or to mask ones true feelings. The ability to be subtle in navigating the social world. The reason these things are female gendered is because, historically, men have not required these skills, or have not been seen as requiring them.

You don't think those skills are vital to business, diplomacy, negotiation, and politics- domains that have been traditionally dominated by men for generations?

Men have never had to appeal to women to get what they want,

The vast body of poetry and music written by men throughout history would beg to differ.

The reason they have not been taken up is not because women have exerted their enormous social influence to bar men from these worlds, but because there is a social understanding supported by both men and women that 'real men' don't do these things.

Actually, I have heard of women attempting to ban men from working in fields that use those skills on the grounds that they are inherently inferior. Granted, it's a rare thing, but it does happen.

I even used to work in a job where the female manager routinely put men in dirty menial-labor positions that had no possibility of promotion or raises while women were immediately put into positions that had more creativity, contact with customers, responsibilities, and pay rises.

Now I'm not saying that this is routine. But it happens. When it comes to any gender issue, I find just about any generalization turns out to be false. Pretty much everything is more complicated than it appears.

Eternal_Lament:
Alright, while the case of the woman raping the rober for 3 days and the woman who cut off her husbands dick are indeed disturbing, they aren't signs of anti-male ideology anymore than a man raping a woman or a man cutting off a woman's clit isn't indicitive of anti-female ideology, rather they are both just indicitive of human cruelty with the victim's gender being used against them (assuming of course that the events I just mentioned, both real and hypothetical, were not motivated by some form of gender hating ideology, something we probably wouldn't know untill asking the person why they did it)

Now, the women's talk show that thinks these events are funny? Okay, there is a possibility that that may indeed be sexist, but that is assuming of course that they laugh because creulty to a man is funny to them, while it may be possible they laughed just because they think that human cruelty, regardless of gender/sex/race/religion, is funny. Then again I don't really know, since I'm not familiar with which talk show you're talking about. Could you clarify?

Of course. The show I am talking about is the CBS show called "The Talk". Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP4VeMJp9pE&feature=player_detailpage#t=287s
If you don't feel like watching it, here is my view on it. As soon as the talk show hosts start talking about a guy's dick getting cut off the entire audience laughs, and the talks show hosts can't keep a straight face. Furthermore, when they discuss valid reasons for cutting of a man's dick (they think that there are) they only go quiet when they think about the terrible crime of a woman getting raped. Therein lies the sexism. They will laugh and joke about the worst thing that could happen to a guy (physically at least) and find that the topic of heinous crimes against women to be too serious to talk about.

I'm not accusing everyone of being sexist, but I am accusing the social standards (perhaps not the best word) to be detrimental to men as a whole. Women have managed to remove many of their perceived social standards, but men haven't. Husband abuse is on the rise, and nobody cares because it's an embarassing topic for men. They often don't do anything, because they can't live with the SHAME. Furhtermore, I saw a vid on the topic yesterday about "The Talk" where somebody posted a video of how people react differently do guys being abused by their girlfriends. Y'know, the crazy psychotic kind? Don't get me wrong, they are in the minority within women, but no one calls them out on their abuse because "Hey, she's just a girl. Girls are a bit emotional. And a girl cant REALLY hurt a guy, with words or with actions."
...... I hope I managed to get my point across.

Ledan:
So....
This week I've read about a male robber being held captive for 3 days, drugged with viagra, and used as a sex toy for a hairdesser. A man getting his penis castrated for attempting to file a divorce against his abusive wife, and NOW a women's talk show about how this is apparently HILARIOUS and COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the reversed role.

I've thought before about how many things in first world society is becoming sexist towards guys: guys can't wear dresses nor makeup, can't do certain jobs without being considered gay, can't be in any way feminine without being considered gay or unmanly, HAVE to know and like sports, HAVE to like beer, are considered the root of all evil, don't have any rights about their genetic material, are considered more evil in general than women, are considered more stupid than women, "cant multi task", etc etc.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to have a group dedicated to fighting this? I see a lot of rage around, but an organized group (especially if it becomes well known) has a lot more impact than general rage. I know there are a few groups sort of like this, but they are generally associated with the anti-feminism movement during the rise of women's equality.

I would suggest that the goal of this movement is to stand against the seen and unseen double standards of society, to fight for social inequalities, and to take a stance on equality. In no way of manner will this group fight against women having the same rights as men, It will deal with rights and social standards women have that men don't have.

...... I'm hoping I won't be ignored due to the length of this post.....

I know most people will discredit you for you standing up and saying all thise but I really do agree with you. When you have a eye out for it you see all the things feminists fight for being changed while the male half remaining the same. Feminists are supposed to fight for equality on the bahalf of both sex's but really is wouldnt be called what it is if that was true and the day I see feminists fight for male rights is the day I will support them I am about everyone being treated fairly not just women. People are just so used to the way things are they don't even see all these things that are there.

Agema:

Ledan:

It is invalid, since I can multitask and my friends can multitask. Whenever I try to say that to a woman who is laughing about how men can't multi-task, she says science is on her side and smirks.
How exactly do you define multi-tasking? If it's being able to do and think about multiple tasks and ideas at once, I can definitely do it. I frequently play videogames and watch tv at the same time, while listening and engaging in the conversations around me. When I cook I am not solely focused on that task but my mind wanders.
Where is the proof that men CANNOT multi-task? I'm not saying may or may not be biologically primed to be better at it, but men can definitely do it.

1) It's not that men can't multitask, it's that they might be not so good at it on average.

2) It might also depend on what the multitasking is.

3) Who really gives a shit?

Mostly (3).

* * *

If anyone is really bothered by the fact the other gender might be better at a couple of things than their own, they would do better trying to work out what their deep-down insecurity problems are.

If you agree that men can multi-task, then don't go propagating the stereotype that men can't.

DevilWithaHalo:
I wasn't aware that the fight for the rights of women was insuring men aren't oppressed in the process. I might as well try to harvest peaches off an apple tree.

Who am I to suggest we drop this confrontational attitude though? I see it's serving this thread well enough already.

Depending on the flavor of feminism, it very much is. Many modern feminist seek to uproot gender roles entirely.

Women don't benefit from the lack of male nurses, because it comes with the expectation that, "Men become doctors, and women become nurses", doctors get paid a Hell of a lot more than nurses. And all of the "weaker sex" protections come with a pretty clear "not fit for autonomy" stamp.

Ledan:
I am NOT blaming feminism for the social standard that men have to uphold, I am just saying that I think that since the feminist movement was so succesful in freeing women from their social standards, caused by men AND women.

Superficially yes, but on a deeper level it really hasn't worked very well, and that's where I personally fall out with it.

Being a woman still carries a huge range of expectations, a lot of which feminists find it very difficult to advocate getting rid of because they still see women as an autonomous object of inquiry. To me, feminists seek a reevaulation of the terms of their oppression without asking why those terms exist in the first place.

To be quite general about it, the reason feminists are quite socially quiet at the moment (compared to the 70s for example) is because the organized movement kind of tore itself apart arguing about what being a woman should mean and should include. Who is this woman you're fighting for and whose rights you're promoting? Is she white or black, gay or straight, rich or poor?

The reason men's movements tend to be so.. fucking stupid, for want of a better word, is because men are already at that stage. We're incredibly diverse, and we can admit that we're incredibly diverse. If you're going to fight for the rights of men, you kind of have to specify which men, because different men face very different obstacles and challenges in our lives.

You talk about how men can't do certain jobs without being considered gay, for example, but what of those of us who are already gay or bisexual or self-consciously effeminate? We're still men. How do you assert our rights while simultaneously arguing for your own right not to be regarded as being.. well.. like us.

Katatori-kun:
You don't think those skills are vital to business, diplomacy, negotiation, and politics- domains that have been traditionally dominated by men for generations?

And to the extent that they are then they're not female gendered. Just as logic, rationality and rhetoric are generally male gendered, and in fact are very clear signs of particular forms of dominant masculinity.

In most situations, though, those are not things people talk about women as excelling at.

Katatori-kun:
The vast body of poetry and music written by men throughout history would beg to differ.

And what are the men asking for?

Again, what did I say about possessing or exerting influence over women being a sign of dominant masculinity.

What is being offered up in trade in these situations, and who is benefiting most from that transaction?

Katatori-kun:
Now I'm not saying that this is routine. But it happens. When it comes to any gender issue, I find just about any generalization turns out to be false. Pretty much everything is more complicated than it appears.

I disagree. That kind of strikes me as a way of dismissing any interrogation of gender norms with the line 'we can't say anything about gender relationships because it's too complicated'. There's a lot of good theory and statistical evidence out there which I'm not explaining very well, but we live in a society explicitly organized around gender relations, and there are extremely prominent and observable trends within that system.

Esotera:

Ledan:
...don't have any rights about their genetic material...

What are you talking about? A father has a right to visit their child, unless some authority says otherwise. If you're implying that women are typically favoured in custody cases etc, then there's a good reason for that - namely that they've carried a baby inside them for 9 months, and stand to lose a lot more from the ordeal than the male.

If a man is raped by a woman and she becomes pregnant, can he stop himself from having a child? nope, right of the mother. He might be able to get custody, but the real point here is that if the guy is a good man but he isn't ready to have a child, he will either have to raise it unprepared or live with the psychological damage that his son could be out there somwhere, adopted or with his rapist.

Damien Granz:

But there isn't this stealth cabal of women leaders that just show up and overturn the vastly white male congress for just 25 minutes, long enough to oppress men a juuuust a little bit, then vanish back into the ether.

No one is saying that there is. Just like their isn't a group of guys that decide that we should be sexist to women. It's all society, social views, and social stereotypes. These need to change. Women are trying to change theirs, so why shouldn't we guys do the same?
As for joining feminism..... no.
Feminism may be striving for gender equality for both sexes, but they are associated with the fight for women. To make society take notice there needs to be a specific voice for the ending of social expectations of men.

Heronblade:

Ledan:
are considered more stupid than women, "cant multi task", etc etc.

Somewhat off-topic, but the "can't multitask" topic is valid, and is not a prejudice. At least not on its own.

There is a physical difference between male and female brains. You may or may not be aware that the two hemispheres of your brain have different functions. Its easiest to describe them with one being for logic (math, science, etc.) and the other for creativity (art, social skills, etc.). The female brain has significantly more communication between the two hemispheres. The male brain has significantly more communication within one of the two (usually but not always the logic side). As a result, we tend to end up with male specialists, and female multitaskers.

As to the topic. Why not just social liberation for all? Screw jerking society around between the flavor of the week for "oppressed" individuals.

Here I suggest a larger group, for both all sorts of inequalities. The Egalitarian group, with subdivisions working against specific inequalities. For women, men, africans, asians, arabs, 3rd world countries, etc etc etc.

Damien Granz:

So you get things like the 'War on Christmas', where supposedly the country's this overwhelming majority of Christians to the point where having another holiday added to your greeting is an insult, but somehow still can't manage to stay in power long enough to keep those insidious atheists or Jewish from slipping their evil other holidays in.

Its not that other holidays are being included its that Christmas is being pushed out. Most chirstians wouldnt be annoyed if they were wished a happy Ramadon or some other religous holiday or even if the Jews were having a big public celibration its just when your traditions and religious customs are being banned from being public that they get offended I actually really see why they get upset. Way I always saw it was the other religions had more of a mindset of "if I cant get all these things niether can you" when really it should be more of a "if you are getting these things so should I".

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked