The future of Men and Families
We should try to turn back the clock
10.4% (8)
10.4% (8)
We should not turn back the clock
63.6% (49)
63.6% (49)
Other
26% (20)
26% (20)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: The Manosphere and the future of Men and Families

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Thaluikhain:

Schadrach:
The top of the ivory tower might be predominately men, but so are the ones being trampled in the mud. Neither of these reflects society as a whole, though one could argue there are a lot more near the bottom than near the top.

I wasn't talking about society as a whole, I was talking about those in society with the most influence. They are going to be at the top by definition. Society has decided that the best people for those positions generally happen to be men. Again, why is that?

Assuming we're talking Western democracies here, because other places are going to be radically different...

Because that is who the electorate voted for. I feel like it's worth noting that a small majority of voters are women, which ultimately means that those roles are filled by men because a majority female group chooses men to fill them.

In the US, arguably this is because not enough women actually run in the first place (the term that shows up in research is "election averse", with an implication that the election process itself makes women less likely to run), since women running for office seem to (on the whole) do about as well as men running for the same offices in similar conditions. Though, to be fair, thanks to gerrymandering basically every federal office is all but guaranteed to whoever is already in it (not just party but the individual politician), by design (barring major cultural shifts or someone dying).

In my own state, 1 US Senator is a woman, and the *other* Senator is the only Democrat we send to Congress. Less than twenty years ago, that same woman was the first woman elected to represent our state in Congress (2nd district House) and the first Republican in nearly 20 years before that. One could argue that her election was one of the first signs of our shift from being reliably blue to reliably red. I usually cite it as one of those things that ought to suggest that we've gone red not because Dems have been running blacks and women, but because our economy has in the past been built on coal mining (there's literally a coal miner on the state seal) with a history of abuse of labor that made us utterly love the unions (until they inevitably got increasingly corrupt) -- we used to go blue because unions, now we go red because coal and guns.

Schadrach:
Because that is who the electorate voted for. I feel like it's worth noting that a small majority of voters are women, which ultimately means that those roles are filled by men because a majority female group chooses men to fill them.

Not really. To a large extent, who gets voted into power from an election is actually decided by the candidate selection of party machinery, as relating to your subsequent point about women being less likely to get to the point of the election itself.

Schadrach:

Remember, if we look at the demographic mix of a tiny sliver of people at the top, that tells us meaningfully about those demographics in a broader sense. Not a particularly common flavor of fallacy of composition or anything.

Whilst technically accurate, I'm not sure this really addresses the issue at hand.

If society favours filling positions of power with a certain gender, it certainly is telling us of advantages that gender has. It is not necessarily true to expand to the idea that that gender is more powerful and influential at all levels of society... but it doesn't need to be for the point to hold.

Of course, that's the only slice you'd want to look at, because the bottom and the top look weirdly similar in terms of gender demographics. Rough sleeping homeless, suicides, victims of violent crime as a whole, victims of every non-sexual violent crime taken individually, hell even people with very negatively viewed jobs that are necessary to keep society running (like sewer and garbage workers).

Yes, but we can assess why people end up in certain situations to examine what it says about society. As an example, men may be more prevalent at the bottom due to (for instance) greater susceptibility to mental health problems, but more prevalent at the top because plenty of people don't think women are suitable to run society.

But those two do not necessarily balance each out in terms of sexist society.

Agema:

Schadrach:

Remember, if we look at the demographic mix of a tiny sliver of people at the top, that tells us meaningfully about those demographics in a broader sense. Not a particularly common flavor of fallacy of composition or anything.

Whilst technically accurate, I'm not sure this really addresses the issue at hand.

If society favours filling positions of power with a certain gender, it certainly is telling us of advantages that gender has. It is not necessarily true to expand to the idea that that gender is more powerful and influential at all levels of society... but it doesn't need to be for the point to hold.

Of course, that's the only slice you'd want to look at, because the bottom and the top look weirdly similar in terms of gender demographics. Rough sleeping homeless, suicides, victims of violent crime as a whole, victims of every non-sexual violent crime taken individually, hell even people with very negatively viewed jobs that are necessary to keep society running (like sewer and garbage workers).

Yes, but we can assess why people end up in certain situations to examine what it says about society. As an example, men may be more prevalent at the bottom due to (for instance) greater susceptibility to mental health problems, but more prevalent at the top because plenty of people don't think women are suitable to run society.

But those two do not necessarily balance each out in terms of sexist society.

Looking at where people end up is only one half of the coin, though, the other half would be to look at where these demographics choose to participate and where society lends aid and assistance.
For example, female participation in areas that will bring them to these high positions in society is notably lower than that of men, as well as female participation in dangerous work, most of them simply don't choose to go there and it reflects this in the end result, more men are in the top echelons of society as well as the early graves, this is despite the affirmative action laws that have been put into place to encourage female participation.

At the bottom, women are generally homeless at lower rate and for shorter periods of time, special women's shelters offer refuge to the homeless and battered women but these are largely absent for men, there is a homeless shelter near where I live that takes in men and women at a 50/50 rate but that is despite the fact that 9 out of 10 homeless people here are men.

It is true that men are more often selected for leadership positions, but I doubt that the assumption of female incompetence is the root cause of this, doing a nursing course myself, 8 out of the 10 class representatives from our year are guys despite the ratio of 14 male students versus 82 female students.
Granted, my example is anecdotal, but from my personal experience, women do prefer men to take up positions of responsibility.

Combustion Kevin:
Looking at where people end up is only one half of the coin, though, the other half would be to look at where these demographics choose to participate and where society lends aid and assistance.

Agreed.

For example, female participation in areas that will bring them to these high positions in society is notably lower than that of men, as well as female participation in dangerous work, most of them simply don't choose to go there and it reflects this in the end result, more men are in the top echelons of society as well as the early graves, this is despite the affirmative action laws that have been put into place to encourage female participation.

In practice, "dangerous jobs" are nearly always jobs with a high level of physical demands. It is understandable men do more of these, because they tend to be stronger. What we might hope is that dangerous jobs get higher pay to compensate for risk. I suspect this isn't always the case.

At the bottom, women are generally homeless at lower rate and for shorter periods of time, special women's shelters offer refuge to the homeless and battered women but these are largely absent for men, there is a homeless shelter near where I live that takes in men and women at a 50/50 rate but that is despite the fact that 9 out of 10 homeless people here are men.

In practice, there are very few special shelters for homeless women, although considerably more shelters for those who have fled domestic abuse. However, I believe the main reason women are less likely to be homeless is because they can get accommodation by offering themselves up to relationships with men. It's not quite prostitution, but it might not always be a long way off, either.

It is true that men are more often selected for leadership positions, but I doubt that the assumption of female incompetence is the root cause of this, doing a nursing course myself, 8 out of the 10 class representatives from our year are guys despite the ratio of 14 male students versus 82 female students.

Granted, my example is anecdotal, but from my personal experience, women do prefer men to take up positions of responsibility.

Prefer men to take leadership, or do not personally feel they should take leadership? There's quite a big difference.

And if individual women tend to feel they should be not be leaders, we can ask why, because there's a fair chance it is rooted in societal attitudes rather than some sort innate gender characteristic.

Agema:

Prefer men to take leadership, or do not personally feel they should take leadership? There's quite a big difference.

And if individual women tend to feel they should be not be leaders, we can ask why, because there's a fair chance it is rooted in societal attitudes rather than some sort innate gender characteristic.

I'm not sure that they feel unworthy of leadership, rather, they would prefer to let someone else do it, they are not lacking in the confidence or initiative that leadership demands, I do not know why my male colleagues are quicker to step up for this responsibility but we could always guess.

Agema:
Not really. To a large extent, who gets voted into power from an election is actually decided by the candidate selection of party machinery, as relating to your subsequent point about women being less likely to get to the point of the election itself.

You aren't getting what I was getting at -- if who gets a position is decided by election, fewer women will throw in their hat than otherwise. If you want to talk federal US level specifically, that means fewer women volunteer to even be considered as potential candidates specifically because we have primary elections.

Kanthak, K. and Woon, J. (2015), Women Don't Run? Election Aversion and Candidate Entry. American Journal of Political Science, 59: 595-612. doi:10.1111/ajps.12158:
To study gender differences in candidate emergence, we conduct a laboratory experiment in which we control the incentives potential candidates face, manipulate features of the electoral environment, and measure beliefs and preferences. We find that men and women are equally likely to volunteer when the representative is chosen randomly, but that women are less likely to become candidates when the representative is chosen by an election. This difference does not arise from disparities in abilities, risk aversion, or beliefs, but rather from the specific competitive and strategic context of campaigns and elections. Thus, we find evidence that women are election averse, whereas men are not. Election aversion persists with variations in the electoral environment, disappearing only when campaigns are both costless and completely truthful.

So, unless you can render campaigns completely free of cost and absolutely stop politicians from throwing shade...

Agema:

Whilst technically accurate, I'm not sure this really addresses the issue at hand.

If society favours filling positions of power with a certain gender, it certainly is telling us of advantages that gender has. It is not necessarily true to expand to the idea that that gender is more powerful and influential at all levels of society... but it doesn't need to be for the point to hold.

Follow the chain of argument here: (Combustion Kevin) Women have substantial influence on social issues -> (Thaluikhain) but men hold most of the high offices with formal power -> (me) but 1) they are put there by a group that is majority women and 2) "men in high office" is not reflective of men as a whole and 3) women are less likely to volunteer to be considered for these positions, yet seem to be about as likely as men to actually get them when they do.

Or to put it another way, I could argue that men don't really have any influence over social issues either, because most men aren't in high office either, and notably a small majority of the people putting them in those positions are not men. I'm not making that argument, but then my point wasn't to affirm Combustion Kevin's position, or to argue that no broad class holds influence, but rather to argue that Thaluikhain's argument doesn't hold water. I'd note that you left off the bits about the electorate and election aversion...

Agema:

In practice, "dangerous jobs" are nearly always jobs with a high level of physical demands. It is understandable men do more of these, because they tend to be stronger. What we might hope is that dangerous jobs get higher pay to compensate for risk. I suspect this isn't always the case.

You realize you just said there *should* be a gender wage gap, right?

Agema:

In practice, there are very few special shelters for homeless women,

...there are quite a few that will preference women to some degree, though.

Agema:
although considerably more shelters for those who have fled domestic abuse.

...and by "considerably more" you mean "almost literally all of these", in a way that is enshrined in law in the US. Ironically the first funding bill to have explicit anti-discrimination text, it immediately follows that text by stating that it's actually OK (and explicitly not a violation of the previous part about not discriminating) to discriminate with respect to sex so long as the program discriminating deems it "essential" to do so.

Agema:
However, I believe the main reason women are less likely to be homeless is because they can get accommodation by offering themselves up to relationships with men. It's not quite prostitution, but it might not always be a long way off, either.

This certainly also plays into it. People also tend to be more OK with women "couch surfing" in general.

Schadrach:
You aren't getting what I was getting at --

No, I got what you were getting at, hence the latter part of that bit you quoted ("as relating to your subsequent point")

I was specifically dismissing the relevance of saying a small majority of voters are women. It's both substantially irrelevant.

Follow the chain of argument here: (Combustion Kevin) Women have substantial influence on social issues -> (Thaluikhain) but men hold most of the high offices with formal power -> (me) but 1) they are put there by a group that is majority women and 2) "men in high office" is not reflective of men as a whole and 3) women are less likely to volunteer to be considered for these positions, yet seem to be about as likely as men to actually get them when they do.

Yes. But that women are a majority group is a red herring. It's an iffy argument for various reasons, and is superfluous to making the same end point anyway, so may as well just be left out.

You realize you just said there *should* be a gender wage gap, right?

No, I didn't say that.

Your claim relies on an unsafe leap of logic. Men are more likely to do physically demanding jobs, some of which are dangerous, and dangerous jobs may merit higher pay. But there is no reason to assume that the distribution of salaries between men and women will be equal up until the point "danger money" is included to men's favour. For instance, men might do more physical jobs, some of which have a risk bonus - but perhaps physical jobs pay worse than the sedentary jobs women are more likely to do.

Realistically, there will always be a gender gap, because a) it is all but impossible that the average salary of men and women will be exactly the same and b) only women have to take several months out of work to give birth (during which they fall behind in experience, etc.). Well, I guess technology could remove (b) at some point in the future.

...and by "considerably more" you mean "almost literally all of these", in a way that is enshrined in law in the US. Ironically the first funding bill to have explicit anti-discrimination text, it immediately follows that text by stating that it's actually OK (and explicitly not a violation of the previous part about not discriminating) to discriminate with respect to sex so long as the program discriminating deems it "essential" to do so.

Well, women are a lot more likely to be murdered or hospitalised in domestic abuse, and also more likely to be financially dependent thus making it harder to leave. And - for obvious reasons - mixed sex domestic abuse shelters are kind of problematic.

There's always charity, for men who feel strongly about lack of provision. And certainly I'm not going to argue against campaigning so the state provides reasonable support for men too (as long as the campaign is not couched in the usual sort of MRA bile).

This certainly also plays into it. People also tend to be more OK with women "couch surfing" in general.

Yes, the tradition that a woman's place is in the home and a man's is at work lingers on in many ways.

Agema:

Yes. But that women are a majority group is a red herring. It's an iffy argument for various reasons, and is superfluous to making the same end point anyway, so may as well just be left out.

I disagree.
If women are the majority of votes (even by a slight margin), are just as likely to be elected when they do run for elected positions but CHOOSE not to volunteer, can it really be argued that a man has an advantage in being elected for positions of high office as opposed to a woman?
in other words, is it not more likely that positions of power fall to men as opposed to men having a larger chance at landing a position of power?
The latter would imply an advantage or "privilege", the former does not.

Agema:

Well, women are a lot more likely to be murdered or hospitalized in domestic abuse, and also more likely to be financially dependent thus making it harder to leave. And - for obvious reasons - mixed sex domestic abuse shelters are kind of problematic.

Financial dependency is mitigated by both the government offering financial benefits to the wife and legally hunting the husband down and obligate him to make his financial contribution, even under threat of imprisonment.
Besides, men are more likely to be arrested while being the victim of domestic violence, are the minority of unreciprocated violence and are as likely to be the victim of domestic abuse by a 40% margin of the victim pool.

Agema:

There's always charity, for men who feel strongly about lack of provision. And certainly I'm not going to argue against campaigning so the state provides reasonable support for men too (as long as the campaign is not couched in the usual sort of MRA bile).

As opposed to the usual feminist bile?
image

Now look, I personally will not affiliate myself with any rights group and make it my identity, I am not an MRA, I am a nurse, as such, I believe that people who require care and aid should be given the means and resources to get the aid they require.

Neither the MRA nor feminism will give us the equality we desire, they are by definition too one-sided to do so, instead, we must balance these two in order to facilitate the changes we want and need.
I can be supportive of MRA's in their efforts to push more egalitarian laws whilst being critical of their self-righteous vitriol, the same way I can be supportive of feminism for the aid and facilities they provide and be critical of their abuse of power.

There has to be a balance.

Combustion Kevin:
Neither the MRA nor feminism will give us the equality we desire, they are by definition too one-sided to do so, instead, we must balance these two in order to facilitate the changes we want and need.
I can be supportive of MRA's in their efforts to push more egalitarian laws whilst being critical of their self-righteous vitriol, the same way I can be supportive of feminism for the aid and facilities they provide and be critical of their abuse of power.

There has to be a balance.

You are equating feminism with the MRM there. The term MRA gets used in two ways, in a specific sense to mean someone who is part of the MRM, which is one specific group (nominally) favouring rights for men, or in a general sense to mean someone who talks about men's rights as a means to oppose women's.

Neither of those is particularly similar to feminists or feminism unless you specify which subgroup of feminists or feminism you are talking about.

Agema:

(as long as the campaign is not couched in the usual sort of MRA bile).

So you are for tone policing on both sides then and despise feminist bile as well as mra bile?

Just saying this as someone who had to show photographs of the bruises my abuser gave me to get people to see that I was the victim and not the instigator in my psycho ex-fiances abusive rampage. I called the local domestic violence shelter and was threatened and mocked. No joke. I wanted to die after that misandrist sexist piece of garbage tore into me just because of my gender and automatically assumed my culpability because I am male. I had to settle instead of fighting to get justice for my abuser because of the misandry inherent in the system and the authorities I was under the influence of. I'm saying this as someone who in response to voicing my trauma then gets called a sexist and labelled in with others as "mra" and thus dismissable despite there being nothing inherently wrong in the idea of men's rights.
Am I entitled to resenting several specific sexist women who directly contributed to my life being worse simply because of my gender and laughing at the idea of universal male privilege when it is clear that in matters of inter-gender violence the state treats me as the offender even when the victim? Or is my pain and marginalization just MRA bile?

Thaluikhain:

You are equating feminism with the MRM there. The term MRA gets used in two ways, in a specific sense to mean someone who is part of the MRM, which is one specific group (nominally) favouring rights for men, or in a general sense to mean someone who talks about men's rights as a means to oppose women's.

Neither of those is particularly similar to feminists or feminism unless you specify which subgroup of feminists or feminism you are talking about.

Isn't that second description an inherently antagonistic description? and about as fair as "feminist" meaning "man-hater", I mean, those aren't the same thing supposedly, they have a ton of Youtube videos explaining that fact.

Both of these terms are very general in their application, both the women hosting support groups for battered women as well as the ones that got the Duluth model into practice or protest equal parenting laws are feminists, they are not the same feminists to be sure, but the distinction is there, the same can be said for male rights advocates who "spew bile" or try to address injustice under the law.

If the specific factions of the MRM do not require specification in order to judge the group as a whole, then neither do the feminist ones, their individual members all do their own "thing" and can be discussed on a case by case basis.

Combustion Kevin:
Isn't that second description an inherently antagonistic description?

Does that matter if it is perfectly accurate in describing some people?

Combustion Kevin:
Isn't that second description an inherently antagonistic description?

Yes.

Combustion Kevin:
If the specific factions of the MRM do not require specification in order to judge the group as a whole, then neither do the feminist ones, their individual members all do their own "thing" and can be discussed on a case by case basis.

The MRM (not the men's rights movement, the Men's Rights Movement) is a small and narrow group, while feminism is not. Feminism has any number of factions, with distinct philosophies that have existed for several decades, whereas the MRM is a relatively new faction amongst people interested in men's rights. The Men's Rights Movement has about as much to do with men's rights as People for Ethical Treatment of Animals has with ethical treatment of animals.

Now, there are plenty of people who actually are supporting men's rights, just as there are plenty of people supporting the ethical treatment of animals. Only the MRM and PETA drown them out in a very unhelpful way.

Seanchaidh:

Combustion Kevin:
Isn't that second description an inherently antagonistic description?

Does that matter if it is perfectly accurate in describing some people?

It does if you don't want me associating all feminists with the types that advocate culling the male population down to 10%.

Thaluikhain:

The MRM (not the men's rights movement, the Men's Rights Movement) is a small and narrow group, while feminism is not. Feminism has any number of factions, with distinct philosophies that have existed for several decades, whereas the MRM is a relatively new faction amongst people interested in men's rights. The Men's Rights Movement has about as much to do with men's rights as People for Ethical Treatment of Animals has with ethical treatment of animals.

Now, there are plenty of people who actually are supporting men's rights, just as there are plenty of people supporting the ethical treatment of animals. Only the MRM and PETA drown them out in a very unhelpful way.

See, it's this kind of labeling that just messes up the entire discussion, because now we've been talking about different people altogether, associating two different kinds of people under the same acronym with only the capitalization to distinguish them makes things horribly confusing.

So, for the sake of clarity for everyone involved, lets try to keep to these:
MRA = Men's Rights Advocate, a person that advocates for the rights of men.
MRM = Men's Rights Movement, a multifaceted movement that stands up for the rights of men.
Feminism = a multifaceted movements stand stands up for the rights of women.

Anyone can associate themselves with these movements if they choose to, and should be judged as an individual, no other requirements needed, that's how self-identifying labels work.

Combustion Kevin:
So, for the sake of clarity for everyone involved, lets try to keep to these:
MRA = Men's Rights Advocate, a person that advocates for the rights of men.
MRM = Men's Rights Movement, a multifaceted movement that stands up for the rights of men.
Feminism = a multifaceted movements stand stands up for the rights of women.

Why use the name of a specific group to be used for a general idea? We'd not call people who want ethical treatment for animals PETA.

Why not use MRA to mean those people who've identified as MRAs, and say "a person that advocates for the rights of men" or something less wordy for the other.

Having said that, people also use MRA to refer to people similar to the MRAs. For example, the RokK, who identifies as being separate from the MRAs, just not in any way particularly obvious to outsiders.

Thaluikhain:

Why use the name of a specific group to be used for a general idea? We'd not call people who want ethical treatment for animals PETA.

Why not use MRA to mean those people who've identified as MRAs, and say "a person that advocates for the rights of men" or something less wordy for the other.

Point taken, not sure what a good alternative shorthand would be, though...

Thaluikhain:

Having said that, people also use MRA to refer to people similar to the MRAs. For example, the RokK, who identifies as being separate from the MRAs, just not in any way particularly obvious to outsiders.

Well, that is what happens when a label gets used like a slur against people with dissenting or offending opinions, it's easier to dismiss people under a term that is a generally acceptable target of scorn, even if it does not apply.
See also, "It's okay to punch a Nazi.", ignoring the fact one does not have to be a nazi to be called one and receive the subsequent punching.

FriendoftheFallen:
So you are for tone policing on both sides then and despise feminist bile as well as mra bile?

Sorry, but that comment doesn't dignify an answer.

Just saying this as someone...

I'm genuinely sorry you had a bad experience. But I haven't mocked you, judged you, dismissed your pain and your arguments as MRA irrelevance. So please don't take your emotions out on me by inserting yourself into my comment and making yourself a victim of it when it was not about you.

The minute you use certain unnecessary ideologies to support a cause, you're at strong risk of telling people that to support your cause means they will also indirectly support those ideologies. Don't be surprised if that puts plenty of people off.

Combustion Kevin:

Seanchaidh:

Combustion Kevin:
Isn't that second description an inherently antagonistic description?

Does that matter if it is perfectly accurate in describing some people?

It does if you don't want me associating all feminists with the types that advocate culling the male population down to 10%.

Thaluikhain:

The MRM (not the men's rights movement, the Men's Rights Movement) is a small and narrow group, while feminism is not. Feminism has any number of factions, with distinct philosophies that have existed for several decades, whereas the MRM is a relatively new faction amongst people interested in men's rights. The Men's Rights Movement has about as much to do with men's rights as People for Ethical Treatment of Animals has with ethical treatment of animals.

Now, there are plenty of people who actually are supporting men's rights, just as there are plenty of people supporting the ethical treatment of animals. Only the MRM and PETA drown them out in a very unhelpful way.

See, it's this kind of labeling that just messes up the entire discussion, because now we've been talking about different people altogether, associating two different kinds of people under the same acronym with only the capitalization to distinguish them makes things horribly confusing.

So, for the sake of clarity for everyone involved, lets try to keep to these:
MRA = Men's Rights Advocate, a person that advocates for the rights of men.
MRM = Men's Rights Movement, a multifaceted movement that stands up for the rights of men.
Feminism = a multifaceted movements stand stands up for the rights of women.

Anyone can associate themselves with these movements if they choose to, and should be judged as an individual, no other requirements needed, that's how self-identifying labels work.

I have this same argument against the term "Feminism" but uh...how about being pro-Equal rights instead? Why not just being anti-sexism? There is sexism that negatively effects women, that negatively effects men, and that negatively effects both, and not always at the same time.

Why can women wear skirts AND pants, but men wearing skirts is usually treated poorly? Why are men expected to pay for a woman's meal? Why cant a woman be let to pay her own meal? Why do women have to stay and be a parent? Why do men have to work and not get to stay home and be a domestic? Sexism effects all of us in different ways. What is a positive for one man or woman can be a negative for another.

I do think some issues are more prevalent for one sex than the other. Im sure rape is more a problem for women than men, especially with the chance for pregnancy, but that doesnt mean a man cannot be raped, nor be neglected in getting help in such a case, and regardless of who raped them.

But too many feminists seem to want women superiority, not equality...and it seems alot of "MRA"s are just bitter sexist men wanting to spite feminists, both the bad and the good ones.

I dont think acting like lawyers is the right way to solve this, where each side only cares about their own, rather than figuring out what true justice would be.

Saelune:
I have this same argument against the term "Feminism" but uh...how about being pro-Equal rights instead? Why not just being anti-sexism? There is sexism that negatively effects women, that negatively effects men, and that negatively effects both, and not always at the same time.

Why can women wear skirts AND pants, but men wearing skirts is usually treated poorly? Why are men expected to pay for a woman's meal? Why cant a woman be let to pay her own meal? Why do women have to stay and be a parent? Why do men have to work and not get to stay home and be a domestic? Sexism effects all of us in different ways. What is a positive for one man or woman can be a negative for another.

I do think some issues are more prevalent for one sex than the other. Im sure rape is more a problem for women than men, especially with the chance for pregnancy, but that doesnt mean a man cannot be raped, nor be neglected in getting help in such a case, and regardless of who raped them.

But too many feminists seem to want women superiority, not equality...and it seems alot of "MRA"s are just bitter sexist men wanting to spite feminists, both the bad and the good ones.

I dont think acting like lawyers is the right way to solve this, where each side only cares about their own, rather than figuring out what true justice would be.

Everyone is pro-equality by their own admission, though what that exactly means is different for a lot of them.

I do agree with you, optimally speaking it would be amazing to have a universal "sex equality movement", thing is that it's just not gonna happen in the polarized environment we live in today (depending on where you live, I think we're actually pretty chill over here), whatever organization were to take the middle road with enough influence to be relevant will pretty much be forced into the "lawyer" role by necessity.

I agree, discrimination based on sex is wrong and so is shaming people who do not conform to the generally accepted image of what is perceived as acceptable or appropriate (As long as it doesn't harm someone, of course.)

There is too much bad blood at the moment and too many people fueling the fire to keep it that way, some have made it their career of doing so, however, what I think we need is a good ol' helping of empathy!
Are you already feeling fuzzy on the inside?
... caus, you know, you're already kinda fuzzy on the outside?
Nothing? okay.

In the spirit of empathy, I would like to share this interview with you with a man I respect BECAUSE of his empathetic approach:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8Raufh8fP8

Now I'm not saying you will agree with everything that is being said in this interview, and it's LOOOONG, but I do recommend putting it on sometime, grab a cup of tea, do your taxes or homework with it on, you may just be surprised.
Make up your own mind on it. ^^

And I do not recommend it just to you, it's to anyone who reads this post.

Agema:

FriendoftheFallen:
So you are for tone policing on both sides then and despise feminist bile as well as mra bile?

Sorry, but that comment doesn't dignify an answer.

Actually, it does, you are just casting it as beneath you to answer. My other comments weren't just about you but my frustration at the sexism and double standards that men who have experienced domestic violence or other forms of victimization face. Some on these forums have been pretty callous and sexist so sorry if my comments seemed to imply it to be you.

FriendoftheFallen:

Actually, it does, you are just casting it as beneath you to answer.

No, groundless and vexatious accusations are beneath anyone to have to answer.

It's not that I think you were implying me by the subsequent paragraph. I think you over-aggressively set on me out of your frustrations with those other people. But let's just move on, anyway.

Agema:

FriendoftheFallen:

Actually, it does, you are just casting it as beneath you to answer.

No, groundless and vexatious accusations are beneath anyone to have to answer.

It's not that I think you were implying me by the subsequent paragraph. I think you over-aggressively set on me out of your frustrations with those other people. But let's just move on, anyway.

It wasn't groundless or vexatious. I was asking if you condemned vitriol on both sides or if it was merely one side you condemned. The question was not groundless. As far as vexatious, that is purely subjective.

FriendoftheFallen:
It wasn't groundless or vexatious. I was asking if you condemned vitriol on both sides or if it was merely one side you condemned.

I don't really care much about vitriol at all.

What I am uncomfortable with is endorsing toxic people with toxic agendas on the few things they suggest which are actually good ideas. This is because it is likely to help them build a platform to advance all the other objectionable shit they want, as well.

I would, for instance, draw a difference between a "neutral" campaign for male domestic violence shelters which some toxic MRM types happened to support, and a campaign for male domestic violence shelters led, run, or otherwise disproportionately represented by toxic MRM types.

Agema:

FriendoftheFallen:
It wasn't groundless or vexatious. I was asking if you condemned vitriol on both sides or if it was merely one side you condemned.

I don't really care much about vitriol at all.

What I am uncomfortable with is endorsing toxic people with toxic agendas on the few things they suggest which are actually good ideas. This is because it is likely to help them build a platform to advance all the other objectionable shit they want, as well.

I would, for instance, draw a difference between a "neutral" campaign for male domestic violence shelters which some toxic MRM types happened to support, and a campaign for male domestic violence shelters led, run, or otherwise disproportionately represented by toxic MRM types.

My issue is the portrayal of those who advocate for mens rights as being predominantly toxic. Would it be right and proper for me to start calling feminists toxic with the same frequency?

Saelune:
I have this same argument against the term "Feminism" but uh...how about being pro-Equal rights instead? Why not just being anti-sexism? There is sexism that negatively effects women, that negatively effects men, and that negatively effects both, and not always at the same time.

Why can women wear skirts AND pants, but men wearing skirts is usually treated poorly? Why are men expected to pay for a woman's meal? Why cant a woman be let to pay her own meal? Why do women have to stay and be a parent? Why do men have to work and not get to stay home and be a domestic? Sexism effects all of us in different ways. What is a positive for one man or woman can be a negative for another.

I do think some issues are more prevalent for one sex than the other. Im sure rape is more a problem for women than men, especially with the chance for pregnancy, but that doesnt mean a man cannot be raped, nor be neglected in getting help in such a case, and regardless of who raped them.

But too many feminists seem to want women superiority, not equality...and it seems alot of "MRA"s are just bitter sexist men wanting to spite feminists, both the bad and the good ones.

I dont think acting like lawyers is the right way to solve this, where each side only cares about their own, rather than figuring out what true justice would be.

I once saw someone liken being "pro equal-rights" to being "pro house-fixing." Sure that's all well and good, but typically to tackle certain issues it's best to find a specialist. When someone's having trouble with their plumbing, they don't usually call a "house-fixer." They call a plumber. Or if they're having trouble with their power, they call an electrician. Or an HVAC specialist, or a roofer, or an exterminator or whatever. This is because there are a lot of different components to a house, and it's simply not feasible for one person to be well-equipped enough to tackle all of these problems competently.

It's the same thing with an issue as huge and diverse as "equal rights." A feminist is a person who wants equal rights, but in the interest of getting things done efficiently they focus on women's issues. Just as a proper plumber doesn't hope they damage your electricity when they fix your pipes, a proper feminist doesn't hope men become oppressed by the advancement of women's rights (though sometimes the loss of privileges for the sake of equality can feel like a loss of rights to those who have lost them, but that's a different matter).

Also, many issues for men and women are more intertwined than you think. You mentioned how it's okay for women to wear pants and skirts, but society has deemed it's not okay for men to wear skirts. Which is a slight against men certainly, men should be able to wear what they damn well please with impunity. But it comes from this notion our society has held onto that things we've deemed as "for women" are inherently inferior and beneath the dignity of men. It's not shameful for a woman to wear the things men wear because masculinity is seen as empowering. But it is shameful for men to dress as women because femininity is seen as weak and foolish, a step down from the masculinity men already possess. We've let go of the notion that women don't deserve to dress like men, but we have yet to rid ourselves of the notion that a man who dresses as a woman is debasing himself.

This view of femininity has bad effects for both sexes. For men it means displaying feminine traits is "off-limits," hampering not only clothing but behavior and lifestyle options as well. And for women it means being seen as inherently inferior. We've made progress in the "women being seen as inherently inferior" department, but not enough to chip away at the "men who behave/dress like women are weak and foolish" department.

FriendoftheFallen:

Agema:

FriendoftheFallen:
It wasn't groundless or vexatious. I was asking if you condemned vitriol on both sides or if it was merely one side you condemned.

I don't really care much about vitriol at all.

What I am uncomfortable with is endorsing toxic people with toxic agendas on the few things they suggest which are actually good ideas. This is because it is likely to help them build a platform to advance all the other objectionable shit they want, as well.

I would, for instance, draw a difference between a "neutral" campaign for male domestic violence shelters which some toxic MRM types happened to support, and a campaign for male domestic violence shelters led, run, or otherwise disproportionately represented by toxic MRM types.

My issue is the portrayal of those who advocate for mens rights as being predominantly toxic. Would it be right and proper for me to start calling feminists toxic with the same frequency?

Are they toxic with the same frequency? Barring cherry picked examples the ratio of good to bad that feminism does far out classes whatever MRAs and MRMs do.

FriendoftheFallen:

My issue is the portrayal of those who advocate for mens rights as being predominantly toxic. Would it be right and proper for me to start calling feminists toxic with the same frequency?

That depends on the relative proportions of both groups which are toxic, or in many cases should simply relate to a specific individual or group in question.

So for instance, I can be pretty sure if we're talking about Roosh whateverhisnameis, Vox Day, Paul Elam etc. and their associated pals and organisations, that's well into the toxic spectrum. I'm aware there are plenty of people who don't think improving the lot of men necessitates gender war - you know, the ones their more vocal MRM brethren call things like "mangina".

I'd just note I seem to hear a disturbing amount from the former compared to the latter, although of course that is likely to result at least in part from sensationalism rather than sheer numbers.

FriendoftheFallen:
My issue is the portrayal of those who advocate for mens rights as being predominantly toxic. Would it be right and proper for me to start calling feminists toxic with the same frequency?

Thaluikhain:
You are equating feminism with the MRM there. The term MRA gets used in two ways, in a specific sense to mean someone who is part of the MRM, which is one specific group (nominally) favouring rights for men, or in a general sense to mean someone who talks about men's rights as a means to oppose women's.

Neither of those is particularly similar to feminists or feminism unless you specify which subgroup of feminists or feminism you are talking about.

There are people advocating men's rights, and then there are MRAs, the overlap is tiny.

Agema:
And certainly I'm not going to argue against campaigning so the state provides reasonable support for men too (as long as the campaign is not couched in the usual sort of MRA bile).

Ever heard of Earl Silverman? Man left an abusive relationship, realized there were no services for people like him at all, ran a men's shelter from a mix of private donations and out of pocket for 20 years, and finally hung himself when he couldn't afford to keep it open any more. He campaigned for government funding assistance for years to no avail. He claimed he was denied largely because the Men's Alternative Safe House wasn't a shelter for women.

Combustion Kevin:

Well, that is what happens when a label gets used like a slur against people with dissenting or offending opinions, it's easier to dismiss people under a term that is a generally acceptable target of scorn, even if it does not apply.
See also, "It's okay to punch a Nazi.", ignoring the fact one does not have to be a nazi to be called one and receive the subsequent punching.

You make it sound like there are people these days abusing the word "Nazi" as shorthand for "people who disagree with me" in order to justify violence against them because it's OK to "punch a Nazi." Oh, wait...

Saelune:
I have this same argument against the term "Feminism" but uh...how about being pro-Equal rights instead?

Sure thing. Just point out a difference of rights, and I'm likely with you. Of course, I did say a difference in rights which a fair number of complaints just aren't.

Saelune:
Why are men expected to pay for a woman's meal?

Because a lot of them tend to react poorly if you don't, and it's such a small thing that it's not worth it to push against?

Saelune:
Why cant a woman be let to pay her own meal?

Because in many of the cases this is referring to, she doesn't have to? One of my recent exes actually insisted she pay for half of our dates (not splitting the bill, but rather alternating). I certainly wasn't going to complain.

Saelune:
Why do women have to stay and be a parent?

They don't, aside from some moderate social pressure and working out a plan with their partner (if present).

Saelune:
Why do men have to work and not get to stay home and be a domestic?

They don't, aside from some moderate social pressure, occasionally being called a pedophile, and working out a plan with their partner.

Saelune:
Im sure rape is more a problem for women than men, especially with the chance for pregnancy, but that doesnt mean a man cannot be raped, nor be neglected in getting help in such a case, and regardless of who raped them.

Depends on your definitions. Like, everything in that bit depends on your definitions, especially how you define "rape." There is a concerted effort to count women having intercourse with non-consenting men as "not rape", and then trying to disguise that number if measured at all.

Saelune:
But too many feminists seem to want women superiority, not equality...and it seems alot of "MRA"s are just bitter sexist men wanting to spite feminists, both the bad and the good ones.

One of the problems here is that a lot of guys who become MRAs do so coming out of strongly negative experiences with women.

Because there's so little social awareness of them (and essentially no support at all), very few think about stuff like female on male sexual assault or intimate partner violence, family courts, etc, etc, so a large proportion of those who take up that particular banner come out of terrible experiences that they wouldn't have even thought of as a thing before it happened to them. As for why there's such an anti-feminist bent in particular on a lot of these issues that's the banner the opposition stands under. Shared parenting is most often opposed by feminist groups, for example (NOW [the largest feminist lobby group in the US] in particular likes to fight against shared parenting arguing that starting from a rebuttable presumption of shared custody encourages perpetuating abuse against women). Same thing with support of the Duluth model (which is a big part of why men have such trouble reporting domestic violence against them because it means they will likely be arrested and deemed the perpetrator if they try to, and then this helps feed into the stats used to justify a lack of services for them, which in turn further depresses reporting, and so on).

Agema:

So for instance, I can be pretty sure if we're talking about Roosh whateverhisnameis, Vox Day, Paul Elam etc. and their associated pals and organisations, that's well into the toxic spectrum. I'm aware there are plenty of people who don't think improving the lot of men necessitates gender war - you know, the ones their more vocal MRM brethren call things like "mangina".

The interesting thing about Roosh V as an MRA is that neither Roosh V nor MRAs consider Roosh V an MRA, it's literally only feminists looking to use Roosh V to attack MRAs that consider him one, usually on the basis of "he sometimes says things I accuse MRAs of saying, therefore he counts."

I could say the same about Vox Day, but Vox Day just sort of declares himself an important figure in whatever group he feels like at the moment. Nowadays he prefers to call himself a central figure of the alt-right, though I'd bet any alt-righter not familiar with the Puppies would respond "Who?" if you asked about him.

Lilani:

Saelune:
I have this same argument against the term "Feminism" but uh...how about being pro-Equal rights instead? Why not just being anti-sexism? There is sexism that negatively effects women, that negatively effects men, and that negatively effects both, and not always at the same time.

Why can women wear skirts AND pants, but men wearing skirts is usually treated poorly? Why are men expected to pay for a woman's meal? Why cant a woman be let to pay her own meal? Why do women have to stay and be a parent? Why do men have to work and not get to stay home and be a domestic? Sexism effects all of us in different ways. What is a positive for one man or woman can be a negative for another.

I do think some issues are more prevalent for one sex than the other. Im sure rape is more a problem for women than men, especially with the chance for pregnancy, but that doesnt mean a man cannot be raped, nor be neglected in getting help in such a case, and regardless of who raped them.

But too many feminists seem to want women superiority, not equality...and it seems alot of "MRA"s are just bitter sexist men wanting to spite feminists, both the bad and the good ones.

I dont think acting like lawyers is the right way to solve this, where each side only cares about their own, rather than figuring out what true justice would be.

I once saw someone liken being "pro equal-rights" to being "pro house-fixing." Sure that's all well and good, but typically to tackle certain issues it's best to find a specialist. When someone's having trouble with their plumbing, they don't usually call a "house-fixer." They call a plumber. Or if they're having trouble with their power, they call an electrician. Or an HVAC specialist, or a roofer, or an exterminator or whatever. This is because there are a lot of different components to a house, and it's simply not feasible for one person to be well-equipped enough to tackle all of these problems competently.

It's the same thing with an issue as huge and diverse as "equal rights." A feminist is a person who wants equal rights, but in the interest of getting things done efficiently they focus on women's issues. Just as a proper plumber doesn't hope they damage your electricity when they fix your pipes, a proper feminist doesn't hope men become oppressed by the advancement of women's rights (though sometimes the loss of privileges for the sake of equality can feel like a loss of rights to those who have lost them, but that's a different matter).

Also, many issues for men and women are more intertwined than you think. You mentioned how it's okay for women to wear pants and skirts, but society has deemed it's not okay for men to wear skirts. Which is a slight against men certainly, men should be able to wear what they damn well please with impunity. But it comes from this notion our society has held onto that things we've deemed as "for women" are inherently inferior and beneath the dignity of men. It's not shameful for a woman to wear the things men wear because masculinity is seen as empowering. But it is shameful for men to dress as women because femininity is seen as weak and foolish, a step down from the masculinity men already possess. We've let go of the notion that women don't deserve to dress like men, but we have yet to rid ourselves of the notion that a man who dresses as a woman is debasing himself.

This view of femininity has bad effects for both sexes. For men it means displaying feminine traits is "off-limits," hampering not only clothing but behavior and lifestyle options as well. And for women it means being seen as inherently inferior. We've made progress in the "women being seen as inherently inferior" department, but not enough to chip away at the "men who behave/dress like women are weak and foolish" department.

I am not saying people cannot prefer to focus on certain groups. I know I probably champion LGBT rights more intently than well, black rights. But that doesnt mean I dont get pissed off at racism. But I would never call myself a...I dunno...Homoist? And not just because it sounds silly. When Feminism started, it did need to be gungho about it, cause women truly were second-class citizens. The white ones anyways. Black women got that super double whammy. I just think now things arent so blatant with who is more or less advantaged...aside from the super rich versus everyone else. I also think alot of rights movements now are way more intertwined that you really cant fight for just one group's rights without acknowledging everyone else's.

And as someone who has seen poor house repair fuck up other parts of the house, even specialists need better general knowledge.

Saelune:
I am not saying people cannot prefer to focus on certain groups. I know I probably champion LGBT rights more intently than well, black rights. But that doesnt mean I dont get pissed off at racism. But I would never call myself a...I dunno...Homoist? And not just because it sounds silly. When Feminism started, it did need to be gungho about it, cause women truly were second-class citizens. The white ones anyways. Black women got that super double whammy. I just think now things arent so blatant with who is more or less advantaged...aside from the super rich versus everyone else. I also think alot of rights movements now are way more intertwined that you really cant fight for just one group's rights without acknowledging everyone else's.

And as someone who has seen poor house repair fuck up other parts of the house, even specialists need better general knowledge.

Well in order for people to focus on certain groups, they need to be called something, lol. Like "feminism" and whatnot. That is simply a function of language.

I think it's interesting you bring up black women, because there is a large discussion on the difference between "white feminism" and "black feminism," and how seeking equal rights for women hasn't been enough on its own for black women. There are many discussions that even many feminists don't approach, such as how the black female body is seen as a commodity in pop culture, how black women are often told how and how not to wear their hair, how colored women are still seen as exotic rather than conventionally beautiful, etc.

Giving different labels to these different movements allows us to talk about them more fluently. Many people see "black feminism" and "white feminism" and see two segregated groups ineffectually hammering away at different issues, thwarting each other on the way. But that isn't really what's happening. It is people with different experiences making those unique experiences known, and not allowing themselves to get left behind or forgotten. It seems the problem you have with all of this is the labels themselves, but in order for these things to be addressed they have to be labelled. And labels themselves are not necessarily divisive things.

The LGBT rights movement itself is labelled--LGBT. And I have heard similar complaints about labels regarding that movement, as well. "Why do they need so many letters? Nobody even knows what they all stand for." "Why do they have to put it in our faces all the time?" "Why do they need that special name, why can't they just be for equal rights? I don't care if you're gay or straight." Though the argument in that last one is always a bit flawed, because if you care that gay people delineate themselves from straight people, then obviously you do care to some extent.

Saying any group should stop using labels is very close to saying that group should stop existing and making noise, which is why LGBT groups do not drop their acronyms and feminism is not dropping the word "feminism" anytime soon.

undeadsuitor:

Are they toxic with the same frequency? Barring cherry picked examples the ratio of good to bad that feminism does far out classes whatever MRAs and MRMs do.

The people I have been around that try and advocate for mens rights are not nearly as toxic as the misandrist feminists I regularly encounter. I wholly disagree that the ratio of good to bad that feminism does is a good ratio if you are a man that has been abused. I have seen feminists tell victims that they deserved it because of their gender. The toxic members advocating for men's rights are not something I encounter nearly as much as the toxic feminists and misandrists. Frequency is a matter of exposure. I see misandry among feminists more often than I see misogyny among the egalitarians I see that champion rights for men and women.

Your experiences may differ but they do not negate mine.

Thaluikhain:

FriendoftheFallen:
My issue is the portrayal of those who advocate for mens rights as being predominantly toxic. Would it be right and proper for me to start calling feminists toxic with the same frequency?

Thaluikhain:
You are equating feminism with the MRM there. The term MRA gets used in two ways, in a specific sense to mean someone who is part of the MRM, which is one specific group (nominally) favouring rights for men, or in a general sense to mean someone who talks about men's rights as a means to oppose women's.

Neither of those is particularly similar to feminists or feminism unless you specify which subgroup of feminists or feminism you are talking about.

There are people advocating men's rights, and then there are MRAs, the overlap is tiny.

Again, what about the overlap between feminism and misandry? My basic question is whether the thing you call out on one side is something you call out on the other side or do you give one side a pass for bad behavior? I keep asking a basic question and feel like I'm getting evasive responses. That could be on me, though. Perhaps I am misperceiving.

double post sorry.

FriendoftheFallen:
The people I have been around that try and advocate for mens rights are not nearly as toxic as the misandrist feminists I regularly encounter.

the people I'm friends with aren't as toxic as the people I deliberately seek out to disagree with

?\_(ツ)_/?

your experiences may differ but they do not negate mine

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here