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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Ledan:

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

I didn't propagate that stereotype. Direct that complaint at whoever actually has.

evilthecat:

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.

I think that applies to some issues for men but not all but I think you made a pritty solid point.

evilthecat:

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.

Right. You are gay, great for you, but why are you considered 'gay' and not a 'man'? Somehow the society decides that as a gay guy, you lose your status as a man. If you don't conform to the social expectation of men, you aren't "really" a man but a specific type of guy. I realise that this diversity makes my case hard to fight for. Consider for a moment a lesbian woman. She is most definetly a woman, and there is not much a woman can do (save for liking women sexually) to make her appear homosexual. In short, it's unheard of for a woman to lose her femininity/womanity (silly word that.....). A man however is distinctly categorized as being unmanly as soon as he doesn't conform.
How come women and lesbians are at such ease whereas straight guys and gay guys have this enmity towards one another? And why does a male construction worker have to be masculine and a male hairdesser have to be feminine?

Agema:

Ledan:

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

I didn't propagate that stereotype. Direct that complaint at whoever actually has.

I do apologize, I assumed that I as replying to Heronblade and did not notice that you qouted my reply to someone else.

Ledan:
Right. You are gay, great for you, but why are you considered 'gay' and not a 'man'? Somehow the society decides that as a gay guy, you lose your status as a man. If you don't conform to the social expectation of men, you aren't "really" a man but a specific type of guy.

To clarify, I'm bisexual. I'm only saying it because I'm a bit worried that the real gay people on this site will start thinking I'm appropriating their voices, but yeah, moving swiftly on.

I don't agree that I'm not regarded as a man. I will agree that being LGBT means I'm often regarded as being less masculine or not being a 'real man', but other than occasionally being mistaken for a woman because I choose to dress like a twink, I think most people around me are pretty clear that I'm male. I'm certainly not female, and since our society doesn't really allow anything between that makes me male by default.

Here's the thing though, I don't want to be regarded as a 'real man', because if I am it means by definition that someone else isn't. I'm far more annoyed that this contest of who gets to be considered a man even exists rather than the fact that I'm not winning it. Being a man isn't an achievement. It shouldn't mean anything in particular, it shouldn't have particular associations which privilege or inhibit people. The problem isn't that I don't get to be considered a real man, the problem is that anyone does.

Ledan:
Consider for a moment a lesbian woman. She is most definetly a woman, and there is not much a woman can do (save for liking women sexually) to make her appear homosexual. In short, it's unheard of for a woman to lose her femininity/womanity (silly word that.....). A man however is distinctly categorized as being unmanly as soon as he doesn't conform.

Maintaining femininity as a lesbian is really no easier than maintaining masculinity as a gay man, except to the extent that lesbian activity is fetishized and regarded favourably by many men who have the social authority to legitimate things that they like or which benefit them.

When it ceases to be intelligible as something attractive to men and for the benefit of men, lesbianism really isn't as favourably regarded as you think.

evilthecat:

Katatori-kun:
Consider for a moment a lesbian woman. She is most definetly a woman, and there is not much a woman can do (save for liking women sexually) to make her appear homosexual. In short, it's unheard of for a woman to lose her femininity/womanity (silly word that.....). A man however is distinctly categorized as being unmanly as soon as he doesn't conform.

Maintaining femininity as a lesbian is really no easier than maintaining masculinity as a gay man, except to the extent that lesbian activity is fetishized and regarded favourably by many men who have the social authority to legitimate things that they like or which benefit them.

When it ceases to be intelligible as something attractive to men and for the benefit of men, lesbianism really isn't as favourably regarded as you think.

Looks like you've got a bit of a mis-quote going on here. I never said that. As long as you edit your post, no worries.

I'll try to reply to your other post quoting me later today. Have a good afternoon.

Katatori-kun:
Looks like you've got a bit of a mis-quote going on here. I never said that. As long as you edit your post, no worries.

Apologies, pressing the quote button is turning kind of cluster-fuck-ish.

Ledan:

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.

Ok, but that doesn't equate to every male in the world having no rights whatsoever regarding their genetic material. I think I missed the context - could you clarify what you mean by genetic material?

The reason that the woman always has the final decision is because its always her body that holds the baby, regardless of whether the woman has been raped or is the rapist. Giving the father any control over his genetic material at this stage (which I'm assuming from now on means sperm, or 50% of the child) indirectly gives him power over the mother's body, which violates basic human rights (however the baby was formed). It's a complicated issue and there's probably a very good counter-argument to this, but I'd say that the mother's choice takes precedence over what is essentially a copyright issue. (Yes, even though the sperm was obtained in an illegal, horrific manner.)

And is ownership of genetic material really such an issue? If you grant men/women control over a baby's fate based on genetic similarity, where does that power end? For example, my grandparents are 25% genetically similar to me; does this mean that together they have an equivalent say in my affairs as one of my parents? You could even argue that I have a greater say over what all humans in Europe do than in Africa, just because I have more genes in common with the average European than African. Taking this approach of genetic material is flawed on many levels, and eclipses the rights of any potential child.

I don't think anyone would expect a man who was raped by a woman to stay and raise the child; also the rapist should not be allowed to raise the child, as she's clearly not a suitable guardian. And it's incredibly poor taste that people can joke about matters like these on a talk show. But forcing abortions on women just because sperm wasn't legally obtained? No thank you.

Hopefully I haven't misinterpreted anything again.

Ledan:

Right. You are gay, great for you, but why are you considered 'gay' and not a 'man'? Somehow the society decides that as a gay guy, you lose your status as a man. If you don't conform to the social expectation of men, you aren't "really" a man but a specific type of guy. I realise that this diversity makes my case hard to fight for. Consider for a moment a lesbian woman. She is most definetly a woman, and there is not much a woman can do (save for liking women sexually) to make her appear homosexual. In short, it's unheard of for a woman to lose her femininity/womanity (silly word that.....). A man however is distinctly categorized as being unmanly as soon as he doesn't conform.
How come women and lesbians are at such ease whereas straight guys and gay guys have this enmity towards one another? And why does a male construction worker have to be masculine and a male hairdesser have to be feminine?

I've always wondered this. As a man who occasionally cross dresses and is married to another man I still consider myself very much....a man.

Makes me wonder if there really is a universal definition of masculinity...or is it far more diverse than we think it is.

Hmm...

evilthecat:
Maintaining femininity as a lesbian is really no easier than maintaining masculinity as a gay man, except to the extent that lesbian activity is fetishized and regarded favourably by many men who have the social authority to legitimate things that they like or which benefit them.

When it ceases to be intelligible as something attractive to men and for the benefit of men, lesbianism really isn't as favourably regarded as you think.

To bring games into this topic...think Mass Effect and the Asari. There is a good example of fetishized lesbianism (with a side dose of 'needs manly loving to 'reproduce'), and a world where gay men (as far as I know) don't exist. However when (some not all) straight guys are exposed to real, genuine lesbianism, they either don't like it or react really in the same way that some of them react to a male couple.

It's really fascinating actually....and doesn't 'really' happen in terms of slash and yaoi fandoms.

Alucard788:

Makes me wonder if there really is a universal definition of masculinity...or is it far more diverse than we think it is.

There isn't, because gender is largely a social construct, vaguely but noticeably shaped by biology and evolution which produces generally observable but far from universal patterns of behaviour by humans whom are of the male sex.

In sum, yeah there are ideas of masculinity but they can only be at best vague ones because there is a lot of individual difference within sexes. I wouldn't worry to much if you don't cohere to general notions of being a "a man"- i don't think any men truly match up to be "a man" anyway, even the ones who like going down to the pub to have a few pints with the lads, watch football and make eyes at the fit bar lady.

On topic:

In general terms, and in modern western society, men and women are pretty much equal. I mean yeah on average men earn more and are easier to employ because they work full time and don't get pregnant, but then again men are also expected to go out and work and not spend as much time raising the kids. It's a question of relative perspective. Guy's are expected to hit on girls, girls are expected to look pretty to attract the guys, many girls like this arrangement, i personally don't but a lot of guy's are quite happy to be be obliged to make the first move. Women are more likely than men to gain the sympathy of the jury in court depending on the case, men on the other hand dominate law making and law-enforcement.

Really, today gender relations is a complex mix of relative advantages and disadvantages. I don't think, overall, one sex is more disadvantaged than the other, in certain areas there are gaps yes, and those gaps should be addressed if possible, but in general terms men and women are roughly equal.

So, i don't think we need a mens "liberation movement", when there isn't really anything to be liberated from, really both sexes should work on narrowing legal equalities and constructing a culture which promotes acceptance of gender non-compliance.

evilthecat:

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.

I agree that logic, rationality, and rhetoric are often seen as male traits. However, I would not agree without very rigorous evidence that there is a biological element to that, and so therefore like most people I would be very leery of ever claiming that men were inherently more logical, rational, or better at rhetoric than women. If I were to claim that, I would no doubt be rightly shouted down by a huge crowd of of people from both feminist and mainstream thought who would correctly protest that women are every bit as capable of having skills in logic, rational thought, and rhetoric. If I were to try and deny women a job or position or the chance at advancement based on a belief that women would be less logical, rational, or worse at rhetoric, I'd very likely face a lawsuit for sexist discrimination. And rightly so. All I'm saying is I've seen lots of people accept the notion that men cannot develop traditionally feminine skills, who would absolutely reject the notion that women cannot develop traditionally masculine skills. And that doesn't just come from men.

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.

I see it like this. Imagine an infinitely large whiteboard. And over a given span of time in our post modern era, every time a woman suffers gender discrimination, someone draws a pink Venus symbol on the board. Every time a man suffers gender discrimination, someone draws a blue Mars symbol. Now, even in this time of third-wave feminism, those pink Venus symbols are probably going to outnumber the blue Mars symbols by a substantial margin. And that's not right.

So it would be fine with me to say "Women suffer gender discrimination a lot," or even, "Women suffer gender discrimination more often than men." But all too often, people make generalizations like, "Women are discriminated against by men," or "Women don't have it as good as men," or variations thereof. And those kinds of sentences are like pretending that all of those blue Mars symbols don't exist.

To combat the problem, we should be aspiring to have no symbols appear on the board at all. Unfortunately, there are people out there, some of them women, who think the appropriate solution is to just add blue Mars symbols until they balance the number of pink Venus symbols. They aren't a majority, they aren't a shadowy cabal of man-hating feminist conspirators, but we shouldn't pretend they don't exist.

Ledan:

Consider for a moment a lesbian woman. She is most definetly a woman, and there is not much a woman can do (save for liking women sexually) to make her appear homosexual. In short, it's unheard of for a woman to lose her femininity/womanity (silly word that.....). A man however is distinctly categorized as being unmanly as soon as he doesn't conform.
How come women and lesbians are at such ease whereas straight guys and gay guys have this enmity towards one another? And why does a male construction worker have to be masculine and a male hairdesser have to be feminine?

I'm sorry, but this really is nonsense. OK, I might be the extreme case as a lesbian who was followed in to the women's bathroom in a shop by a uniformed male security guard because he thought I was a man. But I suspect that you are thinking more in terms of mass media presentation of lesbians rather than the real thing...

And my personal experiences tell me that in many cases straight women are not always at ease with lesbians, or simply deal with them by treating them as if they were men or 3rd gender.

But try being a woman and insisting on always wearing trousers. Or only wanting short, uncoloured hair. Or never wanting to buy or use any cosmetic products. Or the extremes where ideal women presented as an image to aspire to are not only statistically unlikely (supermodels) but usually even those "perfect" women are impossible (photoshop). Or consider professions where women are expected to wear a skirt/makeup/long hair and will be fired if they don't (stewardesses for example). Hell, just last month a woman was fired/disciplined (I forget which) by Harrod's of London because she didn't wear make up and it was required by the dress code because THAT was what women wore.

There absolutely is an expectation of femininity and those who do not comply are certainly treated differently, as lesser or defective in some way.

Why are straight women/lesbians different from straight men/gay men? I am not certain if they are. Perhaps women are better at hiding or being covert in their negative behaviours, but that doesn't make the behaviour less negative (gossiping, rumour spreading, character assassination). I have never had cause to feel physically at risk from a straight woman, but straight men have squared up to me. Perhaps, due to my absence of femininity, they perceived me as a legitimate target.

A vaugely realted point, there are more famous male scientists in least in part due to the fact the IQ of woman are more closely collarated around the 100 mark, i.e. there are far less woman with an IQ of 130 but also far less woman with an IQ of 70.

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.

You're using bad science to condone bad policies there. The whole 'left brained/right brained' thing is complete bunk. Not to mention that humans in general are bad at multitasking. Humans can't divide their ability to think evenly or efficiently. That doesn't mean that if a person sips a drink and reads a book that he suddenly becomes comatose obviously, but if (as a very bad example) a project is taking 30% of a person's concentration, they can't add a second 30% project and just total it up to a neat 60%.

aba1:

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 Christians wouldn't be annoyed if they were wished a happy Ramadan or some other religious holiday or even if the Jews were having a big public celebration 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 neither can you" when really it should be more of a "if you are getting these things so should I".

Christmas is the largest cultural phenomena since pants. It's an affair that lasts from October to January. Halloween, Thanksgiving, New Years (and these are holidays that most Christians in America participate in) are being 'pushed out' for an ever expanding holiday. Entire towns are lit up for months with their regalia, the whole of the economy ebbs and surges with because of their holiday. If there's a 'war' with Christmas, Christmas is winning. Trust me on that.

However, you say the innocent words "Happy Holidays" during this entire time, be prepared to hear a victimized earful.

Valksy:

Ledan:

Consider for a moment a lesbian woman. She is most definetly a woman, and there is not much a woman can do (save for liking women sexually) to make her appear homosexual. In short, it's unheard of for a woman to lose her femininity/womanity (silly word that.....). A man however is distinctly categorized as being unmanly as soon as he doesn't conform.
How come women and lesbians are at such ease whereas straight guys and gay guys have this enmity towards one another? And why does a male construction worker have to be masculine and a male hairdesser have to be feminine?

I'm sorry, but this really is nonsense. OK, I might be the extreme case as a lesbian who was followed in to the women's bathroom in a shop by a uniformed male security guard because he thought I was a man. But I suspect that you are thinking more in terms of mass media presentation of lesbians rather than the real thing...

And my personal experiences tell me that in many cases straight women are not always at ease with lesbians, or simply deal with them by treating them as if they were men or 3rd gender.

But try being a woman and insisting on always wearing trousers. Or only wanting short, uncoloured hair. Or never wanting to buy or use any cosmetic products. Or the extremes where ideal women presented as an image to aspire to are not only statistically unlikely (supermodels) but usually even those "perfect" women are impossible (photoshop). Or consider professions where women are expected to wear a skirt/makeup/long hair and will be fired if they don't (stewardesses for example). Hell, just last month a woman was fired/disciplined (I forget which) by Harrod's of London because she didn't wear make up and it was required by the dress code because THAT was what women wore.

There absolutely is an expectation of femininity and those who do not comply are certainly treated differently, as lesser or defective in some way.

Why are straight women/lesbians different from straight men/gay men? I am not certain if they are. Perhaps women are better at hiding or being covert in their negative behaviours, but that doesn't make the behaviour less negative (gossiping, rumour spreading, character assassination). I have never had cause to feel physically at risk from a straight woman, but straight men have squared up to me. Perhaps, due to my absence of femininity, they perceived me as a legitimate target.

I'd like to add that, uh, about none of my male gay friends are giggling feminine poofs either. I guarantee you if you met me on the street you'd never 'guess' my sexuality, unless I was doing something obvious about it, and it'd have nothing to do with me just being fearfully closeted in my sexuality, and it would have everything to do with the fact that I prefer simple closed (IE, legged, rather than open IE skirt/dress) clothing.

I honestly think all this divide between the 'behavior' of women/lesbians/men/gay men has much less to say about the differences between these people and more to say about the cultural expectations put on them, and their ability to cope with or rile against those norms in a way that doesn't end them up in jail for indecency, or living out of a box for being unhireable (try being a women and getting a job without a bra or make up, or try being a man and getting a job with long hair or a dress).

This is a pretty great thread, and i only wish i was articulate enough on the topic to contribute more.

Imperator_DK:
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.

and just what exactly is so absurd about it? rape is pretty much never hilarious.

DevilWithaHalo:

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.

The confrontational attitude runs directly counter to the goals of feminism and true gender equality.

Ledan:

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.

It's a difficult issue to be sure, but what do you propose as a solution? Forced contraception?

Ledan:
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.

I disagree. As long as there are separate voices for each gender, there will be conflict between them. Gender equality can only truly be attained by a single, unified movement.

cobra_ky:
...
and just what exactly is so absurd about it?

The highly unexpected turn of a black-belt hairdresser disabling a robber armed with a gun - a typical heroic situation - then completely and utterly reversing that image by proceeding to molest the crook. Who then subsequently goes to the police and gets himself arrested alongside her. Which she can't understand, since she gave him food and clothes.

Pretty surreal I'd say. I like surreal.

rape is pretty much never hilarious.

Well, at least it's very seldom presented as such outside the world of fiction, where it must instead rely on other elements - in this case particularly the latter - to soften the blow.

I agree so much with you. We shouldn't fight against 'the patriarchy' with the feminists, we should attack outdated stereotypes.

EDIT: NOOOOO!!! Imperator's link to TvTropes made me open 10,000 tabs! But I did read something relevant;

"No I won't calm down. Women are allowed to get angrier than men about double standards."
- Liz Lemon, 30 Rock

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoubleStandard

oh hey this thread got necroed for some reason. long as i'm here i might as well reply to posts from 6 months ago.

Imperator_DK:

cobra_ky:
...
and just what exactly is so absurd about it?

The highly unexpected turn of a black-belt hairdresser disabling a robber armed with a gun - a typical heroic situation - then completely and utterly reversing that image by proceeding to molest the crook. Who then subsequently goes to the police and gets himself arrested alongside her. Which she can't understand, since she gave him food and clothes.

Pretty surreal I'd say. I like surreal.

rape is pretty much never hilarious.

Well, at least it's very seldom presented as such outside the world of fiction, where it must instead rely on other elements - in this case particularly the latter - to soften the blow.

looking back, i think "absurd" is actually a pretty appropriate word for the situation. i just didn't see how humor could be derived from it.

Danyal:
I agree so much with you. We shouldn't fight against 'the patriarchy' with the feminists, we should attack outdated stereotypes.

EDIT: NOOOOO!!! Imperator's link to TvTropes made me open 10,000 tabs! But I did read something relevant;

"No I won't calm down. Women are allowed to get angrier than men about double standards."
- Liz Lemon, 30 Rock

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoubleStandard

Patriarchy is the cultural institution that promotes outdated sexual stereotypes, hope this helps.

--

gosh, i miss Valksy ;_;

cobra_ky:

Patriarchy is the cultural institution that promotes outdated sexual stereotypes, hope this helps.

At least we should acknowledge that those stereotypes hurt both men and women, and that (white, Christian/Atheist!) men are not the evil dictators and women the blameless victims.

Sexism swings both ways.

Another stupid group 'defending' our rights would help nothing and insight everything.

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.....

Exactly what are you hoping to change? Its illegal to kidnap and sexually assault someone, it doesnt matter if the victim is a guy or a women its still illegal?

As for the whole "oh your gay" thing when guys do something that isnt especially "manly" yeah thats stupid but thats more of a social thing, no law is really going to change that.

Also I think trying to say one sex is more evil than the other is silly, besides if we have to pick one I am going with the one that oozes blood once a month and can hold a grudge for the longest.

Men and women are fundamentally different, that is why a double standard exists. Does it favor women a bit too much? Meh, maybe but as much as I try to care it really doesnt bother me that much.

cobra_ky:
...
looking back, i think "absurd" is actually a pretty appropriate word for the situation. i just didn't see how humor could be derived from it.

I suppose it'd be black/dark/gallows humour, but as the links show there's definitely a market for that. Some parts of the world is too messed up to take seriously, and a clueless blackbelt hairdresser rapist of men is one of them.

gosh, i miss Valksy ;_;

...yeah, whatever happened to her? She always was good for an unfiltered opinion, and it generally aligned with my own (...so I never actually got into discussions with her).

Serge A. Storms:
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."

Exactly, the uber-masculine 'macho guy' is an image that men put up for themselves and then expect everyone else to live up to it; if you don't then your some sort of freak, it is almost entirely self inflicted.

Well the lack of paternity leave is also pretty shit but that's always been that way.

i've been toying with the idea of starting a Scottish national "mens movement" for a long time.

funny thing is i probably could but i really don't want to be "the leader".

cobra_ky:
oh hey this thread got necroed for some reason. long as i'm here i might as well reply to posts from 6 months ago.

Imperator_DK:

cobra_ky:
...
and just what exactly is so absurd about it?

The highly unexpected turn of a black-belt hairdresser disabling a robber armed with a gun - a typical heroic situation - then completely and utterly reversing that image by proceeding to molest the crook. Who then subsequently goes to the police and gets himself arrested alongside her. Which she can't understand, since she gave him food and clothes.

Pretty surreal I'd say. I like surreal.

rape is pretty much never hilarious.

Well, at least it's very seldom presented as such outside the world of fiction, where it must instead rely on other elements - in this case particularly the latter - to soften the blow.

looking back, i think "absurd" is actually a pretty appropriate word for the situation. i just didn't see how humor could be derived from it.

Danyal:
I agree so much with you. We shouldn't fight against 'the patriarchy' with the feminists, we should attack outdated stereotypes.

EDIT: NOOOOO!!! Imperator's link to TvTropes made me open 10,000 tabs! But I did read something relevant;

"No I won't calm down. Women are allowed to get angrier than men about double standards."
- Liz Lemon, 30 Rock

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoubleStandard

Patriarchy is the cultural institution that promotes outdated sexual stereotypes, hope this helps.

--

gosh, i miss Valksy ;_;

Patriarchy refers to (in sociological terms) a society ruled, whether intentionally or not by men. It doesn't promote outdated sexual stereotypes it simply refers to a society ruled by men.

Though the stereotypes are outdated and bad thing.

Ledan:
snip

While I agree that there needs to be a discussion about the male gender role and its adverse effect on, well, I believe your sentiment is a bit misguided (not wrong, we all have something to learn).

That castration bit is not indicative of anything, especially not some social effort by women to oppress men. However, there is a much, much larger problem that has gone unnoticed for a very long time. What I am talking about is the miserable, depressing state of men's psyche in the western world (or just the world in general).

90% of the worlds prison population is male, 70% (at least, cannot remember the exact percentage) of people that are institutionalized is male and men in general have it far, FAR worse than women when it comes to psychological and mental issues. Hell, men even have shorter life-spans here in the western world, despite not having to go through the dangers and complications of child-birth (which from a purely biological perspective would suggest that women should live few year less than men).

All of this, and more, can be traced to the expectations of the male gender role. Namely, men are taught NOT to deal with their psychological issues in a healthy and constructive manner, but to repress them thus causing a lot of damage to the psyche. Men are taught to do really, really stupid shit just because its the "manly" thing to do and to suffer mental abuse because making a deal out of it would be unattractive to the fairer sex. Its shut up and man up, both of which cause a great deal of damage to society.

Now imagine if we were to pay attention to this issue, we could lower the prison population and number of people suffering from mental instability by a huge percentage. Plus it would save the tax-payer a lot of money and a lot of people the pain that follows when someone they know suffers from mental instability.

It is not only an issue of gender-equality, its an issue of ethics and doing the right thing. For how else can we live in a society that denies help to those who need it the most, their sole crime being that of difference in chromosomes?

Tree man:
Patriarchy refers to (in sociological terms) a society ruled, whether intentionally or not by men. It doesn't promote outdated sexual stereotypes it simply refers to a society ruled by men.

Well, yes, but in context it comes with all that baggage. I don't see how you could have a society dominated by one group without that group getting different social standards, but it might be possible.

Danyal:
At least we should acknowledge that those stereotypes hurt both men and women, and that (white, Christian/Atheist!) men are not the evil dictators and women the blameless victims.

Er...I can't think of anyone that doesn't acknowledge that. They might emphasise the effects upon whatever groups they are in or deal with, but that's not to say they dismiss the rest.

Hyper-space:
It is not only an issue of gender-equality, its an issue of ethics and doing the right thing. For how else can we live in a society that denies help to those who need it the most, their sole crime being that of difference in chromosomes?

I'd not agree that men have it worse on the whole, but that's another issue and not terribly relevent

I agree completely that the arbitrary gender roles should be gotten rid of, they do nothing but cause trouble, quite often horrifically.

But there's a massive resistance to anything of the sort. IMHO, even those passionately calling for them to be abolished tend to want to replace them with something fairly similar, it's such a big part of our culture that people have problems imagining something else.

While feminism was a movement that was definitely needed in the past, I don't see why people feel the need to combat sexism for only one gender nowadays. I think this just creates a big rift between both genders.

If there was a movement called the 'Social Liberation of Guys', a number of people would not respond well to it because it would give the impression that the group oppose women, not sexism. It is the same with feminism, when some guys hear the words feminism they automatically assume that its a bunch of women who hate men.

Why not have a group which does not limit itself to a gender?
Lets have a group that makes it apparent that as humans, we are combating sexism against both genders.

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.....

.
Stop watching the Amazing Atheist. It'll rot your brain.
You don't have to do any of these things. These things, like how racist thoughts work, are just assumptions that are thrust upon men. You don't want to drink beer and enjoy a game of soccer? Fine. Do something else with your friends and time. If someone things that what you do is unmanly then he is either too young or too stupid to realize that the gender boundaries are collapsing as we speak. Sexual attraction is now a spectrum of colors and you can switch to the opposite sex with enough resources. In the future I predict more mobility. Hell, you have a better chance to be a woman than to be a millionaire. Society has to adapt to it, slowly but surely it will happen, and the people leading the chance will be you and me.
.
Women have few rights that men have, concerning their uterus and their children.

Danyal:
I agree so much with you. We shouldn't fight against 'the patriarchy' with the feminists, we should attack outdated stereotypes.

EDIT: NOOOOO!!! Imperator's link to TvTropes made me open 10,000 tabs! But I did read something relevant;

"No I won't calm down. Women are allowed to get angrier than men about double standards."
- Liz Lemon, 30 Rock

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoubleStandard

Used ctrl+f after predicting that you'd say this at some point, was not disappointed.

OT: I think the problem is that guys don't really have anything that is a challenge anymore. I'd prefer to live a more traditionally 'manly' life (farming, building, or something else), but if everyone did that there'd be chaos.

There are many double standards, but as long as it enables equal treatment then I'm relatively fine with these inconveniences. Stupid people will always say stupid things.

Shadie777:
While feminism was a movement that was definitely needed in the past, I don't see why people feel the need to combat sexism for only one gender nowadays. I think this just creates a big rift between both genders.

If there was a movement called the 'Social Liberation of Guys', a number of people would not respond well to it because it would give the impression that the group oppose women, not sexism. It is the same with feminism, when some guys hear the words feminism they automatically assume that its a bunch of women who hate men.

Why not have a group which does not limit itself to a gender?
Lets have a group that makes it apparent that as humans, we are combating sexism against both genders.

That's what feminism is. Yeah, the name might suggest otherwise, but the kind of people who are going to throw a tantrum over the name aren't going to do anything useful to help your cause anyway. Mind you, that's alot.

thaluikhain:

That's what feminism is. Yeah, the name might suggest otherwise, but the kind of people who are going to throw a tantrum over the name aren't going to do anything useful to help your cause anyway. Mind you, that's alot.

I do agree that feminism does do this, but it is ultimately seen as a movement for women, partly because of the name.

I think more people could actually connect with this group if it make it apparent that they are fighting for both genders, changing the name would be a good and significant start. It would certainly stop most of the abuse thrown from both sides and could help stop the rift between the two genders.

Shadie777:

thaluikhain:

That's what feminism is. Yeah, the name might suggest otherwise, but the kind of people who are going to throw a tantrum over the name aren't going to do anything useful to help your cause anyway. Mind you, that's alot.

I do agree that feminism does do this, but it is ultimately seen as a movement for women. I think more people could actually connect with this group if it makes it apparent that they are fighting for both genders, changing the name would be a good and significant start. It would certainly stop most of the abuse thrown from both sides.

I really doubt that. People might occasionally use the name in an anti-feminist rant, but it's not the reason they do stuff like that.

Playing nice doesn't do anything to impress people who've decided you are less than they are, any more than reason does.

thaluikhain:

Shadie777:
While feminism was a movement that was definitely needed in the past, I don't see why people feel the need to combat sexism for only one gender nowadays. I think this just creates a big rift between both genders.

If there was a movement called the 'Social Liberation of Guys', a number of people would not respond well to it because it would give the impression that the group oppose women, not sexism. It is the same with feminism, when some guys hear the words feminism they automatically assume that its a bunch of women who hate men.

Why not have a group which does not limit itself to a gender?
Lets have a group that makes it apparent that as humans, we are combating sexism against both genders.

That's what feminism is. Yeah, the name might suggest otherwise, but the kind of people who are going to throw a tantrum over the name aren't going to do anything useful to help your cause anyway. Mind you, that's alot.

Tantrum-throwing? Ironically, the term "feminism" was finally what made me get the concept of gendered language. If we're going to try and reconcile both genders, let's not use female-gendered language. Doesn't really have positive implications for masculinity.

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.

And of course every story ever ran on a Russian gossip website is totally accurate, and not in the least bit exagerated for shock value.

As for what you're talking about, let's first get rid of people who regard women as trash because a fictional god alledgedly designated them to be little more than cattle, okay? They're big, unified in religions and churches, fabulously wealthy and powerfull as a movement, and deeply entrenched in all sorts of privileges throughout society. After we get rid of them, we can see if there's actually any real sexism against men out there.

There's a political party here that openly says women are inferior, shouldn't be allowed to work or vote, and that catholocism is 'the empire of the anti-christ', and almost half their voters are women, so there's a lot of work to do.


The few real issues of discrimination of men such as affirmative action discrimination and unequal divorce laws can easily be fixed on the fly without excessive campaigning. Most women don't support such things either, so that would be a case of a few misguided people versus the world. I just don't think we'll have any feminists along for that ride, because they seem to be too obsessed about the evils of suggesting a date while in an elevator, to fight groups of people who actually still preach women to be inferior.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked