The issue of "Mens Rights"

[the Dept of Science]

-snip-
Here's something to think about. Dance is the worlds oldest mating ritual. In every period in history and in every tribe we have found, it is strongly linked with courtship. Even today, the nightclub is where most people go if they want to get laid.
In every dance in the world, the man leads. Ballroom, latin, swing, the man decides what to do and the woman follows his command.
Its difficult to explain this cultural standard arising independently in every observed situation by merely saying that its some cultural standard. It appears to be a universal part of human nature, and that's strong evidence to suggest that it's based in biology.

Swing and ballroom are not a universal part of human nature, they've developed over only the last few centuries and developed in an already patriarchal culture, so it's natural that they'd be male led because thats how society worked.

Unless you're also trying to claim that the Maori or Aboriginal dances are male led, which is a ridiculous assertion.

Ummm...

Personally, when I get in touch with my masculinity, there is an inherent sense of "rightness" to it. I feel like I'm acting from my true self rather than some fake version of myself. I generally feel a lot happier now than I did before and my interactions with women feel a lot more natural.

Seriously, stop doing this. The fact that you "feel" a certain way is meaningless because the way you feel and the attitudes you have are socially learned as well.

I'm very aware that its a very "handwavy" answer, but I can only refer to my own feelings because that's what you asked for.

How are any of those male led? yes lots of cultures have male/female splits in dancing but that isn't evidence for any biological justification for male dominance. And even if it WERE, there's no reason why we should continue to embrace whatever vague biological compulsion there is.

And it's more than handwavey, it's meaningless. My whole point is that you cannot separate out learned responses from biology, and you continue to use learned (or at least partially learned) responses as evidence for biology. You're bootstrapping the entire thing, its intellectually dishonest.

I used this point earlier, but I'll use it again. If its all socialisation, then how do you explain homosexuality?
We live in a society where they are continually told that the norm is hetrosexuality. Yet there is a large section of the population that goes entirely against this, even putting themselves at risk of presecution/imprisonment/death if they indulge their desires. If it was merely a cultural standard, then they wouldn't have these feelings or they wouldn't change. However, the pull of their biology is just too strong.

The link between our primal urges and our thinking brains is complex and works both ways. The "natural way" does need to be kept in check to some extent by our intellects, but our intellects need to acknowledge that there are some deeply ingrained biological factors that we need to take account of in the way that we organise society.

 

[ms_sunlight]

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way saying that Americans aren't sexist (Many are, both men and women) and with politics I only want to hear about a persons policies and how they are going to help/harm me. I just get really annoyed when people talk about the "wage gap" and portray it as women are getting less pay for doing the same amount of work (Which, when gone into detail of any of those reports, is a complete lie)

If it was a complete lie, it would be uncontroversial, right? In other words, out of the hundreds of research papers and statistical studies into the gender pay gap, the vast majority would agree with the CONSAD report. So why is this not the case? Why is it that, in order to deny the wage gap, right-wing and anti-feminist critics have to turn repeatedly to the same two or three papers again and again?

There's an excellent analysis of the CONSAD report and why it is statistically flawed here [http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2010/11/26/how-the-consad-report-on-the-wage-gap-masks-sexism-instead-of-measuring-it/].

Hint: much of the gender pay gap is explained by occupational segregation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_segregation]. It is not enough to say that men and women are paid differently because they tend go into different types of jobs, if the mechanisms that make them go into different jobs are sexist. Plus, occupational segregation hurts men too, by limiting their choices or punishing transgressive choices.

 

[CaptainKarma]

-snip-
Here's something to think about. Dance is the worlds oldest mating ritual. In every period in history and in every tribe we have found, it is strongly linked with courtship. Even today, the nightclub is where most people go if they want to get laid.
In every dance in the world, the man leads. Ballroom, latin, swing, the man decides what to do and the woman follows his command.
Its difficult to explain this cultural standard arising independently in every observed situation by merely saying that its some cultural standard. It appears to be a universal part of human nature, and that's strong evidence to suggest that it's based in biology.

Swing and ballroom are not a universal part of human nature, they've developed over only the last few centuries and developed in an already patriarchal culture, so it's natural that they'd be male led because thats how society worked.

Unless you're also trying to claim that the Maori or Aboriginal dances are male led, which is a ridiculous assertion.

Ummm...

Personally, when I get in touch with my masculinity, there is an inherent sense of "rightness" to it. I feel like I'm acting from my true self rather than some fake version of myself. I generally feel a lot happier now than I did before and my interactions with women feel a lot more natural.

Seriously, stop doing this. The fact that you "feel" a certain way is meaningless because the way you feel and the attitudes you have are socially learned as well.

I'm very aware that its a very "handwavy" answer, but I can only refer to my own feelings because that's what you asked for.

How are any of those male led? yes lots of cultures have male/female splits in dancing but that isn't evidence for any biological justification for male dominance. And even if it WERE, there's no reason why we should continue to embrace whatever vague biological compulsion there is.

And it's more than handwavey, it's meaningless. My whole point is that you cannot separate out learned responses from biology, and you continue to use learned (or at least partially learned) responses as evidence for biology. You're bootstrapping the entire thing, its intellectually dishonest.

I used this point earlier, but I'll use it again. If its all socialisation, then how do you explain homosexuality?
We live in a society where they are continually told that the norm is hetrosexuality. Yet there is a large section of the population that goes entirely against this, even putting themselves at risk of presecution/imprisonment/death if they indulge their desires. If it was merely a cultural standard, then they wouldn't have these feelings or they wouldn't change. However, the pull of their biology is just too strong.

The link between our primal urges and our thinking brains is complex and works both ways. The "natural way" does need to be kept in check to some extent by our intellects, but our intellects need to acknowledge that there are some deeply ingrained biological factors that we need to take account of in the way that we organise society.

Because, quite simply, sexuality =/= social dynamics. Yes, the interaction between biology and brain is complicated, which is WHY I objected to you declaring "Men are dominant its biology. Fact" especially when you then show how you yourself were NOT naturally dominant.

There's a reason why I'm so dismissive of biotruths (guess how I feel about evopsych, go on, guess). They're nearly always used by MRAs to back up patriarchy based on completely spurious reasoning.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I'm kind of late on the scene here, so I'm sure all the anti-feminist ranting has been and gone, but prof. Michael Kimmel put it better than I ever could yesterday, so here he goes.

Go Kimmel Go! [http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2012/01/10/gender-matters/#Author]

 

[the Dept of Science]

-snip-
Here's something to think about. Dance is the worlds oldest mating ritual. In every period in history and in every tribe we have found, it is strongly linked with courtship. Even today, the nightclub is where most people go if they want to get laid.
In every dance in the world, the man leads. Ballroom, latin, swing, the man decides what to do and the woman follows his command.
Its difficult to explain this cultural standard arising independently in every observed situation by merely saying that its some cultural standard. It appears to be a universal part of human nature, and that's strong evidence to suggest that it's based in biology.

Swing and ballroom are not a universal part of human nature, they've developed over only the last few centuries and developed in an already patriarchal culture, so it's natural that they'd be male led because thats how society worked.

Unless you're also trying to claim that the Maori or Aboriginal dances are male led, which is a ridiculous assertion.

Ummm...

-snip-

Personally, when I get in touch with my masculinity, there is an inherent sense of "rightness" to it. I feel like I'm acting from my true self rather than some fake version of myself. I generally feel a lot happier now than I did before and my interactions with women feel a lot more natural.

Seriously, stop doing this. The fact that you "feel" a certain way is meaningless because the way you feel and the attitudes you have are socially learned as well.

I'm very aware that its a very "handwavy" answer, but I can only refer to my own feelings because that's what you asked for.

How are any of those male led? yes lots of cultures have male/female splits in dancing but that isn't evidence for any biological justification for male dominance. And even if it WERE, there's no reason why we should continue to embrace whatever vague biological compulsion there is.

And it's more than handwavey, it's meaningless. My whole point is that you cannot separate out learned responses from biology, and you continue to use learned (or at least partially learned) responses as evidence for biology. You're bootstrapping the entire thing, its intellectually dishonest.

I used this point earlier, but I'll use it again. If its all socialisation, then how do you explain homosexuality?
We live in a society where they are continually told that the norm is hetrosexuality. Yet there is a large section of the population that goes entirely against this, even putting themselves at risk of presecution/imprisonment/death if they indulge their desires. If it was merely a cultural standard, then they wouldn't have these feelings or they wouldn't change. However, the pull of their biology is just too strong.

The link between our primal urges and our thinking brains is complex and works both ways. The "natural way" does need to be kept in check to some extent by our intellects, but our intellects need to acknowledge that there are some deeply ingrained biological factors that we need to take account of in the way that we organise society.

Because, quite simply, sexuality =/= social dynamics. Yes, the interaction between biology and brain is complicated, which is WHY I objected to you declaring "Men are dominant its biology. Fact" especially when you then show how you yourself were NOT naturally dominant.

There's a reason why I'm so dismissive of biotruths (guess how I feel about evopsych, go on, guess). They're nearly always used by MRAs to back up patriarchy based on completely spurious reasoning.

I should probably say that I don't actually support MRAs. Most of what those guys are saying seems to be coming from false dichotomies and personal insecurities. They are the last people in the world that I want leading the way and telling me how to interact with women.
Personally, I didn't say that I wasn't naturally dominant. I think I had conditioned behaviour that wasn't naturally dominant. I think I was being a bit misleading/vague initially, but I found that dominance came naturally when I removed certain socially conditioned rules.

I'm going to bed now, but the thought that I want to leave on is that if you look at biology, you will find that there are many differences between men and women. However, the ways in which we are different aren't nearly as profound in the ways that we are the same.
Seeing it as a war between men and women will result in both sides losing. This is a game in which everyone can win. If we stopped putting other people down and focused on bringing ourselves up, if we give value rather than take it and treat each other right, then we will all benefit.
We are all humans. If we could accept that, then we could all see that the real enemy is... tigers.

 

[Dastardly]

But men are. The people who are stopping us fighting on the front line are men. That's a fact.
Sorry but it is.

I don't mean to be rude but it just sounds like you are trying to make it out like I'm saying you are all evil to disprove my point. That comes across as a little meaningless given the context of my original post in which said nothing of the sort.

It doesn't sound like you're saying all men are evil. It does sound like you're saying all evil is done by men, though, and that all of the evils done by men are solely because they are men.

The insinuation is that there could be no other reason they make a decision. It's as though if the decision seems to negatively impact women, then the decision was made specifically to negatively impact women.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

But men are. The people who are stopping us fighting on the front line are men. That's a fact.
Sorry but it is.

I don't mean to be rude but it just sounds like you are trying to make it out like I'm saying you are all evil to disprove my point. That comes across as a little meaningless given the context of my original post in which said nothing of the sort.

It doesn't sound like you're saying all men are evil. It does sound like you're saying all evil is done by men, though, and that all of the evils done by men are solely because they are men.

The insinuation is that there could be no other reason they make a decision. It's as though if the decision seems to negatively impact women, then the decision was made specifically to negatively impact women.

This is kind of getting ridiculous. I didn't say anything of the sort. I may as well say your entire post was about the benefits of blue bananas.

Go and read the original post I made you will see that there no reference to any of those things.

I was merely responding to someone complaining about the (arguably very legitimate) problems that men encounter such as being drafted for the army or having their wife favoured in divorce litigation. I pointed out that it's usually men who make or have made those decisions and policies so directing anger at women is pointless.

As people quote and argue with me it seems to be getting further and further away from what I originally said like a game of Chinese whispers.

 

[Dastardly]

This is kind of getting ridiculous. I didn't say anything of the sort. I may as well say your entire post was about the benefits of blue bananas.

Go and read the original post I made you will see that there no reference to any of those things.

I was merely responding to someone complaining about the (arguably very legitimate) problems that men encounter such as being drafted for the army or having their wife favoured in divorce litigation. I pointed out that it's usually men who make or have made those decisions and policies so directing anger at women is pointless.

As people quote and argue with me it seems to be getting further and further away from what I originally said like a game of Chinese whispers.

And I could counter that their "anger" isn't directed toward women. Their anger is directed toward the perceived inequality of the current rules. And they're bringing it up as an example of a rule that unfairly effects men, as a counter-example to the people who talk about rules unfairly effecting women.

To say that these men must be directing their anger at women is the same as saying any women pushing for equality in other areas must be "angry at men." Sure, in some cases, both are true... but in most cases, people are angry at the inequity itself.

So, your original response was based on an assumption, and people have been arguing that assumption. It's entirely possible you didn't realize you were making that assumption -- which just goes to demonstrate how easy it is for prejudice or preconceived notion to sneak into our ideas. (Kind of like use of the term "Chinese whispers," and its less-than-positive cultural implications.)

 

[Lurchibald]

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way saying that Americans aren't sexist (Many are, both men and women) and with politics I only want to hear about a persons policies and how they are going to help/harm me. I just get really annoyed when people talk about the "wage gap" and portray it as women are getting less pay for doing the same amount of work (Which, when gone into detail of any of those reports, is a complete lie)

If it was a complete lie, it would be uncontroversial, right? In other words, out of the hundreds of research papers and statistical studies into the gender pay gap, the vast majority would agree with the CONSAD report. So why is this not the case? Why is it that, in order to deny the wage gap, right-wing and anti-feminist critics have to turn repeatedly to the same two or three papers again and again?

There's an excellent analysis of the CONSAD report and why it is statistically flawed here [http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2010/11/26/how-the-consad-report-on-the-wage-gap-masks-sexism-instead-of-measuring-it/].

Hint: much of the gender pay gap is explained by occupational segregation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_segregation]. It is not enough to say that men and women are paid differently because they tend go into different types of jobs, if the mechanisms that make them go into different jobs are sexist. Plus, occupational segregation hurts men too, by limiting their choices or punishing transgressive choices.

Haha I'm taking that article with a grain of salt, That person is seriously trying to claim that people don't get danger pay for working more dangerous jobs? What a load!

 

[scw55]

I just want to be able to play Netball without being teased for it. I used to be good at it and enjoyed it when I was eight. But apparently boys don't play netball, they play shitty football.

Where do you live? I'd honestly like to know. Here in the U.S. basketball (a sport very similar to netball) isn't looked down on at all.

I'm not trying to imply that you're lying, I'm just curious where you live.

Wales (United Kingdom). Two sports available in our Primary School. Netball/Tenis/Football ('Soccer') and Rugby (manly version of American Football). I only enjoyed the sports played by the girls. I find it ironic that Woman's Rugby and Football are considered in existence. Yet Men's netball isn't.

I wasn't good at basketball. I'm terrible at dribbling. Netball you just stand still and chuck the ball at someone. In a strange way it's almost faster-paced because the ball will change hands much quicker than in basket ball where the holder of the ball will reposition himself on the court.

This was 14 years ago. Haven't played any basketball/netball since then so I'm out of practise. Shame how much society can damage a small child. I can never play Netball now.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

This is kind of getting ridiculous. I didn't say anything of the sort. I may as well say your entire post was about the benefits of blue bananas.

Go and read the original post I made you will see that there no reference to any of those things.

I was merely responding to someone complaining about the (arguably very legitimate) problems that men encounter such as being drafted for the army or having their wife favoured in divorce litigation. I pointed out that it's usually men who make or have made those decisions and policies so directing anger at women is pointless.

As people quote and argue with me it seems to be getting further and further away from what I originally said like a game of Chinese whispers.

And I could counter that their "anger" isn't directed toward women. Their anger is directed toward the perceived inequality of the current rules. And they're bringing it up as an example of a rule that unfairly effects men, as a counter-example to the people who talk about rules unfairly effecting women.

To say that these men must be directing their anger at women is the same as saying any women pushing for equality in other areas must be "angry at men." Sure, in some cases, both are true... but in most cases, people are angry at the inequity itself.

So, your original response was based on an assumption, and people have been arguing that assumption. It's entirely possible you didn't realize you were making that assumption -- which just goes to demonstrate how easy it is for prejudice or preconceived notion to sneak into our ideas. (Kind of like use of the term "Chinese whispers," and its less-than-positive cultural implications.)

Chinese whispers is a game children play where I live and the term is pretty commonly and innocently used in England... so yeah calling me racist for saying that is a little farfetched. I believe it's called Telephone in America.

Yes their anger is at the perceived inequality of current rules but please, go and read any male activist website like the ones in the OP and you will see that it isn't male law or policy makers they direct their vitriol at, it's women. It's written down right there on the webpage. These are the people I was referring to when making my point.

My initial post isn't based on assumption or prejudice at all at all it's based on fact.

Also you didn't even register the fact that you had completely misrepresented or you know, had a preconceived notion, about what I had said in your previous post. It seems you are so determined to argue with me that you will completely change what you are arguing about.

snip

Girls weren't allowed to play football or rugby at my school. So yeah, works both ways.

 

[ms_sunlight]

Haha I'm taking that article with a grain of salt, That person is seriously trying to claim that people don't get danger pay for working more dangerous jobs? What a load!

Yes, but he backs that claim up by linking to another post showing statistics [http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2005/05/09/myth-men-get-paid-more-for-working-in-dangerous-jobs-wage-gap-series-part-10/].

Obviously some jobs attract a premium to salary because of the danger involved. However, the jobs which are actually the most dangerous in terms of rates of death or injury like agriculture and forestry are still very low-paid.

Interestingly, this is a classic example of how sexism hurts men too, quite literally - occupational segregation means men are disproportionately doing the most dangerous jobs, and so are much more likely to be injured or killed at work. But most of these jobs are not well-paid, so this does not explain the pay gap.

 

[Duskflamer]

One more thing, I hate it when guys complain about how a woman can claim its rape if she was drunk and regrets what she did.

Hey... if the girl regrets what she did, its your fault! YOU mislead her or didn't treat her well. If you were truly honest about your intentions from the outset and carried it through the whole interaction, then she wouldn't regret it. If she was too drunk to make good judgements, then you shouldn't have had sex with her.

If this is the case, would you argue that if the man got drunk and regrets having sex afterward, he can claim the woman raped him?

If not then you're discriminating in favor of women.

I believe that in every romantic interaction, the man should lead. Therefore the happiness of both parties is his responsibility. If he regrets it, then he messed up. He shouldn't have gotten so drunk.
If it was truly out of his control, ie. she spiked his drink or used physical force, then yes, he should be allowed to claim rape.

So if the woman got drunk and regrets it, it's the man's fault and it's rape.
If the man got drunk and regrets it, it's the man's fault and he has no right to complain.

Yea, there's totally no discrimination against men going on there.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

One more thing, I hate it when guys complain about how a woman can claim its rape if she was drunk and regrets what she did.

Hey... if the girl regrets what she did, its your fault! YOU mislead her or didn't treat her well. If you were truly honest about your intentions from the outset and carried it through the whole interaction, then she wouldn't regret it. If she was too drunk to make good judgements, then you shouldn't have had sex with her.

If this is the case, would you argue that if the man got drunk and regrets having sex afterward, he can claim the woman raped him?

If not then you're discriminating in favor of women.

I believe that in every romantic interaction, the man should lead. Therefore the happiness of both parties is his responsibility. If he regrets it, then he messed up. He shouldn't have gotten so drunk.
If it was truly out of his control, ie. she spiked his drink or used physical force, then yes, he should be allowed to claim rape.

So if the woman got drunk and regrets it, it's the man's fault and it's rape.
If the man got drunk and regrets it, it's the man's fault and he has no right to complain.

Yea, there's totally no discrimination against men going on there.

If a man molests a woman while she is near unconsciousness then it's rape same if it's the other way around. It's not rape if you drunkenly sleep with a guy then regret it in the morning. I don't think any sane woman would think that. Also what is this men leading stuff all about..

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

I'm a man... since when did I need a rights group?

But on a serious note, I do think that there is a great value in masculinity and its something that a lot of guys lack. I think that when it comes to a relationship, a man is most attractive when he is in control. This is hardwired by millions of years of evolution and it will be difficult to completely rid from our society. Its an unfortunate truth but its something that we have to live with.
This doesn't apply to things like business or politics, because these are relatively new social constructs and have no evolutionary basis. Ideally men and women should be equal in these areas.

This is a "war" in which both sides can win. It sounds kindof whack and corny but we just have to stop seeing it as a war and learn to respect each other, treat each other right and take responsibility for ourselves.

Alert, Alert, Biotruth detected. Repeat, Biotruth detected.

How exactly can you determine that men are "genetically programmed" to act in a specific way and that they aren't just socialised into it by our still heavily patriarchal society?

Hint: You can't.

Because attraction is something that happens on a very primal level. Its almost non-rational.
Imagine being given a list of reasons why a particular man would be a good mate... wealthy, good genes, trustworthy, similar interests etc. Your rational mind would agree that he was a good mate, but you wouldn't exactly be horny for him.
Compare that to meeting a badass. Perhaps he has no qualities that make him a good mate (poor, unreliable, etc.), but most girls will be turned on by him. But you just know that if this guy lived 5000 years ago, he would be the one killing the lions.

From personal experience, the interactions and relationships that have gone best for me, have been the ones where I have been in control*, when I have made the plans and followed through with them. Women respond to confidence.
On the socialised point, I would say for me, its actually been the opposite. Connecting with my masculinity was something that I had to learn, having spent the majority of my life being pretty nervous around girls.

*in control as distinct from being controlling. Being in control comes from confidence, being controlling comes from insecurity.

Imagine for a moment you are living in renisanse Italy. You are trying to paint your picture of the ideal woman. If she is anything but, white, pale skinned, and slightly chubby then you are clearly not a renisanse painter. If however you paint a picture of a blonde, slightly tan, thin woman with large breasts then you a clearly a product of 21st century western culture.

In short, socialization has everything to fucking do with who you find attractive. It's logic that is left to the wayside. Your understanding of human sexuality is flawed.

However, there have never been any societies where we have prized women with deformities or narrow hips or skin conditions. There are some surface level changes that can be attributed to socialisation, but there is a complex interplay between our thinking minds and our primal feelings. My inclination is to say that the latter is ultimately the stronger force.
Also, if it is all socialization then how do you explain homosexuality? They are bathed in a society where hetrosexuality is the norm, yet they still are attracted to members of the same gender and will express it even when it puts them at the risk of persecution/imprisonment. If it was just a societal belief then they could change it and avoid a lot of pain.

Yes they have. Self-mutilation is a type of deformity which is often prized (think tattoos and ritual scarring). Narrow hips may be looked down on due to the biological unreasonableness of choosing a mate with such proportions, but the equally illogical vaginal mutilation is considered desirable in some countries. In some countries large breasts, which are also important for child-rearing, are considered unattractive. Some women in these countries (I believe Brazil is one such place) even go so far as having breast reduction surgeries. Our primal urges can't even tell us how to walk a good chunk of the time, what makes you think it will be consistent when it comes to choosing mates? I'm not saying that biology isn't a major driving factor when it comes to attraction, I'm just saying that socialization is just as important.

Now, as for your point about homosexuality, it doesn't in an absolute sense exist. Kinsley is really the only researcher I've read about that wound up with conclusions that make any sense, and he saw sexual orientation as existing on a scale from absolutely heterosexual to absolutely homosexual. He didn't really base his work on any biological evidence, and all the people that have failed to incorporate the existence of asexuals and bisexuals. For that reason I tend to dismiss any evidence for a biological root for sexual orientation. That being said, I haven't put too much research into the subject, I mostly just read an article or two on Kinsley.

Edit: his name is spelled Kinsey, not Kinsley.

Saying that its a scale rather than a binary quality doesn't harm my argument. The fact that there is a large section of the population that goes entirely against what they are "socialised" to do is strong evidence to suggest that society isn't the be all and end all of it, and in fact there are more fundamental forces at play.
Studies on twins separated at birth have shown a far higher concordance of homosexuality than you would expect. If 10% of the population is gay, then you would expect only 1% (10% x 10%) of twins to be both gay. In fact, the statistic is far closer to 30%, suggesting a strong prenatal biological component.

But, as I previously stated, that still ignores all the sexual orientations that don't fit into our nice little labels. It also isn't 100%, infact it is far less, suggesting a strong social factor. As I previously stated, logic is what is ignored, not socialization. I don't know how people get socialized into such sexual orientation, but research shows that they do. It may make little logical sense, but it is what happens.

P.S. that was one of the three pieces of research I was expecting you to bring up. Already had my argument all prepared and everything.

 

[Dastardly]

Chinese whispers is a game children play where I live and the term is pretty commonly and innocently used in England... so yeah calling me racist for saying that is a little farfetched. I believe it's called Telephone in America.

Didn't say "racist." It's just that something like that can be seen as displaying a certain cultural insensitivity. It's one of those phrases with roots in mild xenophobia, and while that's generally not how it's used today, it's a remnant of something that could easily be done away with -- I mean, how hard is it to call the game "Telephone," instead?

Yes their anger is at the perceived inequality of current rules but please, go and read any male activist website like the ones in the OP and you will see that it isn't male law or policy makers they direct their vitriol at, it's women. It's written down right there on the webpage. These are the people I was referring to when making my point.

My initial post isn't based on assumption or prejudice at all at all it's based on fact.

Their anger is directed toward an idea. You're taking it personally. For instance, if they complain that a woman is arguing for equal treatment in the workplace, but is not also demanding to be required to register for the draft -- they're angry at the inconsistency being demonstrated. They're using that woman's case as an example of the this consistency.

But what you've done is taken your internalized perception of the idea and stated it as fact. And then declared it fact on top of that. That carries the unfortunate implication that you are unwilling to allow the other side to clarify where you may be misunderstanding, which further demonstrates that you're not looking to engage in a dialogue. And that's why things like this never get fixed.

Here's how it works: Side A states their case the best they know how. Side B points out a perceived flaw in Side A's reasoning. And then Side A is given a chance to address that. See, as people, sometimes we misjudge how a message will be understood. When we see that the other person is misunderstanding us, we can then attempt to clarify the message. And then, once cleared up, the dialogue can move forward. When you point out what you see as a flaw, you are (indirectly) asking for clarification.

If you aren't, if you're just outright telling them what they are saying, it's clear that you've completely closed off any hope of dialogue. Now, please note that there is a large difference between understanding the other side (ie, letting them ensure their case is properly representing) and agreeing with the other side. No one should be required to do the latter, but everyone should aspire to the former. If we don't first understand what we're arguing against, how on earth could we possibly know we're arguing against the right thing, or in the right way?

You feel that these men are mad at women. Having known a few, I understand that they are mad at an idea. In order to demonstrate the idea they're talking about, they are required to cite instances of women engaging in the inconsistent behavior -- and then some people immediately call that out as "attacking women" or "hating women." Coincidentally, the very idea that a man can't argue against something a woman does without "hating women" is exactly the kind of inconsistency many are arguing against.

Also you didn't even register the fact that you had completely misrepresented or you know, had a preconceived notion about what I had said in your previous post. It seems you are so determined to argue with me that you will completely change what you are arguing about.

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else you were arguing with. I've told you what it seems like you're saying, thus inviting you to clarify. So far, you really haven't.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

But men are. The people who are stopping us fighting on the front line are men. That's a fact.
Sorry but it is.

I don't mean to be rude but it just sounds like you are trying to make it out like I'm saying you are all evil to disprove my point. That comes across as a little meaningless given the context of my original post in which said nothing of the sort.

It doesn't sound like you're saying all men are evil. It does sound like you're saying all evil is done by men, though, and that all of the evils done by men are solely because they are men.

The insinuation is that there could be no other reason they make a decision. It's as though if the decision seems to negatively impact women, then the decision was made specifically to negatively impact women.

This is the post that I was talking about, no where did I say anything of these things or even suggest them. When I called you out on it you back-pedalled and decided to call me out on what I had said in the following post instead.

It isn't called Telephone in England I didn't even know that it was in America until I looked it up...It simply doesn't have another name here :/

Please go and actually look at this site *snipped* and tell me where he isn't blaming women for all of his troubles. I am not 'imagining or feeling' anything. It's a fact it's written right there on the page :/ I guess you think because I'm a woman I must be over emotional or hysterical? Is that it? Some of these men hail rapists as heroes... you think that isn't unreasonable hatred? It actually makes me feel physically sick to read that site.

They should be blaming and getting angry at the system(as I said put in place in the majority by male lawmakers) for policies that work against them not accusing women of being 'freeloading sluts.' If a man's wife gets custody of the kids it's the law that has decided that not the woman. If she stops him from seeing his kid's altogether and he has done nothing wrong ie: been abusive. I would say that would be the point where she is a *****.

The worst thing is most of the things they come up with women don't even do anymore. Like expecting to have a door held open for them. As I previously said I have never expected a man to do that in my life and back when it was the norm it was imposed by men as part of 'Women are delicate flowers and need to stay at home' We stayed at home because we weren't allowed to do anything else...men laughed in our faces.

Where have I not clarified what I was saying? I did that in the first post I wrote to you...although I get the feeling you are not even reading what I'm writing from your responses.

I was merely responding to someone complaining about the (arguably very legitimate) problems that men encounter such as being drafted for the army or having their wife favoured in divorce litigation. I pointed out that it's usually men who make or have made those decisions and policies so directing anger at women is pointless.

I even said that their complaints were legitimate! How is that not wanting to open dialogue or entertain their complaints ><

 

[beniki]

Seriously, stop doing this. The fact that you "feel" a certain way is meaningless because the way you feel and the attitudes you have are socially learned as well.

I don't really care about the issue... my girlfriend told me she wanted a man who could take care of her and her family, not for any silly gender role reasons, but because her own father and brothers are lazy and are more or less supported by her and her mother. I want to take that role because I love her, and have these foolish romantic notions of wanting to protect the woman I love.

But as I was scrolling down, looking at the cool tribal dances, I saw this comment... and it just seemed so silly that I had to point it out.

"The fact you "feel" a certain way is meaningless..."

Humans are emotional creatures. Everything you do, every decision you make, even the logic you use now is affected by emotion. Ignoring it is as silly as ignoring deductive process and analytical thought.

Furthermore, I'm socially trained to not take a piss in my bed. Seems like a good idea to me.

Don't get me wrong, you're absolutely right about peoples thoughts being affected by society... just that it's probably not a relevant point. We're here now, with the situation we have. Some people want some things some people want others. Negotiations will run smoother without making people insecure about their own thoughts.

 

[CaptainKarma]

Seriously, stop doing this. The fact that you "feel" a certain way is meaningless because the way you feel and the attitudes you have are socially learned as well.

I don't really care about the issue... my girlfriend told me she wanted a man who could take care of her and her family, not for any silly gender role reasons, but because her own father and brothers are lazy and are more or less supported by her and her mother. I want to take that role because I love her, and have these foolish romantic notions of wanting to protect the woman I love.

But as I was scrolling down, looking at the cool tribal dances, I saw this comment... and it just seemed so silly that I had to point it out.

"The fact you "feel" a certain way is meaningless..."

Humans are emotional creatures. Everything you do, every decision you make, even the logic you use now is affected by emotion. Ignoring it is as silly as ignoring deductive process and analytical thought.

Furthermore, I'm socially trained to not take a piss in my bed. Seems like a good idea to me.

Don't get me wrong, you're absolutely right about peoples thoughts being affected by society... just that it's probably not a relevant point. We're here now, with the situation we have. Some people want some things some people want others. Negotiations will run smoother without making people insecure about their own thoughts.

Wow, way to misinterpret what I was saying. Feelings are meaningless as EVIDENCE. You cannot say "Humans are genetically programmed to act this way because I feel a compulsion to act this way" because its nigh impossible to dissect that compulsion into either a biologically or socially learned cause.