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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Bloody hell, i thought this was a new topic until i got the second page and read my own post.

Anyway, just so my comment isn't completely irrelevant:

I think this kind of debate boils down to gender expectations and how such expectations are used to oppress people, or at least limit the freedoms of men to act how they otherwise prefer- hence liberating them. I agree with Evil_the_Cat that this has little to do with women oppressing men, it's rather gender-based behavioural norms which are enforced by society (men and women, although arguably the former more than the latter) which limit the freedoms of men.

But...speaking as a hetrosexual white male... I don't really feel any need or desire to be liberated from perceived masculine gender rolls- perhaps this is because i've been socially conditioned to accept these rolls...or maybe not? Maybe if i was raised in a state of nature i would happily adopt male gender stereotypes. I don't think you can prove it one way or the other. Although, for males who are homosexual and/or have feminine interests then i can appreciate male gender norms are a problem. Coming to think of it though i find the gender-norms surrounding dating rather fucking annoying- although i sense in that department women are quite happy to keep norms as they are.

The problem is i don't think gender norms are going to go away, we can at least modify them however to be open and flexible and accommodating as possible, but people throughout history have been coming with ideas about what it means to be male and female, and people will continue to do so in the future. It's just human nature to do that, we arn't blank slates.

I reckon this movement would be a hard one to get going, if only because many of the social expectations men face are enforced by both men and women. It's not quite as cut and dry as the old "Let's all fight to get the vote/equal pay/etc."

Best advice I can think of? Do what you want to do, and don't give two fucks about what other people think. Overly simplistic, perhaps, but my brain just doesn't seem to be functioning properly today. I'll come up with a better plan to form my gender-discrimination free utopia some other time.

Imperator_DK:

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).

Well, after she got suspended for getting upset with someone who was publicly advocating for her murder, i gather that she had had just about enough of this shit and moved on. I gave up on the Escapist for a while after that debacle too.

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.

Though the stereotypes are outdated and bad thing.

Ok, but this particular patriarchy does promote stereotypes, and that is one of the ways it manages to remain firmly entrenched in society.

Hyper-space:

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?

Quoted for being incredibly correct.

Dags90:

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.

Why call it feminism and not something more neutral like Humanism? Also, how does feminism advance the rights of men in cases divorce and child custody?

cobra_ky:

Well, after she got suspended for getting upset with someone who was publicly advocating for her murder, i gather that she had had just about enough of this shit and moved on. I gave up on the Escapist for a while after that debacle too.

Woah woah woah. I know it's off topic, but can you tell me more? I used to like Valsky's posts as well (although not enough to notice she left, I don't go on the forums that much) and you've got me intriuged.

EDIT: Ignore the above paragraph, I checked out the thread where Valsky got suspended.

Anyway OT, I think that these issues are there, but aren't serious enough to merit a movement, at least, not a movement on the scale of feminism.

Do you really care about being told you can't multi task?

Or that you are less likely to get low pay, low status jobs like nursing and primary school teaching?

Often these supposed 'injustices' on men are a blessing in disguise.

But there are things that can be done about gender roles in general, the 'men can't wear dresses' part (which is equally applicable to 'women can't exclusively wear trousers and not wear makeup')
These are things that are important to get rid of, but I'm scepitical about the need for some mens movement to remove them.

Volf99:
Why call it feminism and not something more neutral like Humanism? Also, how does feminism advance the rights of men in cases divorce and child custody?

Humanism could mean anything/everything to do with humans. The name "Feminism" has the weight of history behind it.

Feminism challenges arbitrary gender roles everyone is forced to live under, which is an advance for the rights of men in all cases, including divorce and child custody. It's not going to benefit all men all the time, of course, you have to be unhappy with existing gender roles for changing/abolishing them to be an improvement.

thaluikhain:

Volf99:
Why call it feminism and not something more neutral like Humanism? Also, how does feminism advance the rights of men in cases divorce and child custody?

Humanism could mean anything/everything to do with humans. The name "Feminism" has the weight of history behind it.

Feminism challenges arbitrary gender roles everyone is forced to live under, which is an advance for the rights of men in all cases, including divorce and child custody. It's not going to benefit all men all the time, of course, you have to be unhappy with existing gender roles for changing/abolishing them to be an improvement.

Ok if Humanism is to specific, than another name that doesn't have a obvious gender specific slant to it.

You claim that they advance the rights of men, and then you say that I have to advance men's rights. Why do I have to do it, I thought you just claimed that feminism was doing that? What exactly is modern day feminism doing for me(a guy)? For example, has modern feminism tackled the attitude that women and people in general seem to have about sexual violence directed towards men?

Volf99:
You claim that they advance the rights of men, and then you say that I have to advance men's rights. Why do I have to do it, I thought you just claimed that feminism was doing that?

You want to be able to opt out of advancing rights (including your own), on the basis that someone else will do it for you?

Volf99:
What exactly is modern day feminism doing for me(a guy)? For example, has modern feminism tackled the attitude that women and people in general seem to have about sexual violence directed towards men?

Like I said, feminism is challenging the arbitrary gender roles restricting men, and which lead to (amongst other things) that example you gave.

thaluikhain:

Volf99:
You claim that they advance the rights of men, and then you say that I have to advance men's rights. Why do I have to do it, I thought you just claimed that feminism was doing that?

You want to be able to opt out of advancing rights (including your own), on the basis that someone else will do it for you?

Volf99:
What exactly is modern day feminism doing for me(a guy)? For example, has modern feminism tackled the attitude that women and people in general seem to have about sexual violence directed towards men?

Like I said, feminism is challenging the arbitrary gender roles restricting men, and which lead to (amongst other things) that example you gave.

Feminism being progressive has lead to women making fun of sexual violence against men? What?

Volf99:
Like I said, feminism is challenging the arbitrary gender roles restricting men, and which lead to (amongst other things) that example you gave.

Feminism being progressive has lead to women making fun of sexual violence against men? What?[/quote]

Sorry, that was badly phrased.

Arbitrary gender roles lead to the mindset some people have that a male victim of a woman is funny (especially in a sexual related crime), because it's "supposed" to work the other way around.

Such gender roles are one of the things feminists as a whole strongly oppose.

thaluikhain:
Sorry, that was badly phrased.

Arbitrary gender roles lead to the mindset some people have that a male victim of a woman is funny (especially in a sexual related crime), because it's "supposed" to work the other way around.

Such gender roles are one of the things feminists as a whole strongly oppose.

So where are the feminist groups to rally/vocally oppose such attitudes? Also, again why not change the name of the group to something more gender neutral?

Volf99:
So where are the feminist groups to rally/vocally oppose such attitudes?

Everywhere. Nobody much pays attention to them except to mock, but they are there.

Volf99:
Also, again why not change the name of the group to something more gender neutral?

There'd be people who'd have tried, each coming up with their own new names, but weren't able to get them to stick. People will still say "feminist" because everyone else does. Changing the name of a worldwide movement with many decades of history is no small thing.

Heh, reading the things I posted here 8 months ago I realize I have come to disagree with the position I held here. About half of that I'm going to attribute to excellent arguments made over time by folks like evilthecat and Polarity27, about 10% I'm going to attribute to cringe-worthy arguments made by folks like Danyal and Volf99. But the remaining 40% I'm going to attribute to the absurd acceptance of Chris Brown in popular music, complete with girls tweeting that they would accept being beaten up by him if it meant they could have him on their arm when he's not punching the snot out of them. In any society where a statistically significant number of girls can believe getting beaten is an acceptable price to pay for being "loved" by a powerful man, something is deeply, deeply wrong.

Volf99:
So where are the feminist groups to rally/vocally oppose such attitudes? Also, again why not change the name of the group to something more gender neutral?

I asked pretty much exactly the same thing last time Feminism was doing the rounds as a topic for discussion. I got pretty much the same answers, too:

1) Feminism is for men's rights too, silly!

2) Oh, the name? It's just a name. Get over it.

3) Why do you never hear about feminists championing men's issues? Well, women have had more injustice, historically, so it's only right that we concentrate on the women first. To the exclusion of men. You have your male privilege, anyway, so what are you moaning about?

Katatori-kun:
Heh, reading the things I posted here 8 months ago I realize I have come to disagree with the position I held here.

You're not kidding. I read through the first page of this thread, not realising it was necroed, and found myself nodding along in surprised agreement with some of your points.

Katatori-kun:
Heh, reading the things I posted here 8 months ago I realize I have come to disagree with the position I held here. About half of that I'm going to attribute to excellent arguments made over time by folks like evilthecat and Polarity27, about 10% I'm going to attribute to cringe-worthy arguments made by folks like Danyal and Volf99. But the remaining 40% I'm going to attribute to the absurd acceptance of Chris Brown in popular music, complete with girls tweeting that they would accept being beaten up by him if it meant they could have him on their arm when he's not punching the snot out of them. In any society where a statistically significant number of girls can believe getting beaten is an acceptable price to pay for being "loved" by a powerful man, something is deeply, deeply wrong.

Why is what I typed "cringe-worthy"? Anything specific?

Hmm when I read "Male Liberation" I get the image of a bunch of "guys" burning their bras.

Katatori-kun:
Heh, reading the things I posted here 8 months ago I realize I have come to disagree with the position I held here. About half of that I'm going to attribute to excellent arguments made over time by folks like evilthecat and Polarity27, about 10% I'm going to attribute to cringe-worthy arguments made by folks like Danyal and Volf99. But the remaining 40% I'm going to attribute to the absurd acceptance of Chris Brown in popular music, complete with girls tweeting that they would accept being beaten up by him if it meant they could have him on their arm when he's not punching the snot out of them. In any society where a statistically significant number of girls can believe getting beaten is an acceptable price to pay for being "loved" by a powerful man, something is deeply, deeply wrong.

I remember thinking about that reading this thread again. I always attributed his acceptance by so many girls in America to those girls being the same ones that listen to his brand of rap, read those god-awful women's magazines and are largely lacking in positive male figures in their lives. It always seems like such a facile explanation after I look at it on the screen but then I read the comment section on one of those Hollywood Insider-type websites and I can believe it's really that simple and that bad.

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.

In short: Men oppress women AND eachother.

Although I think that's true, I don't think women are blameless in this. Often (at least in my experience) they've been just as complicit in enforcing male gender stereotypes as men. Although that's changed a bit I think.

Also wow threadomancy.

thaluikhain:

Everywhere. Nobody much pays attention to them except to mock, but they are there.

Linkage please. I've never, ever heard of these feminist groups before.

I have heard of organisations like Fathers 4 Justice, however. Strangely enough, not too many women seem to be vocally supportive.

Danny Ocean:

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.

In short: Men oppress women AND eachother.

Although I think that's true, I don't think women are blameless in this. Often (at least in my experience) they've been just as complicit in enforcing male gender stereotypes as men. Although that's changed a bit I think.

Also wow threadomancy.

Meh I think everyone oppresses everyone to some extent (though women can get pretty mean towards each other in ways that are downright scary).

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked