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
 

Lieju:
You know, I know lot of very nice straight people and many very happy straight couples but every time I run into threads like this I suddenly become super happy I'm a lesbian.

Same here as a gay man, though it's weird that I'm somehow removed from this "manosphere" for not being into women apparently.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

Lieju:
Oh my god do you know any women?

I can see what he means and I assure you I know plenty of women. Many are thoroughly convinced they can have everything - wild and unstable romantic relationships, a top notch career, plenty of free time and fun, the ability to act spontaneously, security in the family and workplace... In fact, they're not only convinced they can have it all, they're convinced they must have it all because that is the standard the world is apparently setting for them (see my other post in this thread). This is by no means limited to women but in their case it often means they end up missing out on a stable family life because they were too busy being wild and free, or they miss out on being wild and free because they built a family. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned by her own decisions.

I know plenty of women too and only one of them acts like that (and even then that's because she's a silver-spooner) soooo... subjective perspective is subjective? Which man has the right to tell women what women are like now?

Phasmal:
I'm not about to drop my entire life to have a baby right now because hey my mum would really love another grandbaby. So, no, we shouldn't heed such people. She probably ignored them because she didn't want to do it at that time. It's sad that she regrets it now, but that kind of thing happens.
People are aware that you aren't fertile forever, but I do believe they should be in control of when they have kids and women don't really need more societal pressure to have babies- there's enough around, trust me.

And how many of those that are around were planned and wanted? The overwhelming majority of women I know who have children didn't plan to have them (at least not "so early!") and its not like I exclusively hang around people from the ghetto. A decline in population numbers would be a lovely thing indeed if we could stop artificially ramping them up instead by means of mass immigration, but you're missing something here, namely that unfortunately people who become parents despite not planning to have children tend to make shittier parents.

I'd argue we don't necessarily need societal pressure on women to have babies, but we should have societal pressure on women to learn to be proper mothers.

...Or we could put more societal pressure on men to use condoms, and to learn how to be proper fathers.

*looks at news story where a man does the bare minimum of parenting and is labeled 'dad of the year'*

Just a thought, really.

Wrex Brogan:
I know plenty of women too and only one of them acts like that (and even then that's because she's a silver-spooner) soooo... subjective perspective is subjective?

Yeah, sure its subjective. Though I have lived in more than one country and been around crowds from all walks of life except the very, very bottom of the barrel (think 3 year meth addict living in a drug house) and the very, very top (think Bill Gates). So I feel quite confident that there is at least some merit to my subjective perspective.

Wrex Brogan:
Which man has the right to tell women what women are like now?

Well uh... Every man? And every woman has the right to ignore that man.

Wrex Brogan:
...Or we could put more societal pressure on men to use condoms, and to learn how to be proper fathers.

*looks at news story where a man does the bare minimum of parenting and is labeled 'dad of the year'*

Just a thought, really.

This isn't an either or situation, in fact I personally believe its vital to do both if you want the next few generations to be healthy, responsible and stable individuals. Not sure why you're bringing up the old "men refuse to use condoms" trope, seems a bit grasping-at-straws ish.

Not sure what news story you're talking about there. Anyway, not to be a dick but all in all not the most stimulating and interesting thought I've read in this thread.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

Wrex Brogan:
Which man has the right to tell women what women are like now?

Well uh... Every man? And every woman has the right to ignore that man.

image

Ok, let's try this question again. Which man has the right to tell woman what women are like, and have it be taken with anything resembling seriousness? I mean, I see plenty of people who think that they have some authority to claim that they know how the minds of 3 billion people work, but I've never seen any of those people actually manage to back that claim up.

As for the comments on condoms, not really, considering how many teenage births happen in areas that preach abstinence only as a form of birth control. So your comment about it being grasping at straws is "not to be a dick but all in all not the most stimulating and interesting thought I've read in this thread." That and, you know, I'd like to know how many of the men you're talking about were wearing condoms when they accidentally became fathers. Because I have a sneaking feeling it wasn't very many. Just a guess.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

Yeah, sure its subjective. Though I have lived in more than one country and been around crowds from all walks of life except the very, very bottom of the barrel (think 3 year meth addict living in a drug house) and the very, very top (think Bill Gates). So I feel quite confident that there is at least some merit to my subjective perspective.

Shit, I think that means my subjective perspective has more merit than yours then, since I have spent time with women at the very bottom of the barrel.

...though given the 'I know men/women' argument is always subjective and biased to the point of uselessness, that's not that big a victory. Damn.

Wrex Brogan:
Which man has the right to tell women what women are like now?

Well uh... Every man? And every woman has the right to ignore that man.

...well, it's the fact that Lieju is a woman and you came in and went '*I* know women'. I think Lieju would know women pretty well too, given the circumstances.

This isn't an either or situation, in fact I personally believe its vital to do both if you want the next few generations to be healthy, responsible and stable individuals. Not sure why you're bringing up the old "men refuse to use condoms" trope, seems a bit grasping-at-straws ish.

...because you brought up the 'many women I know have babies that weren't planned/wanted' thing? And not 'men refuse to wear condoms' but more 'there's lots of societal pressures and stigmas surrounding the usage of condoms so men often don't use or don't know the necessity of condoms in having safe sex'. Lots of people have unplanned/unwanted babies, but lord knows I'd put that more on the general piss-poor knowledge about effective preventatives than any particular gender (though discussions about condoms are often framed with Men in mind; I always recommend women carry some condoms as well though if they're sexually active, just in case).

Also kinda weird how it's always framed as 'women having unplanned pregnancies'. Why can't it be 'Men having unplanned
children'? I mean, unless these women are being super careless with a turkey baster and some man-mayo I'm guessing a man was involved in the unplanned/unwanted pregnancy somewhere.

Not sure what news story you're talking about there. Anyway, not to be a dick but all in all not the most stimulating and interesting thought I've read in this thread.

Not any single story - it's kinda a general thing where like once a month everywhere will report on a dad doing the bare-minimum of parenting and label him 'father of the year', while reports on women going above and beyond with motherhood often gets fuck-all. It's very weird and kinda pushes the social narrative that men don't have to contribute as much to parenting to be rewarded for it, which becomes perplexity frustrating when men who do go above and beyond or are single parents get completely ignored. 'Congrats if you're married and looked after the kids on Sunday, but go fuck yourself if it's just you raising 3 kids' is... not a good thing to promote effective fatherhood.

And no need to apologize, your commentary hasn't exactly been the most intellectually engaging eitherthough frankly these kinds of threads rarely give themselves to intellectual discussion anyway while everyone makes broad-sweeping commentary about genders or blame feminists for whatever. I just found your responses to two female posters funny, is all. Hardly necessary to bring my A-game to that.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

Phasmal:
I'm not about to drop my entire life to have a baby right now because hey my mum would really love another grandbaby. So, no, we shouldn't heed such people. She probably ignored them because she didn't want to do it at that time. It's sad that she regrets it now, but that kind of thing happens.
People are aware that you aren't fertile forever, but I do believe they should be in control of when they have kids and women don't really need more societal pressure to have babies- there's enough around, trust me.

And how many of those that are around were planned and wanted? The overwhelming majority of women I know who have children didn't plan to have them (at least not "so early!") and its not like I exclusively hang around people from the ghetto. A decline in population numbers would be a lovely thing indeed if we could stop artificially ramping them up instead by means of mass immigration, but you're missing something here, namely that unfortunately people who become parents despite not planning to have children tend to make shittier parents.

I'd argue we don't necessarily need societal pressure on women to have babies, but we should have societal pressure on women to learn to be proper mothers.

Well that's awful judgy of you, imo. And also last time I checked it takes two to tango.

Personally, as someone who looks after other people's children for a living, I think parenting should be taught in school. To everyone. It's a skill everyone (who plans on having kids) should know.

And also excuse me to piss myself laughing that you think there isn't enough societal pressure around being a mother. Fucking hell, dude. Imma repeat Leiju here, do you know any women?

The amount of pressure put on women to be the perfect mother is insane. I speak to working mothers who feel guilty going to work when their child has a cold. And children are made of colds.

NemotheElvenPanda:

Lieju:
You know, I know lot of very nice straight people and many very happy straight couples but every time I run into threads like this I suddenly become super happy I'm a lesbian.

Same here as a gay man, though it's weird that I'm somehow removed from this "manosphere" for not being into women apparently.

From what i understand, the "Manosphere" refers to a group of frustrated straight men who believe themselves entitled to sex with a woman. The greatest thing about being asexual is being able to laugh at those loosers

Thaluikhain:

About 1/4 of Australian citizens were born overseas, not seeing an issue myself.

Would it be catastrophic had they not come? Here in the US, I'd expect, without immigration, our economy would contract by about $50 billion a year. I think we can handle it.

Lieju:

Oh my god do you know any women?

I was raised by one, beat up a lot by older female siblings (kidding: love 'em!)married one and sired another very, very high maintenance one. She's in college now and has never cost me more money. She's fun to binge watch things like Grey's Anatomy with though.

Personally, I'm planning to get married (tho not to a dude, and certain people in this thread are making me super happy I'm not into men... Straight relationships sound horrible the way you talk about them) I know I'll never have kids. Not because I'd never want them but because of health issues and simply not being able to afford it.

I can understand that. My "mother in law's test" tells me there tend to be difficulties in mixed sex marriages that may tend to not exist in same sex. Sometimes I wish I was gay for that reason. Sadly, I have not that honor. Like you, I too am hopelessly attracted to women.

Men can be difficult for women. We are more likely to leave the seat up, have a much higher tolerance for a messy home, and tend to adore exploding car - machine gun mowing of bad guy type movies while our wives want to watch such films as, "they came to talk".

But we are 1/2 of society, tend not to be gay, and tend to be improved by marriage and in return, improve society. But so many are walking away from it all as, we find difficulties in such mixed gender relationships too. For instance, last night I wanted to play Deus Ex Human Revolution on the main home TV but the wife was watching a home improvement type show (something about improving the house, then choose to keep it or sell it for a profit and get a new house). I let her win. (the A.H. thing to do: go to a different room to sulk but I think she enjoys my company so I stayed and played "Puzzle Agent" on my laptop.)

I am outraged that you do not intend to ever have (or foster or adopt) kids due to blocks (financial) in your way. A part of this thread is exactly what I'm writing about. I hope these blocks are removed and you are pleasantly surprised that you do get a chance to raise some. Greatest, most frightening and rewarding challenge of my life (raising ankle biters.) Best of luck to you.

CyanCat47:

From what i understand, the "Manosphere" refers to a group of frustrated straight men who believe themselves entitled to sex with a woman. The greatest thing about being asexual is being able to laugh at those loosers

Some may feel such entitlement. Others are outraged by what they see as an all out war against men. Those men would also be gay and asexual(that's really a thing?). I think some of the problems are real. I question how we can justly fix them. I want my daughter to be happy. I don't want her feeling she "has" to do anything. But I want my son to feel socially connected, of individual importance, and not discriminated against because Al Gore is rich. Fixing this is not going to be easy. It starts with discussing it.

Gorfias:

Thaluikhain:

About 1/4 of Australian citizens were born overseas, not seeing an issue myself.

Would it be catastrophic had they not come? Here in the US, I'd expect, without immigration, our economy would contract by about $50 billion a year. I think we can handle it.

Lieju:

Oh my god do you know any women?

I was raised by one, beat up a lot by older female siblings (kidding: love 'em!)married one and sired another very, very high maintenance one. She's in college now and has never cost me more money. She's fun to binge watch things like Grey's Anatomy with though.

Personally, I'm planning to get married (tho not to a dude, and certain people in this thread are making me super happy I'm not into men... Straight relationships sound horrible the way you talk about them) I know I'll never have kids. Not because I'd never want them but because of health issues and simply not being able to afford it.

I can understand that. My "mother in law's test" tells me there tend to be difficulties in mixed sex marriages that may tend to not exist in same sex. Sometimes I wish I was gay for that reason. Sadly, I have not that honor. Like you, I too am hopelessly attracted to women.

Men can be difficult for women. We are more likely to leave the seat up, have a much higher tolerance for a messy home, and tend to adore exploding car - machine gun mowing of bad guy type movies while our wives want to watch such films as, "they came to talk".

But we are 1/2 of society, tend not to be gay, and tend to be improved by marriage and in return, improve society. But so many are walking away from it all as, we find difficulties in such mixed gender relationships too. For instance, last night I wanted to play Deus Ex Human Revolution on the main home TV but the wife was watching a home improvement type show (something about improving the house, then choose to keep it or sell it for a profit and get a new house). I let her win. (the A.H. thing to do: go to a different room to sulk but I think she enjoys my company so I stayed and played "Puzzle Agent" on my laptop.)

I am outraged that you do not intend to ever have (or foster or adopt) kids due to blocks (financial) in your way. A part of this thread is exactly what I'm writing about. I hope these blocks are removed and you are pleasantly surprised that you do get a chance to raise some. Greatest, most frightening and rewarding challenge of my life (raising ankle biters.) Best of luck to you.

CyanCat47:

From what i understand, the "Manosphere" refers to a group of frustrated straight men who believe themselves entitled to sex with a woman. The greatest thing about being asexual is being able to laugh at those loosers

Some may feel such entitlement. Others are outraged by what they see as an all out war against men. Those men would also be gay and asexual(that's really a thing?). I think some of the problems are real. I question how we can justly fix them. I want my daughter to be happy. I don't want her feeling she "has" to do anything. But I want my son to feel socially connected, of individual importance, and not discriminated against because Al Gore is rich. Fixing this is not going to be easy. It starts with discussing it.

1: Yes asexuals are real, although not many will admit to being one because society at large constantly implies that we don't exist. I was unaware of my asexuality until i was 15 when i first learned that it was not something exclusive to myself, something i assume most asexuals think without knowledge of the phenomenon. It's appearantly rare, but the fact of the matter is, i have no natural desire for intercourse with anyone or anything, so it is the only logical conclusion i can find based on my own experiences

2. The alledged war against men is largely backlash against sexual assault and rape being downplayed and denied for so long. Do feminists have an unfortunate tendency to generalize? Yes, i could not deny that without lying, and i have encoutnered real cases misandry within the feminist movement. However, neither can i honestly deny that the way the justice system and the broader culture treats rape and sexual assault at the moment is downright shameful. Victims of rape are accused of lying almost instantly in any case, even where there is clear evidence. Three rapists were found innocent despite blatantly gang-banging an intoxicated woman. Men too suffer from rape and sexual assault not being taken seriously by society, they are under no obligation to defend criminals and degenerates, and yet so many do, refusing to aknowledge that it is even possible to violate someone sexually. If straight men are tired of being generalized they should stop weakly excusing rapists and posting #notallmen in regards to every male sex offender in the news, and instead condemn illegal actions like this.

CyanCat47:
The alledged war against men is largely backlash against sexual assault and rape being downplayed and denied for so long. Do feminists have an unfortunate tendency to generalize? Yes, i could not deny that without lying, and i have encoutnered real cases misandry within the feminist movement. However, neither can i honestly deny that the way the justice system and the broader culture treats rape and sexual assault at the moment is downright shameful. Victims of rape are accused of lying almost instantly in any case, even where there is clear evidence. Three rapists were found innocent despite blatantly gang-banging an intoxicated woman. Men too suffer from rape and sexual assault not being taken seriously by society, they are under no obligation to defend criminals and degenerates, and yet so many do, refusing to aknowledge that it is even possible to violate someone sexually. If straight men are tired of being generalized they should stop weakly excusing rapists and posting #notallmen in regards to every male sex offender in the news, and instead condemn illegal actions like this.

I disagree. Men die younger than women. They're more likely to commit suicide yet less likely to seek help. They make up something like 95% of work place fatalities. Divorce law and child support law are arguably unjust against them. Men are likely to go to prison and for longer terms than women convicted of similar crimes and on an on and on. You can argue about any of these things but understand: there's a ton to argue about: not just what constitutes rape.

EDIT: Maybe we have just have cultural problems. Sure looks like others know how to have fun: image Running of the Brides

Gorfias:

CyanCat47:
The alledged war against men is largely backlash against sexual assault and rape being downplayed and denied for so long. Do feminists have an unfortunate tendency to generalize? Yes, i could not deny that without lying, and i have encoutnered real cases misandry within the feminist movement. However, neither can i honestly deny that the way the justice system and the broader culture treats rape and sexual assault at the moment is downright shameful. Victims of rape are accused of lying almost instantly in any case, even where there is clear evidence. Three rapists were found innocent despite blatantly gang-banging an intoxicated woman. Men too suffer from rape and sexual assault not being taken seriously by society, they are under no obligation to defend criminals and degenerates, and yet so many do, refusing to aknowledge that it is even possible to violate someone sexually. If straight men are tired of being generalized they should stop weakly excusing rapists and posting #notallmen in regards to every male sex offender in the news, and instead condemn illegal actions like this.

I disagree. Men die younger than women. They're more likely to commit suicide yet less likely to seek help. They make up something like 95% of work place fatalities. Divorce law and child support law are arguably unjust against them. Men are likely to go to prison and for longer terms than women convicted of similar crimes and on an on and on. You can argue about any of these things but understand: there's a ton to argue about: not just what constitutes rape.

EDIT: Maybe we have just have cultural problems. Sure looks like others know how to have fun: image Running of the Brides

How is this a war against men? I hate to say it, but men dying younger than women? Them working more dangerous jobs and not seeking help for suicide? The male gender did that. For centuries we've been told to be big and strong, to not complain and suck it up, to be a man, that women were too weak and we need to care of them, by other men. George Carlin made a lot of good points on this.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UJr5iUhORvc

I've dealt with this crap first hand

erttheking:

How is this a war against men? I hate to say it, but men dying younger than women? Them working more dangerous jobs and not seeking help for suicide? The male gender did that. For centuries we've been told to be big and strong, to not complain and suck it up, to be a man, that women were too weak and we need to care of them, by other men. George Carlin made a lot of good points on this.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UJr5iUhORvc

I've dealt with this crap first hand

You kinda contradict yourself in your own comment. You appear to state that there is no war on men as so much of what harms men is their failure to insist upon more and better for themselves and then state that "we've been told to be big and strong".

Warren Farrel wrote that women cannot hear what men do not say. We've been taught not to complain. It's time that stopped.

ITMT: I will check your link ASAP. EDIT: Yup. We're taught to not complain. He says it is because of what Dad teaches but really, it is culture over all.

Gorfias:

erttheking:

How is this a war against men? I hate to say it, but men dying younger than women? Them working more dangerous jobs and not seeking help for suicide? The male gender did that. For centuries we've been told to be big and strong, to not complain and suck it up, to be a man, that women were too weak and we need to care of them, by other men. George Carlin made a lot of good points on this.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UJr5iUhORvc

I've dealt with this crap first hand

You kinda contradict yourself in your own comment. You appear to state that there is no war on men as so much of what harms men is their failure to insist upon more and better for themselves and then state that "we've been told to be big and strong".

Warren Farrel wrote that women cannot hear what men do not say. We've been taught not to complain. It's time that stopped.

ITMT: I will check your link ASAP. EDIT: Yup. We're taught to not complain. He says it is because of what Dad teaches but really, it is culture over all.

Men oppress men too.

Am I the only one who notices that the thread specifically mentions men but most of the time in it is being spent complaining about those uppity women who are apparently doing too much and not enough at the same time?
No, just me?
Hm.

Well, I mean, it's The Escapist, really, what did I expect, but still...

Phasmal:
Am I the only one who notices that the thread specifically mentions men but most of the time in it is being spent complaining about those uppity women who are apparently doing too much and not enough at the same time?
No, just me?
Hm.

Well, I mean, it's The Escapist, really, what did I expect, but still...

I recall seing a cartoon strip somewhere called "Women never win". It features a housewife, a businesswoman and various other women in different positions and life situations, and shows how they all get some kind of complaint that they are doing too little or too much and making a wrong life decision

Saelune:
Men oppress men too.

Absolutely. Class is huge. I don't doubt for every MGTOW there's a Donald Trump type saying, "works for me" as he may see it as more available women for himself.

A legit men's movement will always have a class problem as we're not all in the same boat.

The same has been written about women's movements as well but it seems they have enough together to make things generally work (make themselves heard and get action on things that really matter to them).

Men? Not doing so well in this sorta thing.

CyanCat47:
If straight men are tired of being generalized they should stop weakly excusing rapists and posting #notallmen in regards to every male sex offender in the news, and instead condemn illegal actions like this.

By that same logic then if women or feminists (separate groups) don't want to be generalized they shouldn't weakly defend misandry and instead condemn all instances of misandry or anti-male inequality they witness.

That logic could be applied to a minority group to come to a very racist conclusion. I think that men are perfectly justified in saying notallmen IF a minority group is justified in not wanting to be monolithed or vilified due to the (statistically verified) actions of other members of that group. People have the right to not want to be generalized and telling them the only way to escape hurtful generalizations is active mobilization against actors perpetuating the stereotype could be seen as extremely callous and harmful. Should members of a minority community be condemned for proportionally higher criminal arrest rates? Or should the innocent members of that minority population not have the onus of having to defend the fact that they themselves did nothing wrong and have the right to resent others for daring to categorize them thusly?

Men are entitled to the same compassion and advocacy as any other group yet it is fashionable and acceptable to just denigrate and malign them at every turn. Then when some men express displeasure at this unfair vituperation, they are labeled sexist and falsely lumped in with fringe misogynists.

The same logic that you wish to apply to men is the same logic racists apply to racial minorities.

So, which is it? Are racists wrong to generalize tendencies in a minority group based on statistical data and thus you are wrong to make a similarly hurtful generalization or are racists completely justified in their generalizations?

Personally, I think that we should examine individuals as individuals and not condemn them for the groups they are in.

I'm fully expecting some fallacious weak argument from someone trying to say they can't be compared because of some weak redefinition while ignoring the comparison and excusing one type of prejudice while condemning the other. I would love to be pleasantly surprised...

FriendoftheFallen:

CyanCat47:
If straight men are tired of being generalized they should stop weakly excusing rapists and posting #notallmen in regards to every male sex offender in the news, and instead condemn illegal actions like this.

By that same logic then if women or feminists (separate groups) don't want to be generalized they shouldn't weakly defend misandry and instead condemn all instances of misandry or anti-male inequality they witness.

That logic could be applied to a minority group to come to a very racist conclusion. I think that men are perfectly justified in saying notallmen IF a minority group is justified in not wanting to be monolithed or vilified due to the (statistically verified) actions of other members of that group. People have the right to not want to be generalized and telling them the only way to escape hurtful generalizations is active mobilization against actors perpetuating the stereotype could be seen as extremely callous and harmful. Should members of a minority community be condemned for proportionally higher criminal arrest rates? Or should the innocent members of that minority population not have the onus of having to defend the fact that they themselves did nothing wrong and have the right to resent others for daring to categorize them thusly?

Men are entitled to the same compassion and advocacy as any other group yet it is fashionable and acceptable to just denigrate and malign them at every turn. Then when some men express displeasure at this unfair vituperation, they are labeled sexist and falsely lumped in with fringe misogynists.

The same logic that you wish to apply to men is the same logic racists apply to racial minorities.

So, which is it? Are racists wrong to generalize tendencies in a minority group based on statistical data and thus you are wrong to make a similarly hurtful generalization or are racists completely justified in their generalizations?

Personally, I think that we should examine individuals as individuals and not condemn them for the groups they are in.

I'm fully expecting some fallacious weak argument from someone trying to say they can't be compared because of some weak redefinition while ignoring the comparison and excusing one type of prejudice while condemning the other. I would love to be pleasantly surprised...

To my experience, people don't tend to argue that a crime is impossible in most cases. Rape is the exception here. Nobody claims stealing is impossible or that killing is impossible. The manosphere seems to actively try to deny rape and sexual assault as being possible. Do murderers claim their victims aren't dead, that it is physically impossible for them to die? Fair enough, i generalized too much there, but the war on men is an inflated conflict, much like the war on christmas, and other similarly ridiculous conflicts in that it is really an internet debate between a few dozen fanatics that is overblown to seem like some kind of clash of civilizations. Men aren't dying younger because women are killing them

Gorfias:

erttheking:

How is this a war against men? I hate to say it, but men dying younger than women? Them working more dangerous jobs and not seeking help for suicide? The male gender did that. For centuries we've been told to be big and strong, to not complain and suck it up, to be a man, that women were too weak and we need to care of them, by other men. George Carlin made a lot of good points on this.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UJr5iUhORvc

I've dealt with this crap first hand

You kinda contradict yourself in your own comment. You appear to state that there is no war on men as so much of what harms men is their failure to insist upon more and better for themselves and then state that "we've been told to be big and strong".

Warren Farrel wrote that women cannot hear what men do not say. We've been taught not to complain. It's time that stopped.

ITMT: I will check your link ASAP. EDIT: Yup. We're taught to not complain. He says it is because of what Dad teaches but really, it is culture over all.

You're missing my point. Men have a flawed culture. There is no war on us. War implies an outside enemy trying to destroy us. An oversimplification to a massive problem. We do need to fix it. But there is no war on us.

erttheking:

You're missing my point. Men have a flawed culture. There is no war on us. War implies an outside enemy trying to destroy us. An oversimplification to a massive problem. We do need to fix it. But there is no war on us.

I do see elite men as being somewhat at "war" with the rank and file. What they can impact socially and economically that may harm most men may actually benefit them. Same for some women's groups.

There is something alien or "other" that would treat boys as defective girls.

Given what we know, the term "war" does not seem out of place.

erttheking:

Gorfias:

erttheking:

How is this a war against men? I hate to say it, but men dying younger than women? Them working more dangerous jobs and not seeking help for suicide? The male gender did that. For centuries we've been told to be big and strong, to not complain and suck it up, to be a man, that women were too weak and we need to care of them, by other men. George Carlin made a lot of good points on this.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UJr5iUhORvc

I've dealt with this crap first hand

You kinda contradict yourself in your own comment. You appear to state that there is no war on men as so much of what harms men is their failure to insist upon more and better for themselves and then state that "we've been told to be big and strong".

Warren Farrel wrote that women cannot hear what men do not say. We've been taught not to complain. It's time that stopped.

ITMT: I will check your link ASAP. EDIT: Yup. We're taught to not complain. He says it is because of what Dad teaches but really, it is culture over all.

You're missing my point. Men have a flawed culture. There is no war on us. War implies an outside enemy trying to destroy us. An oversimplification to a massive problem. We do need to fix it. But there is no war on us.

It's an inside job

Testosterone can't melt steel beams

(And a fake war that will never get anywhere until toxic masculinity is addressed)

CyanCat47:

FriendoftheFallen:

CyanCat47:
If straight men are tired of being generalized they should stop weakly excusing rapists and posting #notallmen in regards to every male sex offender in the news, and instead condemn illegal actions like this.

By that same logic then if women or feminists (separate groups) don't want to be generalized they shouldn't weakly defend misandry and instead condemn all instances of misandry or anti-male inequality they witness.

That logic could be applied to a minority group to come to a very racist conclusion. I think that men are perfectly justified in saying notallmen IF a minority group is justified in not wanting to be monolithed or vilified due to the (statistically verified) actions of other members of that group. People have the right to not want to be generalized and telling them the only way to escape hurtful generalizations is active mobilization against actors perpetuating the stereotype could be seen as extremely callous and harmful. Should members of a minority community be condemned for proportionally higher criminal arrest rates? Or should the innocent members of that minority population not have the onus of having to defend the fact that they themselves did nothing wrong and have the right to resent others for daring to categorize them thusly?

Men are entitled to the same compassion and advocacy as any other group yet it is fashionable and acceptable to just denigrate and malign them at every turn. Then when some men express displeasure at this unfair vituperation, they are labeled sexist and falsely lumped in with fringe misogynists.

The same logic that you wish to apply to men is the same logic racists apply to racial minorities.

So, which is it? Are racists wrong to generalize tendencies in a minority group based on statistical data and thus you are wrong to make a similarly hurtful generalization or are racists completely justified in their generalizations?

Personally, I think that we should examine individuals as individuals and not condemn them for the groups they are in.

I'm fully expecting some fallacious weak argument from someone trying to say they can't be compared because of some weak redefinition while ignoring the comparison and excusing one type of prejudice while condemning the other. I would love to be pleasantly surprised...

To my experience, people don't tend to argue that a crime is impossible in most cases. Rape is the exception here. Nobody claims stealing is impossible or that killing is impossible. The manosphere seems to actively try to deny rape and sexual assault as being possible. Do murderers claim their victims aren't dead, that it is physically impossible for them to die? Fair enough, i generalized too much there, but the war on men is an inflated conflict, much like the war on christmas, and other similarly ridiculous conflicts in that it is really an internet debate between a few dozen fanatics that is overblown to seem like some kind of clash of civilizations. Men aren't dying younger because women are killing them

I knew a fallacious weak argument was more likely but am still disappointed it wasn't reasonable discourse.
Then you are blasting the rest of us who just want men to not be treated like crap and who oppose misandry as saying that rape can't occur are ignoring the fact that in some countries women can;t rape men because the definition of rape excludes men from being raped by anyone other than men. That is more horrible than those fringe people you are trying to lump me in with.
There are policies in our government that actively disfavor and harm men- trying to say "well women didn't do them- let's just blame men again" is hurtful and misses the point entirely. We are asking the people trying to push for the rights of others to not be so harsh on men whoa re asking for their own rights and considerations. Treating this as a zero sum game shows how little compassion the other side has for anyone other than themselves. Stop trying to lump men who are hurting in with fringe sexists and smugly dismiss our concerns. We are real people who deserve compassion and consideration as much as the next human.
As someone who spent time in jail because my abuser happened to be female and the cops tried to not even let me get my injuries photographed how dare you say something so false and hurtful as there isn't huge issues that men suffer. Trying to wave away my experiences with false equivalencies is sexist and hurtful. Men are more likely to be found guilty of the same crime as a woman and are MUCH more likely to get a longer sentence. Bringing up issues men face is not some internet only debate, it affects real people. Real people I know suffer from this sexist crap and to discount it and lump those of us who want this to be stopped in with fringe people is ridiculous and hurtful. I feel like arguments like the one you just made show more concern with trying to "win' an argument than possessing compassion for others if they are male. Otherwise you'd give my side the compassion it is due instead of trying to dismiss it with derision.

Gorfias:

erttheking:

You're missing my point. Men have a flawed culture. There is no war on us. War implies an outside enemy trying to destroy us. An oversimplification to a massive problem. We do need to fix it. But there is no war on us.

I do see elite men as being somewhat at "war" with the rank and file. What they can impact socially and economically that may harm most men may actually benefit them. Same for some women's groups.

There is something alien or "other" that would treat boys as defective girls.

Given what we know, the term "war" does not seem out of place.

See, that's why turning this into a "war" is a bad idea. It takes thousands of years of inherited ideals and simplifies it down to "the elite bad guys are manipulating the majority good guys." Things are more complicated than that. No one got up and said "I'm going to make up a bunch of BS to manipulate the male gender." This is the way men have been acting for centuries, it can't be pinned on some elite group that forced it on us. My dad pushed it on me, guys at school pushed it on me. It has a massive presence on the individual level. Without even meaning to, I may have contributed to it when I was young and didn't know bettter. This is a complicated problem inherent with flaws in our culture. Not good guys vs bad guys.

Wrex Brogan:
Shit, I think that means my subjective perspective has more merit than yours then, since I have spent time with women at the very bottom of the barrel.

Maybe? I don't know. Hard to say.

Wrex Brogan:
...well, it's the fact that Lieju is a woman and you came in and went '*I* know women'. I think Lieju would know women pretty well too, given the circumstances.

Not quite, I just saw her responding to a user I thought had a point and elaborated on it. I don't know Liejus circumstances.

Wrex Brogan:
...because you brought up the 'many women I know have babies that weren't planned/wanted' thing? And not 'men refuse to wear condoms' but more 'there's lots of societal pressures and stigmas surrounding the usage of condoms so men often don't use or don't know the necessity of condoms in having safe sex'. Lots of people have unplanned/unwanted babies, but lord knows I'd put that more on the general piss-poor knowledge about effective preventatives than any particular gender (though discussions about condoms are often framed with Men in mind; I always recommend women carry some condoms as well though if they're sexually active, just in case).

Also kinda weird how it's always framed as 'women having unplanned pregnancies'. Why can't it be 'Men having unplanned
children'? I mean, unless these women are being super careless with a turkey baster and some man-mayo I'm guessing a man was involved in the unplanned/unwanted pregnancy somewhere.

It fit into what we were discussing. Naturally - for the second time - of course responsibility lays with both men and women when it comes to contraception or raising children. But if we're talking about females I don't need to preface everything I say with a big fat "men aren't perfect either" sign.

Why it can't be "men having unplanned children"? Because, for better or for worse - probably for the better, but I digress - women have spent the last few decades fighting tooth and nail to win more rights for themselves in motherhood. Now we've reached the point where, if a break up or divorce happens for whatever reason, or if there was never a stable relationship in the first place, they hold all the playing cards when it comes to the children. If you want a society which accepts single mothers, accepts their right to dictate almost freely what role the father is allowed to play, their right to dictate how the child is raised, then it becomes 'women having unplanned pregnancies'. You hold more power, you also hold more responsibility. Very simple.

Wrex Brogan:
Not any single story - it's kinda a general thing where like once a month everywhere will report on a dad doing the bare-minimum of parenting and label him 'father of the year', while reports on women going above and beyond with motherhood often gets fuck-all. It's very weird and kinda pushes the social narrative that men don't have to contribute as much to parenting to be rewarded for it, which becomes perplexity frustrating when men who do go above and beyond or are single parents get completely ignored. 'Congrats if you're married and looked after the kids on Sunday, but go fuck yourself if it's just you raising 3 kids' is... not a good thing to promote effective fatherhood.

Not to be rude but thats just an elaborate way of saying "I pulled it out of my ass". If you think you need to balance things out by writing about deadbeat dads be my guest but don't try to pull my leg man.

Phasmal:
Well that's awful judgy of you, imo. And also last time I checked it takes two to tango.

Personally, as someone who looks after other people's children for a living, I think parenting should be taught in school. To everyone. It's a skill everyone (who plans on having kids) should know.

And also excuse me to piss myself laughing that you think there isn't enough societal pressure around being a mother. Fucking hell, dude. Imma repeat Leiju here, do you know any women?

The amount of pressure put on women to be the perfect mother is insane. I speak to working mothers who feel guilty going to work when their child has a cold. And children are made of colds.

I did mention parents (plural) twice but whatever, see my response to Wrex.

Please stop wasting your time by doing the old "I bet you never get to penis in vagina" thing because thats what this do you know any women thing boils down to. Not really much of an argument. Stop being silly, of course I know women. In fact, I can think of a few I wish I didn't know. Just like any normal human being with a handful of social contacts.

Again, third time now - the pressure on women to be the perfect everything is insane. You should really read my first post in this thread, you might actually agree with it and realize I'm not a misogynistic nerd.

Oh, by the way - looking after kids was my job too for almost two years. Professional to professional? My opinion is that fucking yes, if your kid is sick you stay at home instead of dropping him off at daycare. Because thats what a parent does, they take care of their child, and if they don't they are a bad fucking parent. (I said parent! Please don't get triggered Wrex.) In fact, many should probably think about staying at home with their child instead of dropping it off at daycare every day regardless of whether it has slight fever and a runny nose or not. Because that is what parents do, that is what they are supposed to do. Feel guilty about spending 12 hours a day away from your kid? Congratulations, you have a functioning conscience and are in touch with your parental instinct. Ignoring it is arrogant.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

and its not like I exclusively hang around people from the ghetto. A decline in population numbers would be a lovely thing indeed if we could stop artificially ramping them up instead by means of mass immigration,

I just want to comment on something here. Artificially increasing population through immigration is meant to solve the problem of "depopulation relative to skills", ie brain drain, not to solve the problem of depopulation in terms of raw numbers (we are in no danger of this). Looking, for instance, at the engineering sector, the US just isn't producing enough graduates on its own to meet the labor demand, primarily because there just isn't enough interest among American natives to work in technology.

but you're missing something here, namely that unfortunately people who become parents despite not planning to have children tend to make shittier parents.

And your solution to this is what, exactly?

I'd argue we don't necessarily need societal pressure on women to have babies, but we should have societal pressure on women to learn to be proper mothers.

It's already been asked why you're only taking women to task on this, so I'll ask a different question here. What, to you, constitutes a "proper mother" and how do you expect that this "societal pressure" will be implemented?

FriendoftheFallen:
Trying to wave away my experiences with false equivalencies is sexist and hurtful.

But that's what you tend to do in other threads and even here in this thread as well.

Huh... That's interesting... Seems you don't really appreciate it when it gets turned back on you.

Maybe you should take a lesson from that.

Gorfias:
I do see elite men as being somewhat at "war" with the rank and file.

Do you think ordinary men are at war with themselves?

After all, ordinary men are far more likely to kill themselves than they are to be killed by other "elite" men (who exactly is an "elite" man, anyway?) Ordinary men are not only responsible for almost all of the violence in our society, but most of that violence is directed against other men, against the rank and file, as you put it. Ordinary men live much less healthy lives than women of the same social class and die younger. If anyone seems to be out to destroy ordinary, rank and file men, it's ordinary men.

You talk about not treating boys as defective girls, but in a very real sense they are defective girls. Girls are, on average, less violent than boys, less criminal than boys, more healthy than boys, less suicidal than boys, more studious than boys, more careful than boys, more genial than boys, less prone to addiction problems than boys. The inevitable result of this is that, unless something changes very soon, girls will soon be more successful than boys.

We can do one of two things. We can argue that boys will be boys, that boys can't help being like this and that they need more special accommodations for their behaviour, but to do that will be to essentially admit that being male is a disability. That we shouldn't discriminate against men not because they actually are as capable as women, but because they can't help not being equally capable.

Alternately, we can say that it isn't men who are the problem, but the social pressures and expectations which men are faced with. For example the demand that they act like "real men" and not sissified "girly" men who do such dreadful and unmanly things as talking about their emotional problems with others or studying hard like a nerd instead of focusing on how far they can kick a ball.

I believe in the radical position that men are people and that, as people, they have the power to liberate themselves from the restrictive confines of patriarchal society and to be whatever they choose to be. I reject the notion that men are a separate species of degenerate, childlike half-people doomed to forever play out the suicidal impulses of their inferior biological programming. Apparently, believing this means declaring war against men..

evilthecat:

Gorfias:
I do see elite men as being somewhat at "war" with the rank and file.

Do you think ordinary men are at war with themselves?

That's actually probably the most succinct assessment of the modern masculinity debate that I've ever seen.

Y'know, I think about "manliness," and the masculine ideal, and the various social rules and expectations that govern how a man is expected to behave, and I think about what causes those burdensome expectations...it's usually other men. Fathers and brothers and peers.

My grandfather used to take my father out shooting every fortnight when he was young. Dad hates guns, and always has. At one point, a stray cat that they'd adopted had a litter of kittens unexpectedly; this was before vets got into the habit of routinely de-sexing everyone's pets. Anyway, my grandfather's solution to the litter of kittens was to take my dad - who was still a child - out into the garden and make him shoot them with the shotgun, one by one.

When I think about whether men have a problem, whether masculinity and the male identity is under siege, I don't think feminists are to blame. Some of them certainly aren't helping, but the root cause of the discord comes from male role models who were, in their own ways, just as defective as the boys they inspire.

My father hates cats. I honestly can't blame him.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

It fit into what we were discussing. Naturally - for the second time - of course responsibility lays with both men and women when it comes to contraception or raising children. But if we're talking about females I don't need to preface everything I say with a big fat "men aren't perfect either" sign.

Why it can't be "men having unplanned children"? Because, for better or for worse - probably for the better, but I digress - women have spent the last few decades fighting tooth and nail to win more rights for themselves in motherhood. Now we've reached the point where, if a break up or divorce happens for whatever reason, or if there was never a stable relationship in the first place, they hold all the playing cards when it comes to the children. If you want a society which accepts single mothers, accepts their right to dictate almost freely what role the father is allowed to play, their right to dictate how the child is raised, then it becomes 'women having unplanned pregnancies'. You hold more power, you also hold more responsibility. Very simple.

...so... nothing to do with how we frame - and have framed - the raising and rearing of children as the sole job of women for several hundred years? It's because of feminism? Really? Are you entirely sure that is the horse you want to be backing there?

Wrex Brogan:
Not any single story - it's kinda a general thing where like once a month everywhere will report on a dad doing the bare-minimum of parenting and label him 'father of the year', while reports on women going above and beyond with motherhood often gets fuck-all. It's very weird and kinda pushes the social narrative that men don't have to contribute as much to parenting to be rewarded for it, which becomes perplexity frustrating when men who do go above and beyond or are single parents get completely ignored. 'Congrats if you're married and looked after the kids on Sunday, but go fuck yourself if it's just you raising 3 kids' is... not a good thing to promote effective fatherhood.

Not to be rude but thats just an elaborate way of saying "I pulled it out of my ass". If you think you need to balance things out by writing about deadbeat dads be my guest but don't try to pull my leg man.

...not to be rude, but you kinda suck at reading comprehension if you take 'we keep reporting on men who do the bare minimum instead of the men who actually do go above and beyond' as 'let's write about deadbeat dads'. Unless you've got some weird biases about single fathers, in which case, the fuck dude. I'm literally saying 'if we're going to praise a father for being a 'great dad' then we should make sure they're actually being a great dad and not just doing the bare minimum of acceptable parenting'. You shouldn't get a gold star for a 5/10, you know?

And pulled it out of my ass? Dude, it's fine, you can admit to when you don't know about something, I'm not gonna drag your balls over the fire for not knowing something, maybe it doesn't happen where you live but in Australia and America it's a pretty frequent occurrence. The media's approach to covering/discussing motherhood and fatherhood is a bit of problem that gender rights groups have been trying to sort out for a while now, but not necessarily a universal problem.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

Please stop wasting your time by doing the old "I bet you never get to penis in vagina" thing because thats what this do you know any women thing boils down to. Not really much of an argument. Stop being silly, of course I know women. In fact, I can think of a few I wish I didn't know. Just like any normal human being with a handful of social contacts.

I can't believe this is something I have to clarify, but here:

I was not referring to or insinuating anything about your penis. Until now I lived in a magical time in which I had never had to reference your penis at all. A simpler time. A happier time. Let's go back there.
By "knowing women", I don't refer to having sex with them. I refer to talking to them. I was surprised anyone who knows women would suggest there should be more pressure on them to be "proper mothers".

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

Again, third time now - the pressure on women to be the perfect everything is insane. You should really read my first post in this thread, you might actually agree with it and realize I'm not a misogynistic nerd.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

Oh, by the way - looking after kids was my job too for almost two years. Professional to professional? My opinion is that fucking yes, if your kid is sick you stay at home instead of dropping him off at daycare. Because thats what a parent does, they take care of their child, and if they don't they are a bad fucking parent. (I said parent! Please don't get triggered Wrex.) In fact, many should probably think about staying at home with their child instead of dropping it off at daycare every day regardless of whether it has slight fever and a runny nose or not. Because that is what parents do, that is what they are supposed to do. Feel guilty about spending 12 hours a day away from your kid? Congratulations, you have a functioning conscience and are in touch with your parental instinct. Ignoring it is arrogant.

Professional to professional, that's fucking insane.
Staying home every time your kid has a snotty nose is going to lose you your job.
Recently we just had a big ol' bout of chicken pox, so all the mums stayed home. Then a cold started to go around. Just a regular cold, bit of a snotty nose, no big deal. To suggest these people take all that time off of work and put their jobs in danger is ignorant. It's better to provide a home for a child than to lose your job because you take time off every time their nose runs.

And also, notice how I said "mums", not parents. Because while all are two-parent homes, the mums stayed home. You can use gender neutral language but that won't change who is expected to stay home. As someone who is aware of the pressure on women, I'm sure you agree it's usually them who ends up doing it.

erttheking:

See, that's why turning this into a "war" is a bad idea. It takes thousands of years of inherited ideals and simplifies it down to "the elite bad guys are manipulating the majority good guys." Things are more complicated than that. No one got up and said "I'm going to make up a bunch of BS to manipulate the male gender." This is the way men have been acting for centuries, it can't be pinned on some elite group that forced it on us. My dad pushed it on me, guys at school pushed it on me. It has a massive presence on the individual level. Without even meaning to, I may have contributed to it when I was young and didn't know bettter. This is a complicated problem inherent with flaws in our culture. Not good guys vs bad guys.

I think it can be both. I doubt if China said, "let's mess with America by helping North Korea" They set out to help North Korea and defacto went to war with the USA. And the term war is used for motivation: the war on poverty, drugs, etc. It suggests the need for massive, sustained concerted efforts. I think saving men is going to require such efforts if it can be done at all.

evilthecat:

Do you think ordinary men are at war with themselves?
After all, ordinary men are far more likely to kill themselves than they are to be killed by other "elite" men (who exactly is an "elite" man, anyway?) Ordinary men are not only responsible for almost all of the violence in our society, but most of that violence is directed against other men, against the rank and file, as you put it. Ordinary men live much less healthy lives than women of the same social class and die younger. If anyone seems to be out to destroy ordinary, rank and file men, it's ordinary men.

You have a point but people do not live in a vacuum. If, as an elite, I design a giant swindle that impoverishes many while enriching me, the guy that commits suicide when ripped off did the violent deed but I'd be the one that set events in motion.

You talk about not treating boys as defective girls, but in a very real sense they are defective girls. Girls are, on average, less violent than boys, less criminal than boys, more healthy than boys, less suicidal than boys, more studious than boys, more careful than boys, more genial than boys, less prone to addiction problems than boys. The inevitable result of this is that, unless something changes very soon, girls will soon be more successful than boys.

Are they? I agree with Camile Paglia on the issue. They are different than girls and those differences can be channeled into new heights of creativity. (She writes of the pursuit of sex and beauty were historically huge motivators for men).

We can do one of two things. We can argue that boys will be boys, that boys can't help being like this and that they need more special accommodations for their behaviour, but to do that will be to essentially admit that being male is a disability. That we shouldn't discriminate against men not because they actually are as capable as women, but because they can't help not being equally capable.
Alternately, we can say that it isn't men who are the problem, but the social pressures and expectations which men are faced with. For example the demand that they act like "real men" and not sissified "girly" men who do such dreadful and unmanly things as talking about their emotional problems with others or studying hard like a nerd instead of focusing on how far they can kick a ball.
I believe in the radical position that men are people and that, as people, they have the power to liberate themselves from the restrictive confines of patriarchal society and to be whatever they choose to be. I reject the notion that men are a separate species of degenerate, childlike half-people doomed to forever play out the suicidal impulses of their inferior biological programming. Apparently, believing this means declaring war against men..

I disagree. Another option is to see that men have power and potential. They may be different than women but in the name of justice and a wealthier, freer society, we need to be able to see them as different than women and make use of those differences. Right now, too often, we're just, again, treating them like defective women. They aren't. They are different and as a society, we should come to terms with what that means.
Doing otherwise feels like a perpetuation of a war against them.

evilthecat:

You talk about not treating boys as defective girls, but in a very real sense they are defective girls. Girls are, on average, less violent than boys, less criminal than boys, more healthy than boys, less suicidal than boys, more studious than boys, more careful than boys, more genial than boys, less prone to addiction problems than boys. The inevitable result of this is that, unless something changes very soon, girls will soon be more successful than boys.

Can you source me on that girls are better than boys bit, mainly the healthy part? I am not able to find anything claiming anything like that, except for in birth and in longevity studies.

Gorfias:

erttheking:

See, that's why turning this into a "war" is a bad idea. It takes thousands of years of inherited ideals and simplifies it down to "the elite bad guys are manipulating the majority good guys." Things are more complicated than that. No one got up and said "I'm going to make up a bunch of BS to manipulate the male gender." This is the way men have been acting for centuries, it can't be pinned on some elite group that forced it on us. My dad pushed it on me, guys at school pushed it on me. It has a massive presence on the individual level. Without even meaning to, I may have contributed to it when I was young and didn't know bettter. This is a complicated problem inherent with flaws in our culture. Not good guys vs bad guys.

I think it can be both. I doubt if China said, ?let?s mess with America by helping North Korea? They set out to help North Korea and defacto went to war with the USA. And the term war is used for motivation: the war on poverty, drugs, etc. It suggests the need for massive, sustained concerted efforts. I think saving men is going to require such efforts if it can be done at all.

Can be. But it isn't. There's no nebulous organization organizing all of this. It's our culture, everyone from rich man to poor man experiences it, and many of them had a hand in it, most of the time without realizing it. Yeah, and the war on drugs was an absolute fucking shit show because it took a complex issue and boiled it down to needing to stop the bad people, IE, anyone who uses drugs. The use of war in all those instances was mainly propaganda purposes that boiled down real and overwhelming issues into just having to stop the bad thing. And you know the funny thing about the war on drugs and the war on poverty? They both failed. And you're confusing your terms. The war on drugs and the war on poverty were attempts to solve a bad problem. The war on men is a misguided attempt to point out the problems that men have, with the war being the problems, not the solution. The situations aren't comparable, outside of pointing out how America is obsessed with making everything into a war.

Gorfias:
I think it can be both. I doubt if China said, ?let?s mess with America by helping North Korea? They set out to help North Korea and defacto went to war with the USA. And the term war is used for motivation: the war on poverty, drugs, etc. It suggests the need for massive, sustained concerted efforts. I think saving men is going to require such efforts if it can be done at all.

Well, I daresay that China has been using NK against the US since around the time of the Korean war, but that's getting a bit off-topic.

In any case, what does "saving me" mean? From what exactly? As it stands, men are experiencing an amount of unnecessary hardship, sure, but this is something society has tolerated for ages, one could says it's one of the cornerstones of modern society. If nothing is done, the problem won't get fixed, but society can ignore it and muddle on, just like it's currently spending its time doing.

Gorfias:
You have a point but people do not live in a vacuum. If, as an elite, I design a giant swindle that impoverishes many while enriching me, the guy that commits suicide when ripped off did the violent deed but I?d be the one that set events in motion.

Certainly, yes, but nobody sat down and designed society, or rather, everyone whose ever lived in it has left their mark on it, to varying degrees.

I might bring up 1984, about how the party behind the propaganda believed their own propaganda and were also victims of it, but 1984 is over-used, so I'll go much more low-brow and bring up the Matrix. There's that part where Morpheus says that not everyone is ready to be free of the Matrix, that some will fight to protect it. You've had people saying that "obviously" that is about capitalism, or the patriarchy, or any number of other systems, but in reality the same applies to all sorts of things. People will often adopt a mindset and refuse to leave it, despite all the evidence, whether or not it's in their own favour to.

To get back on topic, "the elite" aren't (on the whole) propagating harmful ideas of masculinity as part of some conspiracy for their own benefit, they are doing so for much the same reasons other people do, because that's what they believe. They've been taught by others and turn around and teach it in turn.

Now, having said that, any number of people have been trying to push their own ideologies into things, of course, which muddies the issue, but there was no clear plan set down by someone for much of it.

Gorfias:

I disagree. Another option is to see that men have power and potential. They may be different than women but in the name of justice and a wealthier, freer society, we need to be able to see them as different than women and make use of those differences. Right now, too often, we?re just, again, treating them like defective women. They aren?t. They are different and as a society, we should come to terms with what that means.
Doing otherwise feels like a perpetuation of a war against them.

In what ways are they different? That is, inherently different, not possessing differences imposed upon them by society, which is, after all, the problem.

Saying that men are inherently different, promoting gender essentialism...well, "separate but equal" didn't work in practice, despite sounding nice in theory.

Thaluikhain:

Gorfias:

I disagree. Another option is to see that men have power and potential. They may be different than women but in the name of justice and a wealthier, freer society, we need to be able to see them as different than women and make use of those differences. Right now, too often, we?re just, again, treating them like defective women. They aren?t. They are different and as a society, we should come to terms with what that means.
Doing otherwise feels like a perpetuation of a war against them.

In what ways are they different? That is, inherently different, not possessing differences imposed upon them by society, which is, after all, the problem.

Saying that men are inherently different, promoting gender essentialism...well, "separate but equal" didn't work in practice, despite sounding nice in theory.

So the whole "sicker, dumber, shorter-lived men" thing I'm seeing now (EDIT: as in now in articles and in discussion, I don't see it really reflected in my experiences, but that doesn't matter) is completely societal? I'd be happy to hear it was. I would then be happy to contribute towards a change in society.

 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