Are men finished? Will our new female overlords be kind?

[The Gnome King]

I don't think we're talking about the same thing here. If you'd only consent while under the influence of a mind-altering substance, then i don't think that's really consent. I'm not even talking about what you consider rape any more.

Interesting how nearly every gender politics thread, even one talking about the disadvantages men face today, invariably devolve into cries of "But women get raped!"

Really? That's what it always ultimately boils down to?

Men get raped, commonly, in prison. Not all men in prison are guilty, it's just the way our justice system works. Gay men are raped by other men. Some men are raped by women - yes, it happens, especially if you apply the "drugs were involved/it was nonviolent coercion" rule that many women like to apply to male-on-female rape.

If we're going to reduce "rape" down to being convinced to have sex when you really don't feel like it and there often being drugs or alcohol involved, I'm sure many, many men get raped and don't report it because... well, they wouldn't be taken seriously.

After all, they're only men.

 

[cobra_ky]

*snip*

I was talking about the reasons rapes often go unreported. You claimed that rape was easy to prove, provided it was reported immediately, then started talking about rape kits and soforth. I took that to mean that you were claiming that that simply administering rape kits in a timely manner would be sufficient to solve the issue. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Yes, getting a rape kit done would result in a lot more rapists being brought to justice, and better education about rape kits would increase the reporting numbers. But there are still many cases where a rape kit will be inconclusive.

I never used the word "choose", so i'm not sure why you think i need to learn the meaning of it. Saying yes to sex while drunk is of course a choice, it's just not a particularly well thought out one, and not one i would rely on when making a decision about something as consequential as sex may be.

Not all women who are raped are fully grown when it happens either. And yes, non-report rates may be even higher among men than they are for women. I never said it wasn't true, just that I didn't think there were reliable statistics to prove it yet. In fact, there aren't many reliable statistics at all when it comes to rape, though what few we have seem to indicate that women are targeted more often. But like I've said already, all rape is bad, so in my mind the argument is largely academic.

 

[cobra_ky]

I don't think we're talking about the same thing here. If you'd only consent while under the influence of a mind-altering substance, then i don't think that's really consent. I'm not even talking about what you consider rape any more.

Interesting how nearly every gender politics thread, even one talking about the disadvantages men face today, invariably devolve into cries of "But women get raped!"

Really? That's what it always ultimately boils down to?

Men get raped, commonly, in prison. Not all men in prison are guilty, it's just the way our justice system works. Gay men are raped by other men. Some men are raped by women - yes, it happens, especially if you apply the "drugs were involved/it was nonviolent coercion" rule that many women like to apply to male-on-female rape.

If we're going to reduce "rape" down to being convinced to have sex when you really don't feel like it and there often being drugs or alcohol involved, I'm sure many, many men get raped and don't report it because... well, they wouldn't be taken seriously.

After all, they're only men.

Well first of all, none of what you said has anything to do with what you quoted me saying, so i have no idea what context you're placing this in.

It's funny, though, how every time i try to talk about gender politics, people insist on trying to tell me "Men get raped too" as if it was something i didn't already know and hadn't said multiple times already.

Who do you think is keeping men from reporting rape? Why aren't men who report rape taken seriously? Because we have a cultural narrative which says that a man's self-worth derives, in part, from his sexual conquests. We're supposed to be driven by sex. We're supposed to love it. We're supposed to be strong, and having sex forced on you makes you weak. Women didn't tell us to feel this way. This is how a centuries-old male-dominated culture came to value its men. Women got fed up with it decades ago; now men are finally starting to come around.

 

[Hipster Chick]

Do you have a father? Brother? Son? Husband?

Might you someday?

If so, it is really in your own best interest to want equal rights; and why would you want your son to "own the fuck up" for what *other* men and *other* societies have done in the past? Should he be disadvantaged or disenfranchised due to no fault of his own?

Yes, I would fully expect him to acknowledge that we have a patriarchal society that treated women like second-class citizens and to, in all aspects of his life, actively work to undue that.

And despite what men's-rights activists claim, nobody is being disenfranchised here. Losing the right to vote or own property would be disenfranchisement; losing your historical privileged would not.

 

[Hipster Chick]

Interesting how nearly every gender politics thread, even one talking about the disadvantages men face today, invariably devolve into cries of "But women get raped!"

Really? That's what it always ultimately boils down to?

Men get raped, commonly, in prison. Not all men in prison are guilty, it's just the way our justice system works. Gay men are raped by other men. Some men are raped by women - yes, it happens, especially if you apply the "drugs were involved/it was nonviolent coercion" rule that many women like to apply to male-on-female rape.

If we're going to reduce "rape" down to being convinced to have sex when you really don't feel like it and there often being drugs or alcohol involved, I'm sure many, many men get raped and don't report it because... well, they wouldn't be taken seriously.

After all, they're only men.

Because rape is the most common, most universal example of women being abused, violated, objectified in our society. It is a form of violence, while having little or nothing to do with sexual attraction, often has everything to do with gender. Regardless of what anyone says, it's entirely the fault of the rapist; unfortunately, they are overwhelmingly male. It defines even casual interactions between genders.

Sorry if you're not man enough to deal with that.

 

[The Gnome King]

Because rape is the most common, most universal example of women being abused, violated, objectified in our society. It is a form of violence, while having little or nothing to do with sexual attraction, often has everything to do with gender. Regardless of what anyone says, it's entirely the fault of the rapist; unfortunately, they are overwhelmingly male. It defines even casual interactions between genders.

Sorry if you're not man enough to deal with that.

And I'm sorry if you're not woman enough to not have your every interaction between genders "defined" by rape. What a sad, closed-off way to live.

Seriously, my wife (of 11 years) just shot water out of her nose. She's one of those rare, rare women who have never been raped or beaten by a man.

I guess that "colors" all of her gender relations.

Lucky me.

And, by the way... who suggested that the fault of the raped was the one who was raped? Re-read the quoted block of text from me above; I challenge you to show me where I stated the fault of rape was *anyone's* fault but the rapist's.

One thing that bothers me is that I actually know a woman who was violently, truly raped. Likening drunken sex with somebody you "kinda, sorta" regret sleeping with the next day to the kind of violent rape my friend endured is demeaning to all women, especially those who have truly experienced violent crime of any kind.

 

[The Gnome King]

Do you have a father? Brother? Son? Husband?

Might you someday?

If so, it is really in your own best interest to want equal rights; and why would you want your son to "own the fuck up" for what *other* men and *other* societies have done in the past? Should he be disadvantaged or disenfranchised due to no fault of his own?

Yes, I would fully expect him to acknowledge that we have a patriarchal society that treated women like second-class citizens and to, in all aspects of his life, actively work to undue that.

And despite what men's-rights activists claim, nobody is being disenfranchised here. Losing the right to vote or own property would be disenfranchisement; losing your historical privileged would not.

By the way:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/

Did you read the recent article in the Atlantic that I have repeatedly linked to or are you simply interested in laying claim to a historical disadvantaged status?

 

[The Gnome King]

Who do you think is keeping men from reporting rape? Why aren't men who report rape taken seriously? Because we have a cultural narrative which says that a man's self-worth derives, in part, from his sexual conquests. We're supposed to be driven by sex. We're supposed to love it. We're supposed to be strong, and having sex forced on you makes you weak. Women didn't tell us to feel this way. This is how a centuries-old male-dominated culture came to value its men. Women got fed up with it decades ago; now men are finally starting to come around.

I also think you are neglecting the fact that we simply value women more in society now. More American families, in particular, report wishing to have female children as opposed to male.

If a man gets raped and reports it but nobody cares because it happened to a man... is it rape?

Did you read the Atlantic's article, which is what this is about - and the Slate debate - but somehow, someway, EVERY gender politics post gets turned into a "But men rape women!" argument; essentially it's like the internet-Nazi argument for gender politics. It's a straw-man designed to shut down the original topic.

We get it, women get raped. What does that have to do with the larger elements talked about here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/

...or my original post, at all?

 

[Emergent]

Down the rabbit hole we go.

I don't see why choosing to drink makes that "yes" any more valid. It just means that whoever they're sleeping with isn't necessarily responsible for coercing them.

I never used the word "choose", so i'm not sure why you think i need to learn the meaning of it.

Are we arguing about tense now?

It's funny, though, how every time i try to talk about gender politics, people insist on trying to tell me "Men get raped too" as if it was something i didn't already know and hadn't said multiple times already.

I think it's probably because you come off as believing that it just isn't as important as when women get raped, or is somehow less of a pressing issue, or, you know, that even when a woman rapes a man it's somehow "THE PATRIARCHY!"'s fault, whether you actually believe that or not.

Yes, I would fully expect him to acknowledge that we have a patriarchal society that treated women like second-class citizens and to, in all aspects of his life, actively work to undue that.

Poor kid.

And despite what men's-rights activists claim, nobody is being disenfranchised here. Losing the right to vote or own property would be disenfranchisement; losing your historical privileged would not.

What privileges are those, exactly? Don't point me to a link. Spell them out.

Because rape ... defines even casual interactions between genders.

That's an incredibly myopic view.

Sorry if you're not man enough to deal with that.

Classy.

 

[Caverat]

People whose judgment is impaired by substances they unknowingly imbibe aren't held responsible for their actions, even if they say "yes". I don't see why choosing to drink makes that "yes" any more valid. It just means that whoever they're sleeping with isn't necessarily responsible for coercing them.

It's because they made the choice to engage in that kind of behavior. Being intoxicated doesn't magically make a person not responsible for their own actions, or the consequences of said actions. If people can't control themselves when they drink, they shouldn't drink. It's not anyone else's fault, period. Referring to folks who willingly take substances here.

Also, I'd say it was more harmful for society to adopt a mindset where someone can pass the buck of responsibility to another just because they regret a decision they made after it is said and done.

" I wouldn't have done it if I was sober." requires the response " Well, then you shouldn't have gotten drunk."

Oh, right...those hundreds of years of being considered the property of men, not being able to vote or own our own property, not having access to education, being haunted by physical abuse and marital rape...we just imagined all of that.

I'm not saying women should "get men back", but maybe if you lot started to own the fuck up to what you've done for most of history, so many wouldn't want to.

I can't believe I missed this gem of a statement. No one is responsible for the actions of others when there is no possible way to have affected them. Unless time travel becomes possible, modern men are not responsible for what past men have done.

So, I will own the fuck up to what I've done. I have at times put recyclables in the trash, knowingly, because I didn't happen to have blue bags while cleaning. Sorry.

Talking like men owe women something is the same kind of mindset of the men who feel entitled to sex. People shouldn't walk around like the world owes them something, because at that point all it owes is a swift kick in the ass.

 

[Caverat]

EDIT: Double post, meant to amend my previous. Whoops.

 

[cobra_ky]

Who do you think is keeping men from reporting rape? Why aren't men who report rape taken seriously? Because we have a cultural narrative which says that a man's self-worth derives, in part, from his sexual conquests. We're supposed to be driven by sex. We're supposed to love it. We're supposed to be strong, and having sex forced on you makes you weak. Women didn't tell us to feel this way. This is how a centuries-old male-dominated culture came to value its men. Women got fed up with it decades ago; now men are finally starting to come around.

I also think you are neglecting the fact that we simply value women more in society now. More American families, in particular, report wishing to have female children as opposed to male.

Of course, we value women more. That goes back to the chivalrous "women and children first" mentality that's existed for centuries. We just valued them for things like physical attractiveness and child-bearing ability, things that people don't necessarily want to be valued for.

If a man gets raped and reports it but nobody cares because it happened to a man... is it rape?

what is this i don't-

I just told you that i know men get raped and that you can stop trying to convince of facts i already believe.

MEN GET RAPED.

MEN GET RAPED.

MEN GET RAPED.

i honestly don't know how i can make it any clearer than that.

The only claim that i've disputed is that men are raped as often as women are. yes, men may be too ashamed to admit it, but so are many women. and given how few men talk about relative to women, i suspect women are affected more.

Did you read the Atlantic's article, which is what this is about - and the Slate debate - but somehow, someway, EVERY gender politics post gets turned into a "But men rape women!" argument; essentially it's like the internet-Nazi argument for gender politics. It's a straw-man designed to shut down the original topic.

We get it, women get raped. What does that have to do with the larger elements talked about here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/

...or my original post, at all?

It's because every gender politics topic here at some point turns into blaming man-hating straw feminists for the social ills that have befallen men, as if some secret matriarchal cabal were responsible for them. In this thread it started about 20 posts in:

There are also more than a few frightening implications attached to those who seem to believe that we'd be better off without men or that men are inferior and deserve to be treated as such (both of which are opinions I'm sure are more common than some self-labelling feminists would like to admit to), one of which being a somewhat (appologies for invoking Godwin's law here) Nazi ideal and the other being a somewhat ironic reversing of what the feminist movement was originally trying to abolish.

Feminists of the world, I beseech you, sort yourselfs out and weed out these extremist nut-balls who drag down the otherwise noble and well intentioned ideas you stand for.

Tell me, what does a call for feminists to police themselves for "nutball extremists" have to do with your original post?

Yes, i read the Atlantic article, and I agree that women have done a better job of adjusting to the changing economy than men have. And there's a very good reason why:

Over the course of the past century, feminism has pushed women to do things once considered against their nature?first enter the workforce as singles, then continue to work while married, then work even with small children at home. Many professions that started out as the province of men are now filled mostly with women?secretary and teacher come to mind. Yet I?m not aware of any that have gone the opposite way. Nursing schools have tried hard to recruit men in the past few years, with minimal success. Teaching schools, eager to recruit male role models, are having a similarly hard time. The range of acceptable masculine roles has changed comparatively little, and has perhaps even narrowed as men have shied away from some careers women have entered. As Jessica Grose wrote in Slate, men seem "fixed in cultural aspic." And with each passing day, they lag further behind.

Women had a social movement that adapted them to the changing economy, men did not. Feminism didn't succeed to the extent it has by debasing men, it did it by empowering women to think outside the traditional gender roles dictated to them. So when angry men blame women or feminism for holding them back, when they try to argue that "women have all the advantages now", when they can only think in terms of reasserting their former dominance, i get angry, because that's the attitude holding us back.

Men have few natural support groups and little access to social welfare; the men's-rights groups that do exist in the U.S. are taking on an angry, antiwoman edge. Marriages fall apart or never happen at all, and children are raised with no fathers. Far from being celebrated, women?s rising power is perceived as a threat.

We need to change, we need to recognize there's nothing wrong with nursing or child care or whatever, that there's nothing wrong with asking for help when you need it to get through school or find your direction in life. That's not something women can do for us. And trying to pretend that women don't have struggles anymore isn't helpful and isn't true. The men's rights movement needs to sort itself out a lot more than feminism does, because the extremist nutballs are much more prevalent there. The ones who aren't nutballs tend to be <a href=http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/faqs/#masculism>fairly sympathetic toward feminism.

Maybe i'm not being a good enough masculist? It's possible. Ironically i'm not as good at talking about men's issues as i am about women, mostly because it's much, much harder to find anyone reasonable talking about men's rights. Maybe i've been mistakenly giving the impression that i don't care about men's issues. I do. Just not when it comes at the expense of women.

 

[cobra_ky]

Down the rabbit hole we go.

I don't see why choosing to drink makes that "yes" any more valid. It just means that whoever they're sleeping with isn't necessarily responsible for coercing them.

I never used the word "choose", so i'm not sure why you think i need to learn the meaning of it.

Are we arguing about tense now?

oops, forgot to search for the participle. My bad. Alright then, i used it to describe the decision to drink alcohol. Where did i dispute that either choosing to get drunk or choosing to have sex were, in fact, choices? Where did i use the word incorrectly?

It's funny, though, how every time i try to talk about gender politics, people insist on trying to tell me "Men get raped too" as if it was something i didn't already know and hadn't said multiple times already.

I think it's probably because you come off as believing that it just isn't as important as when women get raped, or is somehow less of a pressing issue, or, you know, that even when a woman rapes a man it's somehow "THE PATRIARCHY!"'s fault, whether you actually believe that or not.

"Let's please keep to things the other actually says."

I never said male rape victims were less important, just that i believe there are fewer of them. I believe it's largely a male issue because men are more often the perpetrators. I never blamed "the patriarchy" for anything, it's a term i dislike immensely because it gives off exactly the "man-hating" impression i'm being painted with anyway.

 

[cobra_ky]

People whose judgment is impaired by substances they unknowingly imbibe aren't held responsible for their actions, even if they say "yes". I don't see why choosing to drink makes that "yes" any more valid. It just means that whoever they're sleeping with isn't necessarily responsible for coercing them.

It's because they made the choice to engage in that kind of behavior. Being intoxicated doesn't magically make a person not responsible for their own actions, or the consequences of said actions. If people can't control themselves when they drink, they shouldn't drink. It's not anyone else's fault, period. Referring to folks who willingly take substances here.

Also, I'd say it was more harmful for society to adopt a mindset where someone can pass the buck of responsibility to another just because they regret a decision they made after it is said and done.

" I wouldn't have done it if I was sober." requires the response " Well, then you shouldn't have gotten drunk."

I don't think anyone ever expects to lose control over themselves to that extent when they drink. Though maybe people should more clearly set boundaries beforehand if they're worried they might. "no matter what i do or say later, i don't want to have sex tonight"

It's harmful anytime someone has drunken, impulsive sex that they later regret. I'm just saying that in the absence of information, people need to think critically about the decisions others make when they're drunk, instead of just going along with them.

 

[Iron Mal]

Please wait while I get my high-horse kicking boot out especially for you.

what is this i don't-

I just told you that i know men get raped and that you can stop trying to convince of facts i already believe.

MEN GET RAPED.

MEN GET RAPED.

MEN GET RAPED.

i honestly don't know how i can make it any clearer than that.

The only claim that i've disputed is that men are raped as often as women are. yes, men may be too ashamed to admit it, but so are many women. and given how few men talk about relative to women, i suspect women are affected more.

This is the awkward thing about male rape statistics though, it's largely an unknown figure because of the greater social stigma attached to a man being raped (remember, with a woman it's the rapist's fault, and rightfully so, but with men the 'all men are sex-hounds' double standard kicks in and it often becomes a case of 'you got laid and you're unhappy about it? What's wrong with you?') so it is argueable to say that it's just as many since we don't know for certain (and the societal norms and values attached to men make it difficult for them to come foward about such events).

Also, the extra reluctance of men to talk about it also stems from that social stigma saying that a man who declines sex or is unwilling to have sex must be gay or otherwise 'unmanly' regardless of the circumstances attached to the situation, it's another part of the aforementioned double standard to assume that it must be because they aren't as affected by it.

It's because every gender politics topic here at some point turns into blaming man-hating straw feminists for the social ills that have befallen men, as if some secret matriarchal cabal were responsible for them. In this thread it started about 20 posts in:

I personally don't blame the radical/militant branch of feminism (frequently dubbed Fem-Nazis or straw feminism) for the societal ills that afflict men, what I do blame the straw feminist/Fem-Nazi crowd for is generally being misandrist, hateful, spiteful and otherwise driven by motives of 'retribution' or 'female power and dominance'.

I think most men who have a problem with the aforementioned braches of feminism don't believe that it's because there's some shadowy cabal out to get them (I'm sure most of us know that most women out there aren't out to cut our penises off and beat us to death with them), the major problem I believe that this sub-catagory of feminism has is that often comes across as making it's subscribers sound like dicks (or 'twats' if we're going to use the anatomically correct insult).

Tell me, what does a call for feminists to police themselves for "nutball extremists" have to do with your original post?

Now here's where you started quoting me, the reason I made a statement about how feminism should self-regulate is because as it is at the moment the 'man-hating' straw feminists draw a lot of negative fire towards the idea of feminism (which if it weren't for the aforementioned misandriest crowd I'm sure more people would be sympathetic towards) the behviour of these people taints your otherwise noble goals with something that on occsion is just as bad (if not worse seeing as feminists should know better) as the very actions and attitudes they oppose.

On more than a few occasions you'll get the previously lamented 'more butch than John Wayne lesbian anti-man activist' types stating how 'men are finished' and how 'we'd be better off without men' or how 'men are useless and can be easily replaced' (all statements I have heard self-proclaimed 'feminists' say on multiple occasions), it isn't too hard to imagine why more than a few people tend to get offended and defensive when faced with what is esssentially someone saying that they wish that you and your kind would cease to exist because they believe you are the cause of all their societal ills and that you, yes, you personally are continueing them on because you're an ignorant, facist pig (yes, I am aware that not all of feminism is like this but the sad truth is that a larger number of people than you probably want to admit are exactly like this and that these bad apples tend to be the loudest and most vocal members of the feminist community and thus end up being the most widely recognised representation of your opinions and beliefs).

So if you're wondering why so many people have a knee-jerk reaction to the mention of feminism in discussions like this then it's more often than not because of the extreme, overzealous responses of it's worst members.

Women had a social movement that adapted them to the changing economy, men did not. Feminism didn't succeed to the extent it has by debasing men, it did it by empowering women to think outside the traditional gender roles dictated to them. So when angry men blame women or feminism for holding them back, when they try to argue that "women have all the advantages now", when they can only think in terms of reasserting their former dominance, i get angry, because that's the attitude holding us back.

Although to a certain extent there are certain elements to these accusations which are true (there are far more programs and schemes out there to aid women with various things than there are for men, it's seemingly just automatically assumed that they'll be fine because...well...hey they're men, men are always fine, right?), I would say that the problems faced by men today aren't entirely the fault of the advancements and advantages given to women but it would be naive to try to imply that this has no part in it.

Men have few natural support groups and little access to social welfare; the men's-rights groups that do exist in the U.S. are taking on an angry, antiwoman edge. Marriages fall apart or never happen at all, and children are raised with no fathers. Far from being celebrated, women?s rising power is perceived as a threat.

Again this is pure conjecture (I recall Fathers for Jusice in the UK and I don't remember there ever being any mention of any 'angry, anti-woman edge' to it) and your logic there for why women are raising to power is somewhat flawed.

Regarding the part about how men are inconsequential because of the rising prominance of single mother families, this family structure has been noted as being most prominant amongst black/African American families (if the stats they taught us back in Sociology were correct) so it would naturally follow that this would result in the most successful and prosperous social group being black women, similar statistics showed that single, black women were one of the most impoverished groups (single parent families tend to not be very well off in general), now stop to reflect on the fact that most of the most powerful, wealthy and successful people in the US happen to be white males and we start to see a different image forming.

The absence of marriages is largely irrelevent because from what I remember it is actually the rate of first marriages (and the age people get married at) that has changed and the point about the raising frequency of single parent families is also moot because they tend to be doing the worst (not exactly a healthy model for social change).

We need to change, we need to recognize there's nothing wrong with nursing or child care or whatever, that there's nothing wrong with asking for help when you need it to get through school or find your direction in life. That's not something women can do for us. And trying to pretend that women don't have struggles anymore isn't helpful and isn't true. The men's rights movement needs to sort itself out a lot more than feminism does, because the extremist nutballs are much more prevalent there. The ones who aren't nutballs tend to be <a href=http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/faqs/#masculism>fairly sympathetic toward feminism.

Men do need to sort themselves out and get ahead (again) for their own sake but considering what the original post was about I believe that my original point about feminism requiring a bit of 'spring cleaning' (appologies for the housework related term, I'm aware that probably comes across as retrograde and sexist) in order for them to avoud being slapped with the negative stereotypes they presently have (and not entirely without good reason) is still a very valid point to make.

I personally haven't observed the misogyny that you seem to view as being so widely prevalent and you don't see the misandry that I do so maybe it's a case that we're both wrong and right at the same time, who knows?

Maybe i'm not being a good enough masculist? It's possible. Ironically i'm not as good at talking about men's issues as i am about women, mostly because it's much, much harder to find anyone reasonable talking about men's rights. Maybe i've been mistakenly giving the impression that i don't care about men's issues. I do. Just not when it comes at the expense of women.

I'd say it's damn near certain to be honest, I'm not a very good feminist even though I do honestly believe in equality for everyone (men, women, white, black, asian, hispanic, Star Trek fans, Call of Duty fans, indiginous peoples, foreigners, the rich, the poor, right wing, left wing, anime freaks, comic book nerds...everyone) yet you called me out for simply saying that it's probably for the best if we try to avoid extremeism when it comes to debates like this (and expressing how the radical and militant branches of feminism have some very unfortunate implications behind them that makes the 'irrational hatred' not so irrational).

Caring about men's issues often doesn't come at the expense of women, and even if it did then that raises another moral dialema, are you inherantly now saying that women deserve rights more than men? (again going back to the unfortuneate implications of certain aspects of the beliefs held by who are supposed to be 'the good guys'...er...'gals'?...whatever)

Regardless of the fact that, as you should know, not all men are as bad as the stereotype 'get in the damn kitchen' types sound like so this whole notion of 'I support it as long as we don't compromise the women' shows that you're maybe just as prejudiced and condescending as the people you're speaking out against?

 

[cobra_ky]

This is the awkward thing about male rape statistics though, it's largely an unknown figure because of the greater social stigma attached to a man being raped (remember, with a woman it's the rapist's fault, and rightfully so, but with men the 'all men are sex-hounds' double standard kicks in and it often becomes a case of 'you got laid and you're unhappy about it? What's wrong with you?') so it is argueable to say that it's just as many since we don't know for certain (and the societal norms and values attached to men make it difficult for them to come foward about such events).

That's the awkward thing about all rape statistics. They're difficult to collect because there's a social stigma associated with all rape. Victim-blaming happens to victims of both genders.

Also, the extra reluctance of men to talk about it also stems from that social stigma saying that a man who declines sex or is unwilling to have sex must be gay or otherwise 'unmanly' regardless of the circumstances attached to the situation, it's another part of the aforementioned double standard to assume that it must be because they aren't as affected by it.

You may very well be correct.

I personally don't blame the radical/militant branch of feminism (frequently dubbed Fem-Nazis or straw feminism) for the societal ills that afflict men, what I do blame the straw feminist/Fem-Nazi crowd for is generally being misandrist, hateful, spiteful and otherwise driven by motives of 'retribution' or 'female power and dominance'.

I think most men who have a problem with the aforementioned braches of feminism don't believe that it's because there's some shadowy cabal out to get them (I'm sure most of us know that most women out there aren't out to cut our penises off and beat us to death with them), the major problem I believe that this sub-catagory of feminism has is that often comes across as making it's subscribers sound like dicks (or 'twats' if we're going to use the anatomically correct insult).

Tell me, what does a call for feminists to police themselves for "nutball extremists" have to do with your original post?

Now here's where you started quoting me, the reason I made a statement about how feminism should self-regulate is because as it is at the moment the 'man-hating' straw feminists draw a lot of negative fire towards the idea of feminism (which if it weren't for the aforementioned misandriest crowd I'm sure more people would be sympathetic towards) the behviour of these people taints your otherwise noble goals with something that on occsion is just as bad (if not worse seeing as feminists should know better) as the very actions and attitudes they oppose.

i have the exact same problem with them. Yet i still don't see why you brought them up in this topic, since they have very little to do with the position men currently find themselves in.

On more than a few occasions you'll get the previously lamented 'more butch than John Wayne lesbian anti-man activist' types stating how 'men are finished' and how 'we'd be better off without men' or how 'men are useless and can be easily replaced' (all statements I have heard self-proclaimed 'feminists' say on multiple occasions), it isn't too hard to imagine why more than a few people tend to get offended and defensive when faced with what is esssentially someone saying that they wish that you and your kind would cease to exist because they believe you are the cause of all their societal ills and that you, yes, you personally are continueing them on because you're an ignorant, facist pig (yes, I am aware that not all of feminism is like this but the sad truth is that a larger number of people than you probably want to admit are exactly like this and that these bad apples tend to be the loudest and most vocal members of the feminist community and thus end up being the most widely recognised representation of your opinions and beliefs).

So if you're wondering why so many people have a knee-jerk reaction to the mention of feminism in discussions like this then it's more often than not because of the extreme, overzealous responses of it's worst members.

I think they're the ones people pay the most attention to because they're extreme and controversial. And i wonder how long i have to go on disavowing them before people get over their knee-jerk reaction.

Women had a social movement that adapted them to the changing economy, men did not. Feminism didn't succeed to the extent it has by debasing men, it did it by empowering women to think outside the traditional gender roles dictated to them. So when angry men blame women or feminism for holding them back, when they try to argue that "women have all the advantages now", when they can only think in terms of reasserting their former dominance, i get angry, because that's the attitude holding us back.

Although to a certain extent there are certain elements to these accusations which are true (there are far more programs and schemes out there to aid women with various things than there are for men, it's seemingly just automatically assumed that they'll be fine because...well...hey they're men, men are always fine, right?), I would say that the problems faced by men today aren't entirely the fault of the advancements and advantages given to women but it would be naive to try to imply that this has no part in it.

You're referring to the concept of "privilege" as it is known in feminism and the broader social justice movement. It is not necessarily a bad thing, so long as you are aware of it. It is situational and relative, and maybe feminists need to do a better job of recognizing the situations in which they are privileged over men, but overall i think they are improving in this regard.

Men have few natural support groups and little access to social welfare; the men's-rights groups that do exist in the U.S. are taking on an angry, antiwoman edge. Marriages fall apart or never happen at all, and children are raised with no fathers. Far from being celebrated, women?s rising power is perceived as a threat.

Again this is pure conjecture (I recall Fathers for Jusice in the UK and I don't remember there ever being any mention of any 'angry, anti-woman edge' to it) and your logic there for why women are raising to power is somewhat flawed.

That's from the Atlantic article Gnome King kept linking. If you disagree then take it up with Hanna Rosin because it's her quote, not mine. I will point out that she is specifically referring to men's rights groups in the U.S., however.

Regarding the part about how men are inconsequential because of the rising prominance of single mother families, this family structure has been noted as being most prominant amongst black/African American families (if the stats they taught us back in Sociology were correct) so it would naturally follow that this would result in the most successful and prosperous social group being black women, similar statistics showed that single, black women were one of the most impoverished groups (single parent families tend to not be very well off in general), now stop to reflect on the fact that most of the most powerful, wealthy and successful people in the US happen to be white males and we start to see a different image forming.


The absence of marriages is largely irrelevent because from what I remember it is actually the rate of first marriages (and the age people get married at) that has changed and the point about the raising frequency of single parent families is also moot because they tend to be doing the worst (not exactly a healthy model for social change).

That's why i don't buy the "men are inconsequential" thesis. I agree that two-parent homes tend to be more stable than single-parent households, although i don't think the genders of the parents are particularly important.

You're right that social change, at least in this regard,hasn't been healthy, and that's why the work of feminism (and black social activists) isn't done yet. Not being dependent on a spouse means you can't depend on them to financially support you, either.

We need to change, we need to recognize there's nothing wrong with nursing or child care or whatever, that there's nothing wrong with asking for help when you need it to get through school or find your direction in life. That's not something women can do for us. And trying to pretend that women don't have struggles anymore isn't helpful and isn't true. The men's rights movement needs to sort itself out a lot more than feminism does, because the extremist nutballs are much more prevalent there. The ones who aren't nutballs tend to be <a href=http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/faqs/#masculism>fairly sympathetic toward feminism.

Men do need to sort themselves out and get ahead (again) for their own sake but considering what the original post was about I believe that my original point about feminism requiring a bit of 'spring cleaning' (appologies for the housework related term, I'm aware that probably comes across as retrograde and sexist) in order for them to avoud being slapped with the negative stereotypes they presently have (and not entirely without good reason) is still a very valid point to make.

it's actually the phrase "get ahead (again)" that bothers, because it implies the return to a more patriarchal society that was openly oppressive towards women in past. I'm guessing you mean that men need to catch up to the social advancements women have made.

I personally haven't observed the misogyny that you seem to view as being so widely prevalent and you don't see the misandry that I do so maybe it's a case that we're both wrong and right at the same time, who knows?

I think so. When i was doing research a day or two ago, i was finding a lot more misandrist men's rights sites than i am now.

Maybe i'm not being a good enough masculist? It's possible. Ironically i'm not as good at talking about men's issues as i am about women, mostly because it's much, much harder to find anyone reasonable talking about men's rights. Maybe i've been mistakenly giving the impression that i don't care about men's issues. I do. Just not when it comes at the expense of women.

I'd say it's damn near certain to be honest, I'm not a very good feminist even though I do honestly believe in equality for everyone (men, women, white, black, asian, hispanic, Star Trek fans, Call of Duty fans, indiginous peoples, foreigners, the rich, the poor, right wing, left wing, anime freaks, comic book nerds...everyone) yet you called me out for simply saying that it's probably for the best if we try to avoid extremeism when it comes to debates like this (and expressing how the radical and militant branches of feminism have some very unfortunate implications behind them that makes the 'irrational hatred' not so irrational).

Caring about men's issues often doesn't come at the expense of women, and even if it did then that raises another moral dialema, are you inherantly now saying that women deserve rights more than men? (again going back to the unfortuneate implications of certain aspects of the beliefs held by who are supposed to be 'the good guys'...er...'gals'?...whatever)

Regardless of the fact that, as you should know, not all men are as bad as the stereotype 'get in the damn kitchen' types sound like so this whole notion of 'I support it as long as we don't compromise the women' shows that you're maybe just as prejudiced and condescending as the people you're speaking out against?

Men's rights absolutely doesn't have to come at the expense of women, and i get nervous when i people seem to suggest that it does. Neither movement can succeed as long as they view each other antagonistically, because whatever gains one group attains will constantly be undermined by the other. The only social equality movement that's ever going to succeed is one that truly recognizes people of all genders as equals.

The reason I called you out is because you were the first one to bring up extremist feminism. The biggest reason why those man-hating misandrists seem the loudest and most vocal is because those are the ones the general public has opinions on. They're rabid and controversial and people like disagreeing with them, so that's what they talk about. I browsed through a lot of feminist blogs. The only one i've seen get mainstream attention (as in, my friends on facebook were talking about it) was one i'd never heard of, basically making the ridiculous claim that "porn=rape".

The worst thing you can do for mainstream feminism is give the extremists more of a voice by bringing up their position for them. Just don't bring them up until a self-proclaimed feminist says something obviously misandrist. I'm trying to be calm, charitable, and even-handed about this, but being repeatedly misunderstood by association with the lunatic fringe of the feminist movement does get frustrating after a while. i wish i knew a better way to dissociate myself short of abandoning the word entirely. in any case, i apologize to you and anyone else i've been brusque toward without cause.

 

[The Gnome King]

Of course, we value women more. That goes back to the chivalrous "women and children first" mentality that's existed for centuries. We just valued them for things like physical attractiveness and child-bearing ability, things that people don't necessarily want to be valued for.

Do you think we should value one gender over the other, however, or should we just treat both genders with equal value? I honestly have a problem "valuing" women more than men, or vice versa. I value all my fellow human beings regardless of gender equally.

The only claim that i've disputed is that men are raped as often as women are. yes, men may be too ashamed to admit it, but so are many women. and given how few men talk about relative to women, i suspect women are affected more.

Yes, and more men die in violent crimes and wars. Does it matter who is raped "more" really? Rape is a horrible crime. I don't even know how rape became a part of this thread, honestly. It's a serious topic, but it wasn't the topic I was getting at - which is, are men's rights being infringed upon or tramped down currently. That was all.

It's because every gender politics topic here at some point turns into blaming man-hating straw feminists for the social ills that have befallen men, as if some secret matriarchal cabal were responsible for them.

1) It's possible that the feminism movement has caused problems for men, and it's possible that we need to rectify this. All the Atlantic article was doing, however, was exploring reasons why men might be having problems right now.

As a human being it is in our interests to see both men and women succeed.

In all honesty, I don't believe many feminists really hate men, I just think it's time we step back and take a look at issues effecting men's rights as well. This doesn't necessarily mean we have to go backwards with women's equality at all. It's not a zero-sum game.

As for this:

There are also more than a few frightening implications attached to those who seem to believe that we'd be better off without men or that men are inferior and deserve to be treated as such (both of which are opinions I'm sure are more common than some self-labelling feminists would like to admit to), one of which being a somewhat (appologies for invoking Godwin's law here) Nazi ideal and the other being a somewhat ironic reversing of what the feminist movement was originally trying to abolish.

Feminists of the world, I beseech you, sort yourselfs out and weed out these extremist nut-balls who drag down the otherwise noble and well intentioned ideas you stand for.

Tell me, what does a call for feminists to police themselves for "nutball extremists" have to do with your original post?

Not much, but how does bringing in another off-topic or straw man argument help? It's like kindergarten - just because Johnny hits you doesn't mean you should hit him back twice.

Yes, i read the Atlantic article, and I agree that women have done a better job of adjusting to the changing economy than men have. And there's a very good reason why:

Over the course of the past century, feminism has pushed women to do things once considered against their nature?first enter the workforce as singles, then continue to work while married, then work even with small children at home. Many professions that started out as the province of men are now filled mostly with women?secretary and teacher come to mind. Yet I?m not aware of any that have gone the opposite way. Nursing schools have tried hard to recruit men in the past few years, with minimal success. Teaching schools, eager to recruit male role models, are having a similarly hard time. The range of acceptable masculine roles has changed comparatively little, and has perhaps even narrowed as men have shied away from some careers women have entered. As Jessica Grose wrote in Slate, men seem "fixed in cultural aspic." And with each passing day, they lag further behind.

Women had a social movement that adapted them to the changing economy, men did not. Feminism didn't succeed to the extent it has by debasing men, it did it by empowering women to think outside the traditional gender roles dictated to them. So when angry men blame women or feminism for holding them back, when they try to argue that "women have all the advantages now", when they can only think in terms of reasserting their former dominance, i get angry, because that's the attitude holding us back.

I don't think the argument the Atlantic was making was stating that men should reassert their "former dominance" - and I think a social movement for men's rights to help them adapt is actually a wonderful idea. There might be a few forum trolls here who were "blaming" feminism, but that wasn't the issue at all. Feminism, in the form of fighting for equal rights for women, is a good thing.

Perhaps we need a social rights movement for men now that makes it acceptable for men to be nurses or stay-at-home dads. Can you imagine a commercial coming out during a Super Bowl game of a dad holding an infant child at home with a tagline like, "Marie works - Jon stays home and takes care of the kids; and it's one of the most "manly" things you can do. Fathers are crucial." Wouldn't that be cool? Doesn't take anything away from women but it makes men feel more comfortable about breaking THEIR stereotypical gender roles.

Again, not a zero sum game at all. I count quite a few self-professed feminists among my best friends and some former lovers.

There are women who don't even like calling themselves feminists now because THEY get images of man-hating, gender baiting, etc. A lot of women I know now prefer the term "gender equality" to "feminism" - perhaps the term is a more noble one.

Men have few natural support groups and little access to social welfare; the men's-rights groups that do exist in the U.S. are taking on an angry, antiwoman edge. Marriages fall apart or never happen at all, and children are raised with no fathers. Far from being celebrated, women?s rising power is perceived as a threat.

I think that this is in part because women still largely want men to both do what they always did - pay the lion's share of the bills, work, etc. - AND take on new responsibilities of child raising, etc. I know plenty of men who have no problem working and taking care of financial issues while the wife stays at home, but honestly - and do a serious gut check here - how many WOMEN would be comfortable being in charge of working and leaving hubby at home to be a stay at home dad? As one of my articles on black women mentioned, not very many from the studies that have been done in this field.

THAT is a problem and I think that is some of the source of anger that men feel. I have a very close friend who was a stay at home dad and he stated he felt "shunned" by the other moms with kids - the WOMEN looked at him as something less than a man, something to be pitied - while THEY were perfectly happy doing exactly what he did - stay at home with the kids all day and let their spouse hold down a job.

We need to change, we need to recognize there's nothing wrong with nursing or child care or whatever, that there's nothing wrong with asking for help when you need it to get through school or find your direction in life. That's not something women can do for us.

Of course not! Though women have to accept that it's OK for men to be nurses and engage in child care without suspecting every man wanting to get into those fields is a child molester. Male teachers of young children still have a social stigma attached to them, which is unfortunate. And if you bring this point up, sadly many feminists still pull out the old gender-card of "Well YES women have to be scared because men RAPE and OMFG MEN commit all the violent crime and MEN this and MEN that..." - honestly, again - gut check here - haven't you heard women make these claims? I have. Men try to get into fields like child care and you will honestly still get some persecution from mostly women who just don't feel comfortable around men because they assume all men are potential rapists.

We can recognize that there is nothing wrong with these fields, but I think it will take a massive social rights movement to make men appear suitable for other fields besides traditional ones. How many male baby sitters do you know? Do you think it's because that there is some subtle cultural message out there that it's "safer" to leave your kids with a woman than a man, perhaps?

And trying to pretend that women don't have struggles anymore isn't helpful and isn't true. The men's rights movement needs to sort itself out a lot more than feminism does, because the extremist nutballs are much more prevalent there. The ones who aren't nutballs tend to be <a href=http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/faqs/#masculism>fairly sympathetic toward feminism.

So your argument is that the men's right movement needs to "sort itself out" more than feminism? Probably, because it's much younger. Feminism had its beginning and current struggles, too.

And who is suggesting that women don't have struggles? Last time I checked, unless you're born rich and have perfect health for life, existence is many times a struggle.

Maybe i'm not being a good enough masculist? It's possible. Ironically i'm not as good at talking about men's issues as i am about women, mostly because it's much, much harder to find anyone reasonable talking about men's rights. Maybe i've been mistakenly giving the impression that i don't care about men's issues. I do. Just not when it comes at the expense of women.

No rights of any human being should come at the cost of rights to another. We agree there.

One example of knee-jerk feminism that I recently saw was a blog poster who was ticked off at Wizards of the Coast for having only one female columnist who they perceived as "too cliched female" and a "bad example for girls" - what? Why CAN'T a woman be a stereotypical female if she wishes? Why can't a girl (or a man) be fashion obsessed or bad at math, admit it, and get on with life as they wish?

Feminism has unfortunately caused a lot of fights between women as well, from what I have observed, because now you have the traditional women - stay at home moms who want to do their husband's laundry or whatever - fighting for the right to live life as they wish. That's ridiculous. My feminist studies professor in college over a decade ago told me that her older lady friends - she was in her 50s - often berated her for making her husband dinner and doing his laundry. She always told them that feminism was about allowing women MORE options, including the option to be traditionally female - not about taking options away.

I see young boys, more and more, growing up into men and getting lost in the cracks now and I think a social rights movement for men is incredibly important. Getting over the perception that all men are potential rapists or unfit to be caregivers or around children is an important first step in this. Like I said, I'd love to see some "fatherhood" commercials and such out there or a media movement featuring male nurses who AREN'T gay (ala Nurse Jackie) etc.

 

[Iron Mal]

That's the awkward thing about all rape statistics. They're difficult to collect because there's a social stigma associated with all rape. Victim-blaming happens to victims of both genders.

While that is true the male side of rape does tend to also some from the problem that it can sometimes be hard for some men to even realise if what happened to them was rape or 'getting lucky'.

Take the following proverbial situation, John and Jane are both at a party when they both get absolutely and hopelessly drunk, both are taken into a different room/out back/into someone's van (feel free to get creative with the details here) and are taken advantage of sexually by a complete stranger without protection.

The next morning both wake up, Jane would quite likely come to the realisation that she was raped while John would either be happy or confused (in any case, the thought of 'I was raped' isn't likely to enter his head).

Getting people to report to the police when they're the victim of a crime is hard when there is a sense of shame attached to it but still possible (they may eventually feel more comfortable seeking help or they may have a friend or family member who is willing to speak in their place etc.) but getting someone to report a crime they don't even think happened is next to impossible.

i have the exact same problem with them. Yet i still don't see why you brought them up in this topic, since they have very little to do with the position men currently find themselves in.

To be fair maybe this is my own knee-jerk reaction coming through but when the subject of the article was 'Are men finished?' it did remind me of some of the arguements I have seen and been involved in that have involved the people you ad I both detest (along with the fact that most of the 'statistics' seemed to be based more on stereotypes and double standards than any actual research).

I think they're the ones people pay the most attention to because they're extreme and controversial. And i wonder how long i have to go on disavowing them before people get over their knee-jerk reaction.

This is similar to why most environmentalist announcements tend to always be proclaiming how we're all in grave danger and unless we do something now then we are dooming the planet and our children and our children's children to a fate worse than death as they slowly suffocate under the manifested pollution born from our laziness and greed.

It shouldn't be any suprise that most of the attention and interest in a particular subject is always going to be directed towards the most sensationalised and dramatic claims because, frankly, we naturally have more immediate interest in stuff that sounds the most pressing and important (it's why you're more likely to pay attention to the knife wielding maniac who's screaming at you about how you must all bow before the mushroom god than the old couple who are quietly bickering amongst themselves about who will get the last rolo).

You'll probably find yourself having to disavow any connection to them until either they disappear or yourself and others who still actually engage in something besides misandry find a different title to identify yourself under (trying to 'reclaim' words hasn't exactly worked well in the past, if you need an example then just look at what happened when minorities tried to take back the 'N word').

You're referring to the concept of "privilege" as it is known in feminism and the broader social justice movement. It is not necessarily a bad thing, so long as you are aware of it. It is situational and relative, and maybe feminists need to do a better job of recognizing the situations in which they are privileged over men, but overall i think they are improving in this regard.

I would agree that all forms of 'privelege' need to be kept in check and considered critically lest we result in the frequently lamented situaton of 'positive discrimination' which may be helpful to some but tends to be done in an often very clumsy and heavy handed fashion and just results in some people feeling cheated and neglected which just fuels the distain and animosity that these groups will hold towards the minorities and peoples your helping rather than improve relations with them (I feel that Futurama best summed it up with the phrase 'the less fortunate get all the breaks').

It also holds the potential side effect of the other dreaded issue of 'affirmative action' (I know that it isn't a bad thing but it does sometimes get handled in a more harmful than beneficial way) which, in their attempt to lessen the influence of discrimination, cause certain organisations or employers to actually act in discreetly racist or sexist ways (I'm sure most of us have heard horror stories of people losing their jobs to make way for more 'diverse' staff or where some applicants for a position have been given priority because they happen to be a woman or from a minority) in an effort to avoid the much feared risk of being taken to court over discrimination (as I remember my Science teacher once saying to a black, female classmate in regards to applying for a scholarship program, 'don't worry we'll play the race and sex cards like there's no tomorrow').

What we need is a cleaning of the slate to make everyone equal, not to give boosts and benefits to those who've had it hard in the past.

That's why i don't buy the "men are inconsequential" thesis. I agree that two-parent homes tend to be more stable than single-parent households, although i don't think the genders of the parents are particularly important.

You're right that social change, at least in this regard,hasn't been healthy, and that's why the work of feminism (and black social activists) isn't done yet. Not being dependent on a spouse means you can't depend on them to financially support you, either.

While I agree that there is always more to be done I would have to argue that things are genuinely better now than at any point in the history of our society (while there are still a few standing issues things tend to be, for the most part, fairly equal overall), as a result it isn't too hard to see why there are probably a lot of people who are unsympathetic and have something of an 'oh for fuck sake' kind of reaction to topics of gender issues (not to mention that it sometimes seems a bit silly when, as for reasons previously explained, the 'loudest' members of the feminist movement seem to be 50 years too late to the discussion and aren't dealing with problems like open discrimination or second-class citizen status anymore).

As for the notion that 'you shouldn't be dependant on your spouse to support you', most people depend on their spouses for the same reason some of us move into appartments with friends, it's economically and practically easier to divide the various tasks and costs associated with having a home of your own between two people ('more hands make light work'), granted, in some cases there are families where the Dad goes out to work and the Mum stays home to do dishes and raise the kids but I think you'll in most cases these tend to either be out of choice (some women actually prefer the notion of being a housewife just as some men elect to be househusbands).

I would agree with this 'I don't need anyone to support me' mentality if the circumstances upon which people found themselves depending on others were always the role of patriarchy and gender roles but in modern times with the freedom of choice and oppertunity granted to all it could be argued that situations like that are more often the result of economic necessity and personal preference rather than 'because a woman's place is in the kitchen'.

it's actually the phrase "get ahead (again)" that bothers, because it implies the return to a more patriarchal society that was openly oppressive towards women in past. I'm guessing you mean that men need to catch up to the social advancements women have made.

I appologise for my poor phrasing of that statement, my intention was more geared towards an equal playing field for both sexes rather than a return to the times of men being dominant (as I've said before, I genuinely do believe in and support the ideal that men and women should be held as equals).

Men's rights absolutely doesn't have to come at the expense of women, and i get nervous when i people seem to suggest that it does. Neither movement can succeed as long as they view each other antagonistically, because whatever gains one group attains will constantly be undermined by the other. The only social equality movement that's ever going to succeed is one that truly recognizes people of all genders as equals.

Unfortuneately I believe that this antagonistic view stems from the tendency of most people's attempts at creating equality through giving perks and benefits to those who are discriminated (well intentioned if not very well thought out in the long run), as I previously said, this can have the very negative side effect of arousing the cynicism and distrust of those who feel overlooked and left behind (in this case, the men who have witnessed things first hand like job being handed over to women with lower entry requirements just to make up numbers and avoid accusations of sexism) which just fuels the proverbial 'war of the sexes' rather than actually helping anyone resolve anything.

It is my belief that we should avoid doing things like making special cases for people based on what minority or social group they originate from (too much potential for misuse and abuse as well as unintended consequences) and work towards ways to make someone's diversity a non-issue (in my opinion the best way to establish equality is to try and make it that the differences between us are largely met with apathy rather than held up as wonderful and something that must be cherished, something I always thought was akin to forcing everyone to slap on a fake smile regardless of what they actually feel).

The worst thing you can do for mainstream feminism is give the extremists more of a voice by bringing up their position for them. Just don't bring them up until a self-proclaimed feminist says something obviously misandrist. I'm trying to be calm, charitable, and even-handed about this, but being repeatedly misunderstood by association with the lunatic fringe of the feminist movement does get frustrating after a while. i wish i knew a better way to dissociate myself short of abandoning the word entirely. in any case, i apologize to you and anyone else i've been brusque toward without cause.

No need to appologise, you're just expressing your opinions and concerns just like everyone else here.

I appologise if at any point I have been offensive or unnessercarily blunt.

About your worries of being able to distance yourself from the lunatic fringe of militant feminism you may find that you'll have to adopt another label just to prevent your opinions and views from automatically being tainted by the influence of the 'Fem-Nazi' stereotype, it's probably not the most ideal or preferred solution but given how prevalent said stereotype is (and how it's pretty much the first thing to pop into most people's minds when the word 'feminism' is mentioned) that may be your only practical and viable solution.

 

[cobra_ky]

sorry, i gotta trim this down a bit. these posts are getting huge and we largely agree at this point.

Of course, we value women more. That goes back to the chivalrous "women and children first" mentality that's existed for centuries. We just valued them for things like physical attractiveness and child-bearing ability, things that people don't necessarily want to be valued for.

Do you think we should value one gender over the other, however, or should we just treat both genders with equal value? I honestly have a problem "valuing" women more than men, or vice versa. I value all my fellow human beings regardless of gender equally.

Likewise, I don't believe gender should have anything to do with how we value another human being. I was simply pointing that traditionally, men have been considered more expendable that women, (largely because men have less involvement in the reproductive process.)

The only claim that i've disputed is that men are raped as often as women are. yes, men may be too ashamed to admit it, but so are many women. and given how few men talk about relative to women, i suspect women are affected more.

Yes, and more men die in violent crimes and wars. Does it matter who is raped "more" really? Rape is a horrible crime. I don't even know how rape became a part of this thread, honestly. It's a serious topic, but it wasn't the topic I was getting at - which is, are men's rights being infringed upon or tramped down currently. That was all.

i think it largely came up as a counter to the idea that the struggle for female equality is over, that feminists have overreached and now it's time for "the pendulum to swing back" towards men. Whether that point of view was actually brought up or not i can't say.

it doesn't really matter except as far as it helps us understand the problem and devise measures against rape. as long as we agree that both genders still have issues facing them, i don't think we need to discuss it any further here.

It's because every gender politics topic here at some point turns into blaming man-hating straw feminists for the social ills that have befallen men, as if some secret matriarchal cabal were responsible for them.

1) It's possible that the feminism movement has caused problems for men, and it's possible that we need to rectify this. All the Atlantic article was doing, however, was exploring reasons why men might be having problems right now.

As a human being it is in our interests to see both men and women succeed.

In all honesty, I don't believe many feminists really hate men, I just think it's time we step back and take a look at issues effecting men's rights as well. This doesn't necessarily mean we have to go backwards with women's equality at all. It's not a zero-sum game.

I didn't mean to imply that feminism should be immune to criticism, or that feminism hasn't resulted in problems for men (it certainly has for me.) just that blaming the state of men today solely or even largely on feminism is facile and divisive.

Tell me, what does a call for feminists to police themselves for "nutball extremists" have to do with your original post?

Not much, but how does bringing in another off-topic or straw man argument help? It's like kindergarten - just because Johnny hits you doesn't mean you should hit him back twice.

Probably a fair criticism. i misjudged the way the topic was heading; recent experiences had taught me not to expect too much in the way of understanding from others here.

Perhaps we need a social rights movement for men now that makes it acceptable for men to be nurses or stay-at-home dads. Can you imagine a commercial coming out during a Super Bowl game of a dad holding an infant child at home with a tagline like, "Marie works - Jon stays home and takes care of the kids; and it's one of the most "manly" things you can do. Fathers are crucial." Wouldn't that be cool? Doesn't take anything away from women but it makes men feel more comfortable about breaking THEIR stereotypical gender roles.

oh, absolutely. Though i'd be happy with a super bowl commercial that portrayed men as either faux-macho idiots, or simpering buffoons trapped under the thumb of women.

Again, not a zero sum game at all. I count quite a few self-professed feminists among my best friends and some former lovers.

There are women who don't even like calling themselves feminists now because THEY get images of man-hating, gender baiting, etc. A lot of women I know now prefer the term "gender equality" to "feminism" - perhaps the term is a more noble one.

perhaps. i just don't like it when people get hung up on terms instead of the spectrum of ideas they represent. that image isn't a fair characterization of modern feminism, it's the caricature drawn up by society at large.

Men have few natural support groups and little access to social welfare; the men's-rights groups that do exist in the U.S. are taking on an angry, antiwoman edge. Marriages fall apart or never happen at all, and children are raised with no fathers. Far from being celebrated, women?s rising power is perceived as a threat.

I think that this is in part because women still largely want men to both do what they always did - pay the lion's share of the bills, work, etc. - AND take on new responsibilities of child raising, etc. I know plenty of men who have no problem working and taking care of financial issues while the wife stays at home, but honestly - and do a serious gut check here - how many WOMEN would be comfortable being in charge of working and leaving hubby at home to be a stay at home dad? As one of my articles on black women mentioned, not very many from the studies that have been done in this field.

THAT is a problem and I think that is some of the source of anger that men feel. I have a very close friend who was a stay at home dad and he stated he felt "shunned" by the other moms with kids - the WOMEN looked at him as something less than a man, something to be pitied - while THEY were perfectly happy doing exactly what he did - stay at home with the kids all day and let their spouse hold down a job.

Sure, in some ways, women still have to get used to their freedom and adjust to not having a man
to depend on financially. Similarly, men have to adjust and get used to helping around the house and taking more joy in the lives of their families. I think men are disappearing from their children's lives because they haven't figured out how to love and support them outside of having a job/money. That's also probably why the family court system hasn't figured out a way to hold men responsible outside of child support payments.

We need to change, we need to recognize there's nothing wrong with nursing or child care or whatever, that there's nothing wrong with asking for help when you need it to get through school or find your direction in life. That's not something women can do for us.

Of course not! Though women have to accept that it's OK for men to be nurses and engage in child care without suspecting every man wanting to get into those fields is a child molester. Male teachers of young children still have a social stigma attached to them, which is unfortunate. And if you bring this point up, sadly many feminists still pull out the old gender-card of "Well YES women have to be scared because men RAPE and OMFG MEN commit all the violent crime and MEN this and MEN that..." - honestly, again - gut check here - haven't you heard women make these claims? I have. Men try to get into fields like child care and you will honestly still get some persecution from mostly women who just don't feel comfortable around men because they assume all men are potential rapists.

We can recognize that there is nothing wrong with these fields, but I think it will take a massive social rights movement to make men appear suitable for other fields besides traditional ones. How many male baby sitters do you know? Do you think it's because that there is some subtle cultural message out there that it's "safer" to leave your kids with a woman than a man, perhaps?

More importantly, men have to accept that it's ok, even when women and other men tell them it isn't. feminists went through the same thing and it wasn't easy.

To an extent, yes, many women DO have to be scared. Many have issues trusting men because men abused that trust in the past. Getting over that fear, that mistrust is going to take patience, calm, perseverance, bravery, and time. most of all it requires communication. men have to make the case why they can be trusted, and women have to listen. again, none of this is quick or easy.

i think we agree on this. i just felt i had to rephrase it to be sure.

And trying to pretend that women don't have struggles anymore isn't helpful and isn't true. The men's rights movement needs to sort itself out a lot more than feminism does, because the extremist nutballs are much more prevalent there. The ones who aren't nutballs tend to be <a href=http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/faqs/#masculism>fairly sympathetic toward feminism.

So your argument is that the men's right movement needs to "sort itself out" more than feminism? Probably, because it's much younger. Feminism had its beginning and current struggles, too.

And who is suggesting that women don't have struggles? Last time I checked, unless you're born rich and have perfect health for life, existence is many times a struggle.

Probably nobody. i think a couple people may have been minimizing them unfairly though, so i felt it needed to be said. Again, not to say that feminism is beyond criticism, just that it was getting more than it was due.

Feminism has unfortunately caused a lot of fights between women as well, from what I have observed, because now you have the traditional women - stay at home moms who want to do their husband's laundry or whatever - fighting for the right to live life as they wish. That's ridiculous. My feminist studies professor in college over a decade ago told me that her older lady friends - she was in her 50s - often berated her for making her husband dinner and doing his laundry. She always told them that feminism was about allowing women MORE options, including the option to be traditionally female - not about taking options away.

any significantly large political movement is going to have internal rifts like this. i've certainly denounced my fair share of self-avowed feminists. and i can't even deny that they are feminists, because they do believe in asserting the rights of women, they just have radical ideas about what those rights are and how to attain them. You can see it starting already in the nascent men's rights movement.

 

[The Gnome King]

i've certainly denounced my fair share of self-avowed feminists. and i can't even deny that they are feminists, because they do believe in asserting the rights of women, they just have radical ideas about what those rights are and how to attain them. You can see it starting already in the nascent men's rights movement.

We do mostly agree. Isn't ending a debate finding that out satisfying on some level? I always find that it is.

As for the radical ideas in the men's movement, come on - the early feminist movement had this, too. Haven't you ever heard of Catharine A. MacKinnon or Andrea Dworkin who made statements like "all sex is rape" ... -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin

Such descriptions are often cited by Dworkin's critics, interpreting the book as claiming "all" heterosexual intercourse is rape, or more generally that the anatomical machinations of sexual intercourse make it intrinsically harmful to women's equality. For instance, Cathy Young[58] says that statements such as, "Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women,"[56] are reasonably summarized as "All sex is rape."

There are some man hating feminists out there; and some woman hating men in the men's right's movement. I think it's best to try and get rid of both terms.

How about a "gender equality" movement? Not feminism, not masculinism; just gender equality?