[CMV] I think that Men's Rights issues are the result of patriarchy, and the Mens Rights Movement just doesn't understand patriarchy. (self.changemyview)

changemyview

1825 ups - 642 downs = 1183 votes

Patriarchy is not something men do to women, its a society that holds men as more powerful than women. In such a society, men are tough, capable, providers, and protectors while women are fragile, vulnerable, provided for, and motherly (ie, the main parent). And since women are seen as property of men in a patriarchal society, sex is something men do and something that happens to women (because women lack autonomy). Every Mens Rights issue seems the result of these social expectations.

The trouble with divorces is that the children are much more likely to go to the mother because in a patriarchal society parenting is a woman's role. Also men end up paying ridiculous amounts in alimony because in a patriarchal society men are providers.

Male rape is marginalized and mocked because sex is something a man does to a woman, so A- men are supposed to want sex so it must not be that bad and B- being "taken" sexually is feminizing because sex is something thats "taken" from women according to patriarchy.

Men get drafted and die in wars because men are expected to be protectors and fighters. Casualty rates say "including X number of women and children" because men are expected to be protectors and fighters and therefor more expected to die in dangerous situations.

It's socially acceptable for women to be somewhat masculine/boyish because thats a step up to a more powerful position. It's socially unacceptable for men to be feminine/girlish because thats a step down and femininity correlates with weakness/patheticness.

2728 comments submitted at 12:11:35 on Aug 6, 2013 by Tentacolt

  • [-]
  • Kuato2012
  • 373 Points
  • 18:09:31, 6 August

Excellently articulated. It sums up my own road to MRAville exactly:

I recognize that there are a lot of issues that negatively affect men specifically. Being both a man and a decent human being, I have an interest in rectifying some of these issues.

Who can I talk to about this? Where should I go? Who has a vested interest in gender issues and equality? Feminists! "Patriarchy hurts men too." They've always said they're on my side!

I am a feminist!

Huh, these people pretty much never bring up men's issues. It's like they don't give a rat's ass. Guess I'll be the change I want to see in the world...

brings up men's issues in "feminist spaces."

Flames ensue. Men's issues get routinely marginalized. Attempts to highlight male-specific problems dismissed as "derailing." Attempts to clarify position are dismissed as "mansplaining." Bitterness grows.

Holy shit, those people are NOT on my side. In fact, they often espouse direct opposition to my own ideals.

I still believe in women's rights (in addition to men's rights), but I am NOT a feminist. In fact, I've seen the worst of the sexism, hypocrisy, and dogmatism that feminism has to offer, and I'm decidedly against it. Some people say that makes me a feminist but not a radical one. I'd rather just abandon the polluted term altogether.

  • [-]
  • revsehi
  • 168 Points
  • 20:37:46, 6 August

And it really has become a polluted term. Third wave feminism has destroyed the ideals of feminism and turned it into a bitter, acrid parody of itself. It goes directly against the tenets of first and second wave feminism, where rights meant freedom to choose, not freedom to oppress.

  • [-]
  • Magnora
  • 69 Points
  • 21:32:51, 6 August

Real rights advocates should drop feminism and move on to egalitarianism.

  • [-]
  • revsehi
  • 20 Points
  • 22:04:33, 6 August

I agree, which is why I support the ideals of feminism. However, I dislike the current practices of it. Egalitarianism, as an ideal, is what feminism should be.

  • [-]
  • Magnora
  • 25 Points
  • 23:14:13, 6 August

Yeah, if you're a feminist but not in to egalitarianism, you're a pretty messed-up person, imo

  • [-]
  • Dworgi
  • 33 Points
  • 07:44:03, 7 August

Plenty are. Using the word "patriarchy" is a pretty good indicator of it.

  • [-]
  • BlinkingZeroes
  • -1 Points
  • 09:07:39, 7 August

I disagree - Patriarchy is a totally valid term, you've just got to say it with an understanding that the Patriarchy isn't beneficial to all men, only a specific type of man who acts and is privileged/powerful in a certain way.

Suggesting that the use of the word alone is indicator of a feminist not into egalitarianism kind of... Highlights that you're just a guy who doesn't understand Patriarchy.

  • [-]
  • Dworgi
  • 25 Points
  • 09:19:15, 7 August

Patriarchy means whatever feminists want it to mean in that argument. It's a catch all boogeyman. If anyone disagrees, they get the response you just gave me. There are far better, specific terms to describe the multitude of things that fall under the umbrella of patriarchy.

  • [-]
  • BlinkingZeroes
  • -6 Points
  • 09:20:04, 7 August

Such as...

There's still no other single word that encapsulates the concept completely. Can the word be abused to shut down discussion? Sure. Though does it's use alone imply that the speaker is not egalitarian? No.

  • [-]
  • ReLiC71
  • 15 Points
  • 10:10:38, 7 August

Kyriarchy works, and it covers intersectionality

  • [-]
  • Dworgi
  • 6 Points
  • 09:31:01, 7 August

Discrimination? Sexism?

And encapsulating the concept completely is the problem. Someone can say that's the patriarchy's fault, and you're left wondering which part.

I'm saying it's a good indicator. Sometimes it might be wrong, but on the whole anyone who uses the word "patriarchy" is a third-wave feminist, which is a pretty hard set of ideals to hold at the same time as being an egalitarian.

  • [-]
  • tehbored
  • 0 Points
  • 14:49:51, 7 August

There's gender norms. That's all patriarchy is: a set of gender norms.

  • [-]
  • tehbored
  • 9 Points
  • 14:48:48, 7 August

The term "patriarchy" is a needlesly inflammatory oversimplification of gender norms. People are afraid of nuance, hence patriarchy.

  • [-]
  • Magnora
  • 0 Points
  • 07:58:52, 7 August

Agreed, but it depends how they use it. Some things are well explained by patriachy, but certainly some feminists over-use the term.

  • [-]
  • sworebytheprecious
  • 1 Points
  • 06:57:06, 7 August

Egalitarianism was a French cultural theory applied to many different socioeconomic doctrines. It has nothing to do with gender and sex oppression or modern mores, nor would adopting it as a term really address feminist theory.

  • [-]
  • Magnora
  • 9 Points
  • 08:05:06, 7 August

I mean the definition of the word egalitarianism as it exists in a modern sense.

  • [-]
  • sworebytheprecious
  • 1 Points
  • 08:08:42, 7 August

That IS how it exists in a modern sense. It's a philosophy with it's own history and traditions.

  • [-]
  • Magnora
  • 5 Points
  • 08:14:18, 7 August

Well, I'm obviously not referring to the 17th century movement.

>egalitarianism - The doctrine of the equality of mankind and the desirability of political and economic and social equality.

That is what I mean. Embrace that philosophy as a broader context for feminism.

  • [-]
  • sworebytheprecious
  • -3 Points
  • 08:18:36, 7 August

I'm as little willing to redefine egalitarianism as I am feminism.

  • [-]
  • Magnora
  • 4 Points
  • 08:21:26, 7 August

how the fuck is it a redefinition if that is literally the definition of the word? god you are dumb

  • [-]
  • sworebytheprecious
  • 1 Points
  • 08:30:03, 7 August

Egalitarianism is it's own philosophy with it's own history. It has nothing to do with feminism or feminist theory. For feminists to decide to become "Egalitarianists" would make no sense at all because it doesn't apply here. It's something else entirely.

  • [-]
  • pretendent
  • -5 Points
  • 07:01:57, 7 August

As a feminist, this is what I hear when people say these things like this.

We live in a world built on implicit social rules and gender roles created by men (in power at the time); a world where men are overwhelmingly the leaders of government, economic organizations, social movements; a world where men are viewed as the default, and women are an other; where men are widely regarded as the natural leader to such an extent that the vast, vast majority of protagonists in mainstream fiction (TV, movies, video games etc.) are men; a world where a woman criticizing the status quo is regularly and voraciously insulted with gendered slurs ("cunt", "slut", "bitch" etc.)

We live in this world, but the feminist movement, which over the course of multiple centuries was painstakingly built up by women, under the leadership of women, and taking an overwhelming amount of its support from women, should now take this area of success, and voluntarily give up leadership of the movement to improve the lot of women in society. OK, I fully understand the logic behind that, but what's the practical side of that? Men are considered to be the natural leaders, and for that to change... women should give up leadership roles they do have? Society pushed women onto the sidelines of home and hearth, gave command of society to men, and in this world where virtually all of history is about men, women should give up even the word FEMINISM? A word that is symbolic of women taking the lead for positive change MUST BE GIVEN UP BECAUSE IT EXCLUDES MEN?

So empowering women can only occur by disempowering women... hmmm... and feminists should take this idea seriously, why?

  • [-]
  • MaestroLogical
  • 13 Points
  • 08:13:46, 7 August

This is because you are allowing your own personal bias to paint our words, basically putting words in our mouth (in this case text).

While true that some MRA's are anti-women, the movement in general is composed of men that once considered themselves feminists, until they realized it's true nature and decided to look for something better for both genders.

Once you stop painting the world through conditioned bias, you realize that the majority of MRA's kinda like the freedom women have in modern society. Very few men would actually want what you seem to think we do, women back in the kitchen barefoot etc. Rather, we just want to be true equals, with regards to the law and societal expectations.

Most MRA's, and this is the reason the movement is gaining steam, are waking up to the fact that modern feminism has changed from that of equality to one of over-compensation. The 'have my cake and eat it too' mindset that is all to prevalent.

As a man, I can see that women face numerous issues still to this day, issues that need to be resolved. As a man, I can also see that modern feminism isn't working on solving most of them, rather it has devolved into a cycle of victimization. I don't want my daughter, my wife, my mom feeling like perpetual victims, always in fear, but that has become the predominant narrative.

Thus, the MRA movement is born, out of the desire to continue this struggle for true equality. We want to be your equal, not your enemy.

Sadly, as has been outlined here, when we do approach you we get decimated by those that are afraid of having their own personal power stripped from them. By the ones so conditionally biased that they can't even understand us. This happens, and some of the men return in kind, thus ensuring the cycle of 'gender war' nonsense continues.

We're basically just tired of being the villain for no reason other than what happened in the past. Most of us under the age of 35 can't even recall a world were women weren't allowed to do 'X'. We grew up in a world where 'Girl Power' was a given. We grew up with these women, we feel in love with the independent go getters, we don't want you to revert, we don't want to oppress, we just want to be your equal in all aspects of society. Sadly, modern feminism is doing it's best to prevent this from happening, lest it lose it's 'Men are Bad, throw rocks at them' freedom.

  • [-]
  • pretendent
  • -4 Points
  • 08:53:13, 7 August

>This is because you are allowing your own personal bias to paint our words, basically putting words in our mouth

I'm reporting words I've heard from the vocal MRAs who deign to debate me. Are you stating that you reject the idea that the cultural notion that women should be relegated to the home and care-taker position in a relationship does not at all explain why women are regarded as primary care-takers? Then say so! If I hear only one thing from multiple MRA's that's the MRA position to me.

If you disagree with the idea that men are granted custody less often than women solely because of misandry, stand up and say so. If only one message is broadcast by members of a movement, outside of the movement, then that is the message that defines the movement.

>Most MRA's, and this is the reason the movement is gaining steam, are waking up to the fact that modern feminism has changed from that of equality to one of over-compensation

I keep hearing this claim, but nobody actually proves it. Without any logical argument, or even better, evidence, why should I regard this statement as true?

>As a man, I can also see that modern feminism isn't working on solving most of them, rather it has devolved into a cycle of victimization.

First of all, is the summation of your experience Reddit posts and tumblr posts? Because the newsflash here is that the MRA looks like it's all about complaining about feminism online. If it's unfair of me to dismiss your movement because of the nature of its visible presence, isn't that true for you as well?

And hey, at least I can point to Emily's List, "Don't be that Guy" and the like as evidence of feminism doing work. Where's the equivalent experience with men? Posters stating rape using the most common date rape drug, alcohol, is merely "regrettable sex"?

>I don't want my daughter, my wife, my mom feeling like perpetual victims, always in fear, but that has become the predominant narrative.

Feminism focuses on areas where women are disempowered and/or victimized. The MRM, and I'm giving the benefit of the doubt here, is about focusing on areas where men are disempowered and/or victimized. Yet I'm guessing you aren't choosing to view the MRM as a movement aimed at turning men into perpetual victims, right?

I also support tax reform, environmental movements, and free trade. Focusing on the problems rather than the positive points is about creating solutions, not sitting on one's ass congratulating ourselves about past victories. Working on problems does not mean a social movement believes there are only problems.

>Sadly, as has been outlined here, when we do approach you we get decimated by those that are afraid of having their own personal power stripped from them. By the ones so conditionally biased that they can't even understand us.

In other words, you dismiss my argument and provide no reasoning as to how it is incorrect. Yet you expect to take me seriously. Your whole post is just a long-winded way of saying, "No, you're wrong" without ever showing any semblance of an argument or evidence.

>Sadly, modern feminism is doing it's best to prevent this from happening, lest it lose it's 'Men are Bad, throw rocks at them' freedom.

Again, nowhere is there an argument. Merely unbacked claims.

  • [-]
  • MaestroLogical
  • 3 Points
  • 09:41:24, 7 August

No, I'm stating that this is your own personal bias painting a picture that doesn't really exist. Society no longer has a 'cultural notion' that women should be relegated to anything, let alone the 50's housewife nonsense. This simply isn't the reality we live in anymore, but you can't see it. I wasn't even bothering to voice an opinion on custody or the like, that is just you putting words in my mouth, the attempt was getting you to see this. It's this foundational bias that prevents actual progress from being made, and as such is something I try to avoid.

I understand that calling someone on their bias has the tendency to make that person defensive, so I can understand why the rest of your response has basically nothing to do with what I was getting at and instead attempts to villify me. I wasn't offering any insight into the problems we are facing in society other than the ones preventing us from understanding each other with regards to this topic. No, I don't see MRA movement turning men into victims, as that isn't how feminism started out either. It is however, what feminism has become currently, if you still can't see this, I'm sorry I can't help.

In closing, I dismissed you arguement because it simply isn't the facts, it's your own viewpoint for whatever reason, be it your own experiences or what have you, I don't dismiss your PoV lightly, simply trying to clarify that it isn't accurate. You read what we say, but in your mind it's 'Take all the power from women and give it back to men' when that is nowhere near what we are saying, far from it actually...

  • [-]
  • pretendent
  • -1 Points
  • 09:47:22, 7 August

>Society no longer has a 'cultural notion' that women should be relegated to anything, let alone the 50's housewife nonsense.

There's less of this belief. It has not disappeared entirely. I do not claim that things are the same as the 1950's.

If it's true that I "put words in your mouth", then you are a pot calling a kettle black.

>I understand that calling someone on their bias has the tendency to make that person defensive,

Smug and condescending much?

>instead attempts to villify me

Demonstrate that this was what I attempted to do.

>It is however, what feminism has become currently, if you still can't see this, I'm sorry I can't help.

Bah. Everything you say is a claim with no attempt to back it up. Good day.

  • [-]
  • MaestroLogical
  • 1 Points
  • 11:47:43, 7 August

There's less of this belief. It has not disappeared entirely. I do not claim that things are the same as the 1950's.

I'll grant you that.

If it's true that I "put words in your mouth", then you are a pot calling a kettle black.

Touche'

Smug and condescending much?

Not really, just illustrating for others a possible reason why you decided to rant about unrelated things.

Demonstrate that this was what I attempted to do.

Condensing my posts to 'No, you're wrong' is simply a tactic to paint me as a troll, giving others permission to not bother reading what I actually said. While I'll grant that "vilify" was hyperbole, it still fits.

Bah. Everything you say is a claim with no attempt to back it up. Good day

Yeah, and your point? This is a conversation, a discussion, not a debate. Discussions are generally full of conjecture and anecdotes, you can choose to believe them or not, you can choose to research the claims yourself and debunk as such. Mainly it's one person relaying personal experience and bias to another, while absorbing their personal experiences and bias in order to change someones viewpoint. Debates on the other hand, are more strict in that they require the speaker to back up claims with legitimate sources. Thus, I participated in the topic without cluttering it up with a ton of stats and other easily ignored data. If this invalidates everything I have to say, I really wonder how you communicate with anyone. Regardless, I sincerly hope you do have a good day.

And just in case I don't see ya; Good morning, Good Evening and Good night!

EDIT: formatting issues.

  • [-]
  • pretendent
  • 0 Points
  • 02:50:47, 8 August

>Condensing my posts to 'No, you're wrong' is simply a tactic to paint me as a troll

Here is your previous posts

Here is the one prior to that

You will not that they both could be summed up as "you are wrong" and they both completely lack any kind of logical argument, or even better, and kind of evidence to back your claims up. I thus fail to see how your posts can't be adequately summed up as "No, you're wrong".

>Yeah, and your point?

/r/changemyview isn't for mere discussions.

>If this invalidates everything I have to say, I really wonder how you communicate with anyone. it's one person relaying personal experience and bias to another, while absorbing their personal experiences and bias in order to change someones viewpoint.

Funny way of starting a conversation, saying "Once you stop painting the world through conditioned bias"

  • [-]
  • Dworgi
  • 5 Points
  • 07:43:37, 7 August

Because the movement is no longer doing anything to help anyone. The only road it has left open to it is to flip the tables on men and start oppressing them, because feminism has made damn sure that men don't want to co-operate.

If the aim is equality then feminism should be abandoned, because it's rotten to the core. Feminism won. The winnable battles are gone, what's left are mostly imaginary, unintentional slights against women, not any sort of institutionalized sexism.

If the aim is to establish a matriarchy then you're on the right track, though.

  • [-]
  • pretendent
  • -3 Points
  • 08:12:40, 7 August

> The only road it has left open to it is to flip the tables on men and start oppressing them, because feminism has made damn sure that men don't want to co-operate.

I believe this is bullshit. Show evidence.

>If the aim is equality then feminism should be abandoned, because it's rotten to the core.

I believe this is bullshit. Show evidence.

> Feminism won.

I believe this is a giant, steaming, unbelievably large pile of bullshit. Show evidence.

>what's left are mostly imaginary, unintentional slights against women

I'm imagining that a vast majority of Congress is male? All presidents, and large majorities of Cabinet members, judges, governors, mayors, city council members are male?

Or am I imagining that the vast majority of media consists of male protagonists with women serving as incidental love interests; prizes for the hero to win?

Perhaps it's only in my imagination that CEOS and corporate boards continue to be dominated by men?

Or are all these things flukes? Unintentional? Perhaps it was all just random chance, like flipping a coin and getting heads 100 times in a row?

  • [-]
  • uglylaughingman
  • 8 Points
  • 09:02:59, 7 August

You might want to think about this: The vast majority of CEOs are men- but the vast majority of men aren't CEOs.

No matter how you look at it, only a small fraction of people of any gender, ethnicity or religion have ever or will ever hold power of any appreciable type- but your immediate assumption is that because most of them have penises, that must be the common factor that binds them together (rather than, say, familial connections, inherited advantages, personality type and access to resources)?

I assure you- penises are not magic. Neither are vaginas, for that matter- And possessing either of them doesn't automatically grant you access to some hidden well of power and privilege, nor does it automatically define who you are as a person.

  • [-]
  • pretendent
  • -6 Points
  • 09:10:22, 7 August

>but the vast majority of men aren't CEOs.

But people view men as natural leaders. The mere fact of being a man gives you an immediate step up. That doesn't guarantee you succeed, but having a head start in a race is not nothing.

>familial connections, inherited advantages, personality type and access to resources

Do connected families overwhelmingly have male children? If not, this point has no explanatory power as to why CEOs are overwhelmingly male.

Can only men inherit advantages, whatever that means? If not, this point has no explanatory power as to why CEOs are overwhelmingly male.

Are successful personality types restricted to men? Are they wholly nature, and in no way derived from nurture? If not, this point has no explanatory power as to why CEOs are overwhelmingly male.

Do only men have access to resources? If not, this point has no explanatory power as to why CEOs are overwhelmingly male. If so, that's a pretty egregious example of sexism, isn't it?

>I assure you- penises are not magic.

Nor is white skin. Yet only a fool would argue that having White skin didn't offer Americans as awfully large headstart across the vast majority of its history. And in my view, a smaller advantage as well. I am not arguing that penises are magic, but the idea that the vast majority of men are CEOs is natural kind of is arguing that. Well, the Y chromosome, anyway.

  • [-]
  • uglylaughingman
  • 8 Points
  • 09:51:05, 7 August

There's a lot of evidence to say that men are simply more risk tolerant, whether by culture or by nature (that's way too hairy a topic to get into, and besides, I don't think anyone really knows the answer).

If your hypothesis were correct (It's all about the dangly bits, or the Y chromosome if you prefer to be delicate about it) then you would expect that even the poorest men would be better off in general than the poorest women, and there should be far fewer men in states of absolute destitution.

Instead, it seems we end up with more men at each end of the scale, and in general men are far more prevalent in the absolute lowest end of the economic scale, which is simply what you would expect from the situation I hypothesized at the beginning (not really my own theory, of course).

And as far as white skin being a headstart all the time, tell that to the irish immigrants from not too long back in our history, or the okies who came west after the dustbowl, or the Appalachian miners who right now have lower life expectancy than medieval peasants.

See, the thing is, you have a hammer (feminism), so everything looks like a nail (Patriarchy).

But while there are real nails in the world, most of it is nuts and bolts and tack welds, and the thing you're calling a patriarchy is really just an oligarchy that just happens to mostly have men as the public face.

I can sympathize, because I suspect you care so very much because you really do want a fair and decent shake for everyone in the world- and maybe you've had personal experience of someone being a proper shithead to you because of gender or ethnicity or sexuality. And if all or even a large fraction of the people that mess in your life are male, it's very easy to assume that must be the reason they're shitheads- because they're male. Add to that some (pretty poor) scholarship that will say that men in general are the issue.

But the truth is these people aren't shitheads because they're men- they're just shitheads. Shitheads come in all genders, colors and religions, and I'm willing to bet that everyone here has had some experience with shitheads.

Maybe the nosy shithead at church who makes it his or her mission to socially assassinate anyone that isn't just like them. Maybe the miserable middle level manager who takes out his or her frustration at falling so far short of their dreams by terrorizing everyone below them. Maybe the racist fuck who makes up for his or her lack of self-esteem by making an imaginary boogeyman out of some other ethnicity, just to have someone to look down on.

Here's the thing- shitheads are everywhere- but by assuming that they must all be one race, or gender, or sexual preference, you no longer stand against the shitheads- you become one.

And by assuming that all men inherit some magical privilege that immediately makes life easier in every case is not just wrong, but treading awfully close to shithead territory- and this is what patriarchy theory does.

How about this: there are all sorts of things that are unfair in the world, and we must confront them and call the out whenever possible. But the idea that the unfairness of the world falls neatly along gender (or ethnic, or whatever) lines is simplifying things to the point of idiocy, and often does more harm than good.

Edit: I just want to make it clear I'm not calling you a shithead, nor am I saying that feminism doesn't have some things left to do- any movement that seeks to help people in general still has a lot of worth- but I don't think anyone could deny that there are large or at least very vocal segments of the feminist movement (likely by simple dint of it being very large and somewhat diverse) that are actively hostile to men's issues, often with the unspoken justification being that "men have a leg up already".

  • [-]
  • pretendent
  • -2 Points
  • 10:36:49, 7 August

>There's a lot of evidence to say that men are simply more risk tolerant, whether by culture or by nature

It matters which is true, though.

>If your hypothesis were correct (It's all about the dangly bits, or the Y chromosome if you prefer to be delicate about it) then you would expect that even the poorest men would be better off in general than the poorest women, and there should be far fewer men in states of absolute destitution.

Not at all. Believing that men have a leg up at the beginning of a race doesn't mean there's more than a few winning positions. In real footraces, nobody about anyone beyond 4th place.

And again, opportunity is not equally distributed among men. I acknowledge that. But that doesn't mean there isn't inequality of opportunity between gender.

>tell that to the irish immigrants from not too long back in our history, or the okies who came west after the dustbowl, or the Appalachian miners who right now have lower life expectancy than medieval peasants.

Now imagine being black in 19th century Boston. Or a black family asking for work in Dust Bowl California. Or a black man in Appalachia.

Having White Skin stills gives a person unearned advantages compared to non-whites.

Being male still gives you unearned advantages compared to being female. The glass ceiling exists.

>it's very easy to assume that must be the reason they're shitheads- because they're male.

I am not assuming that.

>And by assuming that all men inherit some magical privilege that immediately makes life easier in every case is not just wrong

That's also not what I'm saying. I'm saying women face obstacles in society which men don't. I am saying nothing about all men being oppressive. I am merely asking that men be cognizant of the fact that they enjoy unearned privileges and work to set that situation to rights.

>But the idea that the unfairness of the world falls neatly along gender (or ethnic, or whatever) lines is simplifying things to the point of idiocy

I am not saying this either. Would you like to speak to me, or would you prefer I leave you alone with this strawman you've constructed?

  • [-]
  • Dworgi
  • 4 Points
  • 08:36:37, 7 August

They're not flukes, they're choices. You don't get to be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company by going home at 4 PM and taking weekends off. You get there by ignoring the rest of your life and monomaniacally pursuing that goal. Men do that more often than women. It's a choice. I don't see how you can fix that through policy or law.

Politics is the same thing. Choice. Admittedly, the US is skewed on this because of its asinine election funding laws, which require you to be a multi-millionaire to be President, but that's a different battle.

Vast majority of media requires a definition, show evidence. Books aimed at women dominate the New York Times bestseller list. Movies aimed at women are made all the time. TV shows aimed at women are a dime a dozen. What's the issue? That some media is aimed at men (eg. summer blockbusters) and portray men as the heroes?

The laws are there, the trends are all in women's favour. At some point, you have to look at the stats (eg. 90% of teachers are women, 90% of software engineers are men) and put it down to choice.

Perfect equality in everything isn't achievable, equal opportunities is. And I believe it has been achieved.

  • [-]
  • pretendent
  • 1 Points
  • 09:36:23, 7 August

>eg. 90% of teachers are women, 90% of software engineers are men) and put it down to choice.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/special/2009/10/181_35911.html

  • [-]
  • pretendent
  • -2 Points
  • 09:04:50, 7 August

> They're not flukes, they're choices. You don't get to be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company by going home at 4 PM and taking weekends off. You get there by ignoring the rest of your life and monomaniacally pursuing that goal. Men do that more often than women. It's a choice. I don't see how you can fix that through policy or law.

So you believe that men dominating business is 100% to do with personal choices, and nothing to do entrenched societal stereotypes about men as natural leaders, and nothing to do with the way we socialize children to conform to gender roles? What do you say to Kim O'Grady?

>Politics is the same thing. Choice.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/coverage-women-candidates-appearance-hurts-electability-study-finds-171825167--politics.html#zLCHC9u

Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Supreme Court nominees. If it's a woman, the media focuses on their appearances and they suffer in the public eye. This phenomena is unique to women.

edit: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/2010-09-22-sexist-insults-female-politicians_N.htm BOOM. More evidence.

We socialize women to be consensus-builders rather than leaders, and now you say women merely choose not to lead. No sexism there.

>At some point, you have to look at the stats (eg. 90% of teachers are women, 90% of software engineers are men) and put it down to choice.

At some point, you're just making an excuse for why we need to focus all the attention on men now.

  • [-]
  • Dworgi
  • 7 Points
  • 09:14:16, 7 August

Not all the attention, but some. The current direction of marginalizing men is going to hurt us in the future. 55% of college graduates are women, for example. Men aren't teaching anymore, further distancing children from positive male role models.

I don't believe we socialize children to fit gender roles that much anymore, but that's really hard to prove or disprove without being able to see what the world looks like in 15 years.

Media being shit at covering politics isn't news. A brief look at how Obama was portrayed shows a pretty clear picture of racism in the media as well.

  • [-]
  • pretendent
  • -1 Points
  • 09:33:51, 7 August

>The current direction of marginalizing men is going to hurt us in the future.

Marginalizing men? I've used the example of men's dominance in society politically, economically, and socially before in this thread. I don't see marginalization.

>55% of college graduates are women

Are you arguing that this is due to sexism? I don't understand what this has to do with the discussion, but this isn't due to sexism.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-004-x/2008001/article/10561-eng.htm

>I don't believe we socialize children to fit gender roles that much anymore, but that's really hard to prove or disprove

I certainly recall having sports pushed for me more than for my sister. Also, this article is all about how we socialize girls relative to boys.

>Media being shit at covering politics isn't news.

Media enforcing harmful sexism that makes it more difficult for women to get elected is, however, sexism and discrimination which systematically helps marginalize the voice of women in politics. As you have not said this was wrong, you must acknowledge that this means that women are disempowered politically in society, and due to the mass media, a large and powerful part of society.

  • [-]
  • Magnora
  • 4 Points
  • 08:03:16, 7 August

Do you hate men?

  • [-]
  • pretendent
  • -2 Points
  • 08:07:26, 7 August

Nope.

  • [-]
  • Magnora
  • 7 Points
  • 08:12:32, 7 August

I'm not saying feminists shouldn't exist, I'm simply saying feminism should be rooted in a larger picture of egalitarianism, because men still are oppressed in many ways too. It's not the 1950s anymore. Just because most powerful people are men doesn't mean all men are powerful. I don't understand why you only care about the struggles of one gender, specifically. That's like only caring about the struggles of one race and acting as though the rest don't have problems. Everybody's got problems, and gender divisive language doesn't solve the larger problems, it only solves the problems of one gender. Why not embrace the world with your love instead of limit it to one gender? I don't get it.

  • [-]
  • pretendent
  • -3 Points
  • 08:22:38, 7 August

>I'm simply saying feminism should be rooted in a larger picture of egalitarianism

You're saying feminists should give up the word feminism and the one area where they are unequicovally regarded as leaders for a situation where they are more inclusive of men's leadership without men being more inclusive of women's leadership.

>Just because most powerful people are men doesn't mean all men are powerful.

Never said that was the case. It doesn't mean there isn't privilege to having a dick.

>I don't understand why you only care about the struggles of one gender, specifically.

I never said that either, only that the demands that women unilaterally disempower themselves in a world where men rule the world (not all men, duh. Please don't put a 3rd thing in my mouth).

>That's like only caring about the struggles of one race and acting as though the rest don't have problems

Wow, seriously? Do you think the Civil Rights movement was illegitimate for its single-minded focus on Black Rights?

>Why not embrace the world with your love instead of limit it to one gender? I don't get it.

That sounds nice, but the pragmatic effect of acting in this way is a world where men have all the power in many spheres, and if women hold power in any sphere they must share it with men. If I see actual redistribution of power from men in general, maybe I'd consider this argument valid.

Because right now it feels like an attempt to marginalize what little voice and power women do hold.

  • [-]
  • PineapplePhalluses
  • 6 Points
  • 09:52:19, 7 August

The feminist attitude to power seems very childish. It seems to just be unwillingness to give up the feminist movement, which is quickly becoming a laughing stock thanks to social justice warriors, just because "we have power here and you can't have it!" It's like a child shouting "I'm the king of the castle and you're a dirty rascal!" Childish.

Not only is it childish, but it's paranoid. Feminism seems to look at egalitarianism as some form of male usurping of the feminist movement, rather than a coalition of feminism and the MRM, which to any external observer, can only seem like a good thing provided the misoogynists/andrists of each group stay out of it. But no, they need to keep the little outlet for their internal sense of opression despite the fact that it's slowly devolving into a putrid, gaseous swamp of absolute idiocy and misandry.

Such comments reek of victim complex. They seem to indicate a feeling that women lack control in their lives and in institutions so they've turned feminism from what it once was, and has now for the most part accomplished into a nest where women have the power and men aren't allowed in.

Quite silly IMO.

  • [-]
  • pretendent
  • 0 Points
  • 10:25:14, 7 August

Why is it that only the feminist movement must give up power? Why not in politics? Or business?

  • [-]
  • PixelOrange
  • 0 Points
  • 10:51:22, 7 August

Comment re-approved

  • [-]
  • CMVthrowawa
  • 2 Points
  • 10:52:38, 7 August

How sad it is that in this seemingly endless dark void of space, clinging to a spinning ball of rock, the delicate beauty of life emerged against all odds in a universe where a legion of profound enigmas crowd upon us and oblivion surrounds us on all sides, that we feel the need to viciously and spitefully attack one another over something so petty and insignificant as gender differences.

  • [-]
  • pretendent
  • -1 Points
  • 10:55:03, 7 August

How sad it is that in this infinitesimally insignificant amount of time we as a race are given in a universe this alive and full of possibility that so many of our species might be denied the opportunities to develop their potential due to something as petty and insignificant as gender differences.

  • [-]
  • CMVthrowawa
  • 2 Points
  • 11:24:39, 7 August

But you see, the universe isn't full of life, or indeed possibility. As far as we know, we could be the only 'intelligent' beings in it, we just have to make the best of our world, our societies, our relationships with others. Yet our species expends so much energy fighting these absurd games, squabbling over abstract concepts like 'opportunity' and 'potential', filled with acrimony and distrust for one another, while we spin through a cosmos completely indifferent to our designs. Tragic.

  • [-]
  • tehbored
  • 1 Points
  • 14:58:05, 7 August

Why should women have to give up a position of leadership? If anything, women should be at the helm of an egalitarian or "equalist" movement.

That doesn't change the fact that excluding men is a bad thing. Why should anyone be excluded?

  • [-]
  • pretendent
  • -1 Points
  • 01:07:52, 8 August

> Why should anyone be excluded?

They shouldn't from opportunities, but today, women are excluded from the top echelons of society, and demanding that the feminist movement change its name and put its focus on men is like demanding that the NAACP focus on White people because otherwise its exclusionary. It's nonsense

In a world where our thought leaders are overwhelmingly men, where mass media is dominated by men, women should be allowed a safe space for their own voices.

  • [-]
  • tehbored
  • 1 Points
  • 01:24:20, 8 August

First of all, an egalitarian movement would still focus more on women's issues than on men's issues (because women still face more hurdles than men do), although it could also take on other causes such as racism or classism. Second, the reason this should be done is because it would ultimately help more people, including more women. The feminism brand has been suffering in recent years. A re-brand could attract more women who are otherwise disinterested. Finally, why do you think men would become the leaders of such a movement? It makes far more sense for women to assume the leadership roles. Women are more qualified (since the leadership would ideally be made up of currently prominent feminists) and understand the issues better.

  • [-]
  • pretendent
  • 1 Points
  • 03:34:04, 8 August

This still frames it as a necessity that there be an over-arching movement. That's NOT necessary. Special Interest groups are most effective when they concentrate on single goals.

  • [-]
  • tehbored
  • 1 Points
  • 05:55:02, 8 August

This is true. It's important not to spread any organization too thin or you just become a bureaucratic mess.

  • [-]
  • littlemew
  • 24 Points
  • 20:55:19, 6 August

What? Third wave feminism encourages the freedom to have the kind of sex life you want and the kind of home life you want as long as you aren't hurting anyone. I would call third wave feminism much less oppressive than second wave.

  • [-]
  • revsehi
  • 61 Points
  • 21:00:00, 6 August

As far as I understand it, first wave feminism said: be a woman, but choose your own life. Second wave feminism said: being a woman has nothing to do with how you live your life, so just do what you want. Third wave feminism said: the standards by which society judges a woman comes from an oppressive worldview controlled by men. On order to get true freedom, we must destroy that worldview (i.e. "the Patriarchy"). I will do more research and respond if data diaagrees.

Edit: After some research I understand second wave feminism to be more sociopolitical in scope, while third wave feminism is more about killing of gender norms through the destruction of the male-centric "patriarchy" that feminists see as the main societal problem.

  • [-]
  • noklu
  • 22 Points
  • 22:04:03, 6 August

First wave feminism sought to eradicate legal discriminations. Early second wave feminism realised that gender roles were another kind of discrimination and so fought against those culturally embedded prejudices and privileges (women were not expected to be well-educated or career-minded; men were). Midway through the second wave, feminist social theorists created and used various tools to analyse culture in order to better understand and dismantle gender discrimination. This is where Patriarchy Theory originated, not in the third wave, not now, but several decades ago in the heat of the second wave.

I know you checked up on your facts, but I want to also add that the three "waves" of feminism do not sum up what feminism is, really. They are useful historical terms and share some basic ideological features within those periods, but there is a huge variety especially once you consider the 2nd/3rd waves. I feel it is more appropriate to refer to feminisms rather than the singular.

  • [-]
  • stevejavson
  • 32 Points
  • 21:54:53, 6 August

I see third wave feminism as the introduction of intersections. In first and second wave feminism, we see the empowerment of white middle/upper class women. In third wave feminism, we are taught that things like race, disabilities, sexuality, gender identity etc act as other axis of oppression that can interact with patriarchy. For example, women are oppressed. Black women are more oppressed. Gay black women are even more oppressed etc.

  • [-]
  • revsehi
  • 64 Points
  • 22:11:10, 6 August

You accuse the "patriarchy" of oppressing, in your example, gays, blacks, ans women, but the societal construct we live in harms more than just those groups. Everyone in the society we live in undergoes immense pressure to behave and think a certain way, including straight white males. As a simple example, how much is a girl made fun of for wanting to play football vs. how much is a boy made fun of for wanting to do ballet? The blind hatred of men in general for supporting the "Patriarchy" which is the hallmark of modern feminism is incredibly damaging in my opinion.

  • [-]
  • stevejavson
  • 29 Points
  • 22:27:42, 6 August

I see it this way. When we look at these oppressive institutions, we can look at who's making the big decisions.

Let's pick something random, let's pick the portrayal of men and women in video games. We can say that women are given unrealistic sexualized body standards, and that men are given unrealistic muscular body types. We can say that both of these types of portrayals have negative consequences on the people we expose them to.

But then we look at the people who make the games. The board of directors, the presidents, the people in positions of power in these companies are mainly men, and always have been. The men at the top are oppressing women, and at the same time, men who may not live up to those standards. The main problem I have with the MR movement is that they tend to shift the blame onto women or feminism, when these problems were created by rich influential white men. Now I admit, feminism has been, and is doing a pretty shitty job of addressing men's issues but I would hardly say that they're the ones who are responsible for the creation or maintennance of these roles.

Feminism also has a concept called benevolent sexism that may address your football vs ballet example. I have to leave in a few minutes so I can't offer detailed commentary but basically, men are not socially allowed to do those things is because women are still seen as inferior. Why can't a strait man act gay? Why can't a white man act black? Why can't a rich man act poor? Basically, men are discouraged from acting like women because men are better than that. It's the same reason society have popular phrases like "beat by a girl!" or call a man who receives the penis the "bitch"

  • [-]
  • DoctorGlass
  • 32 Points
  • 05:07:26, 7 August

I have a major issue with your example, though it will probably get buried at this point. The "makers" of the games (board of directors et al) are not the one making the decisions about gender roles in the games. This is driven by the market. Most game buyers are young adult or teenage males who spend a lot of time preoccupied with sex. They wish to envision themselves as the well proportioned muscular hero, and want to imagine winning these over-sexualized women through their masculine prowess. Like so many other things, it is a microcosm of the mating dance in its traditional form. Thus, the indoctrination toward gender policing is propagated.

This is the true enemy, and it's unfortunate because it's a much more nebulous and difficult challenge to overcome than simply blaming the men at the top and seeking to displace them. If more women purchased these games things might change, but then perhaps not... how many publications like Cosmo propagate the disgusting old feminine stereotypes? We (both genders) do it to ourselves, and that is the sort of thing the MRA folks are trying to speak about, and being fought so hard against for. It is not just top-down but more bottom-up that is the problem, and the current fascist direction feminism is taking will never even begin to address the real problem - it is blind to it.

  • [-]
  • alaysian
  • 9 Points
  • 17:47:32, 7 August

> I have a major issue with your example, though it will probably get buried at this point. The "makers" of the games (board of directors et al) are not the one making the decisions about gender roles in the games. This is driven by the market. Most game buyers are young adult or teenage males who spend a lot of time preoccupied with sex. They wish to envision themselves as the well proportioned muscular hero, and want to imagine winning these over-sexualized women through their masculine prowess. Like so many other things, it is a microcosm of the mating dance in its traditional form. Thus, the indoctrination toward gender policing is propagated.

Go look at the covers of some romance novels for me. Read some. Tell me what the men in those books are like. They are very similar to heroes in games. The "male power fantasy" is a fantasy in part because that's what women desire. The shirtless men with ripped bodies on the cover could easily fit in any number of video games and not be out of place. I can see a character with christian grey's personality easily fit into any number of games.

Not to mention that a sexual attractive and powerful woman is preferable to play as for most girls to an ugly and powerful woman.

  • [-]
  • Slyndrr
  • 3 Points
  • 08:52:00, 7 August

This nebolous, cultural explanation of patriarchy is actually very prevalent and normal in feminist theory. This is why a lot of the current feminism centers on changing and educating about culture - demanding equality in cultural representation from those who create culture through consumer action and criticism. This is why such "minor" issues like objectifying music videos or advertising are targets.

This gets ridiculed. I am happy that you understand it.

  • [-]
  • tishtok
  • 0 Points
  • 16:54:28, 7 August

>If more women purchased these games things might change

According to a recent survey done by the Entertainment Software Association, women do buy substantial amounts of video games. Blaming the market is a circular problem, and it lets makers of games off the hook. You can say "the market would never buy this game", and in turn never produce it. And then of course nobody's opinions will have changed. You have to give things a fair chance before concluding they won't work. If makers of the games don't take the first step and lead by example, they can forever make excuses about "target demographics", but that's all it is: excuses. I'm willing to wager that, just as many women consume these games despite their portrayals of women--because the games are just good-- so too would young boys and men continue consuming games if sexualized portrayals of men and women were left out.

  • [-]
  • logic11
  • 3 Points
  • 17:28:38, 7 August

If I could figure out a game that women would buy, and get funding for it, and make millions of dollars, why the hell would I fight that? Most people who run game studios are in it to make money, and for no other reason. It's more of a matter of risk. We know what has sold in the past, and if we can match that, then we can make shitloads of money... if we challenge that we could lose shitloads of money. Again, it's a simple matter of economics... there just aren't that many people left who are trying to keep women down.

In order for the game industry to change, someone has to come out with a smash hit game that sells to women as the primary audience. Since the people who are trying to get women more involved in gaming are either a: mattell or b: trying to tell other people what not to do instead of doing it themselves, I don't see it happening soon.

As to me, I just don't have an idea for a game for women, or access to capital.

  • [-]
  • Felicia_Svilling
  • 0 Points
  • 13:51:16, 7 August

> This is the true enemy, and it's unfortunate because it's a much more nebulous and difficult challenge to overcome than simply blaming the men at the top and seeking to displace them.

This! This true enemy is the thing that feminists have labeled the patriarchy. When we talk about "tearing down the patriarchy", we don't mean a shadowy group of men, we mean the the nebulous sexist ideas that exist everywhere in society from Cosmo advice to the market for video games.

  • [-]
  • dragead
  • 7 Points
  • 17:32:27, 7 August

If that is what you mean by 'patriarchy', I feel like you should get a new term for it, because it isn't a problem caused by or inherent to men. It seems to me that this driving force is just something native to much of nature, the idea of gender roles and ideals. All societies have them and even many animals have specific gender roles. So I reject the term 'patriarchy' because I feel that if your true target is cultural perceptions, there is no reason to make the term masculine OR feminine in nature.

  • [-]
  • logic11
  • 4 Points
  • 17:23:16, 7 August

Then framing is a major problem for you... because that isn't the patriarchy, nor is it even rooted in masculinity (toxic or otherwise). Some of it is rooted in simple gender differences, other in social differences, many of which actually come from women (who might not even be wrong... to a point). When I go to the grocery store I look at the covers of the fashion mags and I am horrified. Having said that, the fashion industry is far from run by straight white males. Re-frame the struggle as being against stereotypes, and there will be more traction, the patriarchy simply doesn't exist to fight.

  • [-]
  • cacophonousdrunkard
  • 38 Points
  • 23:07:08, 6 August

I might be in the minority here, but I do not see the men's rights movement as being implicitly anti-feminist or anti-women. I also don't think it's correct to say that the problems men face in society are solely "the fault of rich influential white men". I don't think it's really correct to blame any racial group or gender for what has been an extremely long-standing practice of vigilant gender policing in general across virtually every culture.

I think men's rights is just about giving the people a voice who seem to be constantly told that they don't deserve one. Who are constantly told to "man up" and quit bitching because in the views of the "other groups" they already have it better than everyone else. If that's how you really feel, why aren't you constantly telling all white poor people that they aren't allowed to complain about being poor? After all, rich white people control the world!

More simply: why would powerful, happy, un-oppressed people ever complain about the status quo?

  • [-]
  • stevejavson
  • 12 Points
  • 02:08:26, 7 August

That's the thing about intersectionality. From a third wave feminist perspective, if you're a poor white man, your gender and your race are priviledges, while you being poor is not. Your oppression would come from you being poor, but not you being white or a man. At least that's how I understand it. I don't exactly agree completely with the theory

  • [-]
  • SpacyisRoot
  • 1 Points
  • 02:50:02, 7 August

The problem I have with intersectionality is that it is a made up term for the analysis of novels. It might, or might not apply to the real world, and feminism as a movement has made little real sociological effort to categorize or understand it. When you say things like "You gender and your race are privileges", you are throwing meaningless phrases around. What does white privilege mean? How much does it affect an individuals everyday life? How does that compare to being poor?

Essentially you can claim privilege exists, and you can point to examples, but you cannot really justify it. You cannot say, being white helps out and individual 5 times more then not in western former British colonies. Sociology is a field of study, it has controls and methods, use them and gather data. Instead of claiming "White men have privilege", go forth into the world and claim "White men born in the US see x% better odds of success because of these factors. This keeps you from chasing an unreachable revenge driven dream and instead keeps the movement focused on helping people. Third wave Feminism however is still too closely tied to its post-modernist roots and its academic discourse reads more like literary critiques and less like a social science studies, which weakens any points, valid or invalid, that they try to make.

Note: This is not just a problem with third wave feminism. Second wave feminism did much the same with the hard science (Irigaray anyone?)

  • [-]
  • luxury_banana
  • 1 Points
  • 04:21:17, 7 August

It's hard to agree with that it when those poor white men are then discriminated against with quotas and affirmative action because of supposed "privilege" which no one can show any demonstrable proof of. It becomes less of a theory and more of an identity politics dogma because it assumes that every white man is born with a silver spoon in his mouth when anyone who knows what the distribution of wealth throughout our society looks like can plainly see that is nowhere near the truth.

  • [-]
  • deadlast
  • 0 Points
  • 16:04:51, 7 August

Well, I would phrase it differently: I don't think intersectionality analysis would deny that particular manifestations of oppression target people both because they are poor and because they are male.

  • [-]
  • Blackblade_
  • 25 Points
  • 05:02:56, 7 August

>Let's pick something random, let's pick the portrayal of men and women in video games. We can say that women are given unrealistic sexualized body standards, and that men are given unrealistic muscular body types. We can say that both of these types of portrayals have negative consequences on the people we expose them to.

Really? Are you sure we can say that? Because I'm not really sure that is a reasonable claim. Do you have any evidence to support that? I'm sure you can at least cite a study that shows a correlation (at the very least) between amount of video games played and negative body image issues. Right?

Except you can't produce such a study, because there is no evidence to suggest that. It's pure, baseless supposition. It also ignores the reality that the many (probably most) young girls don't play a lot of video games, particularly console games, and yet tend to develop the same issues. It also ignores the reality that the vast majority of video games that get played don't have any kind of sexualized imagery (remember, Windows Solitaire is one of the most played games in history, as are Tetris, Minesweeper, etc.), and that for most of the history of video games realistic bodies were not even possible with the available technology.

There really isn't any actual evidence for these hypotheses of feminism, just a lot of dogmatic assertion, often -- such as these silly arguments over video games -- backed up by the most trivial sort of examples. Video games aren't giving girls body issues any more than they are making boys into school shooters. Parents and peers have far more influence than the glurge of mass media, and when it comes to mass media, Seventeen has far more to blame than Bayonetta.

See, what there is strong evidence for is that girls begin to experience negative body image issues around puberty, when other girls begin bullying each other over body issues, fashion choices, and other issues of gender identity. At the same time girls begin their whisper campaigns against each other, boys begin violently enforcing gender norms on other boys.

This isn't because of patriarchy (which is unfalsifiable conspiracy theory), it's because of puberty. Gender identity is a nontrivial component of sexual identity, and the formation of sexual identities is a turbulent time for humans. Children (cisgendered, heteosexual children) become obsessed with the opposite gender and attracting their attention, and while mass media does certainly have some influence, it's peers that exert the majority of pressure on each other to conform to the local gender expectation.

>...but basically, men are not socially allowed to do those things is because women are still seen as inferior.

So, for example, if someone describe a man as effeminate and girly, that would be bad because women are seen as inferior, and effeminate and girly are feminine traits associated with women.

That makes perfect sense. That's why it's a compliment to say a woman looks "mannish" or is "built like a boy."

When a theory completely fails to explain the facts, its time for a new theory.

  • [-]
  • CrazyEyeJoe
  • 2 Points
  • 15:32:17, 7 August

Compare girly guy to tomboy.

Looks is only a small part of the equation. A woman that acts like a man is seen as empowered, while a man that acts like a woman is seen as weak.

  • [-]
  • Blackblade_
  • 9 Points
  • 15:44:54, 7 August

Sure...after forty years of feminism challenging female gender roles. Tomboy used to be an insult, and certainly not an aspiration.

  • [-]
  • logic11
  • 7 Points
  • 17:43:36, 7 August

Tomboy was a serious insult for a very long time, something that might be okay for a small child, but a terrible thing for an adult.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 2 Points
  • 21:57:59, 7 August

>But then we look at the people who make the games. The board of directors, the presidents, the people in positions of power in these companies are mainly men, and always have been.

The only thing they care about is money. Big muscles and jiggly tits is what sells to young adults (fucking obviously) and this wouldn't change if they were women instead. People like to pretend that under a matriarchy teenage boys will all of a sudden start wearing spandex and playing Barbie Horse Adventure. Get real, man.

  • [-]
  • silverionmox
  • 4 Points
  • 10:17:02, 7 August

>But then we look at the people who make the games. The board of directors, the presidents, the people in positions of power in these companies are mainly men, and always have been. The men at the top are oppressing women, and at the same time, men who may not live up to those standards.

If that's a problem, that implies that there are essential differences between men and women, which completely contradicts the idea that men and women are equallly capable for all intents and purposes.

I suppose Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Hillary Clinton, Benazhir Buto, Indira Gandhi, Dilma Roussef, Angela Merkel, etc. are all transvestites then? Institutions that are essential in perpetuating gender stereotypes, eg. beauty magazines, also often have a large majority of women involved.

Even assuming it's all true, then we still have a society where 99% of men and women (error margin of 1%) are suppressed by the top 1%. I don't see how that is particularly advantageous to men, or made to benefit men in any way. It's made to benefit the 1%, switching genders of the top won't change anything. Unless you believe the "if women ruled the world there would be no war" sexist claptrap.

  • [-]
  • Tenfcne
  • 0 Points
  • 00:42:10, 8 August

> which completely contradicts the idea that men and women are equallly capable for all intents and purposes.

Is this the idea underlying your support for feminism? Suppose tomorrow something convinces you that this isn't true, statistically women are much better CEOs while men make greater politicians and that this isn't the result of some social norm but actually a real difference hard coded in our genes.

What about your views on equality would change? Would "women shouldn't be allowed to run for office" be acceptable as policy or even less offensive?

  • [-]
  • silverionmox
  • 3 Points
  • 07:00:25, 8 August

> Is this the idea underlying your support for feminism?

It's a corollary of your what you said.

>Suppose tomorrow something convinces you that this isn't true, statistically women are much better CEOs while men make greater politicians and that this isn't the result of some social norm but actually a real difference hard coded in our genes. What about your views on equality would change? Would "women shouldn't be allowed to run for office" be acceptable as policy or even less offensive?

No, equal rights are equal rights. The thing is that something else than a 50-50 gender ratio isn't automatic proof of discrimination then.

We don't enforce that the top three winning athletes of olympic disciplines must be a Caucasian, African and Asian either.

  • [-]
  • HeatDeathIsCool
  • 1 Points
  • 06:26:21, 7 August

> but the societal construct we live in harms more than just those groups.

Nobody ever said it didn't. Feminists will tell you that men have a lot to gain from the destruction of gender norms. Even you admitted that stevejavson only posted an example, not an all-inclusive list.

> The blind hatred of men in general for supporting the "Patriarchy" which is the hallmark of modern feminism is incredibly damaging in my opinion.

This is a straw man. Blind hatred of men is not a hallmark of modern feminism. It is a stance taken by a small number of radical feminists.

  • [-]
  • revsehi
  • 2 Points
  • 15:15:26, 7 August

Unfortunately, though, that small group of radical feminists has become the quite vocal "face" of feminism. Ask 90% of people what feminism is and you will get "the people who hate men" and such.

  • [-]
  • HeatDeathIsCool
  • 1 Points
  • 15:48:30, 7 August

>Unfortunately, though, that small group of radical feminists has become the quite vocal "face" of feminism.

That's not what I see in places like /r/feminism or /r/AskFeminists. You have to go looking to find radical feminism, or hang out with teenagers on tumblr.

>Ask 90% of people what feminism is and you will get "the people who hate men" and such.

And most of these people haven't done any reading on feminism or given it serious thought. When 90% of people say feminists hate men, it acts as an echo chamber and nobody bothers to check and see if it's correct. A large group of people at one time believed that Obama was a muslim from Kenya, that doesn't mean being a muslim from Kenya was a hallmark of Obama.

  • [-]
  • logic11
  • 3 Points
  • 17:47:01, 7 August

No, that is the face they see... of course they don't read up on it. Why should they? When the face of feminism they see is the Warren Farrell debacle at U of T the desire to see more just doesn't exist.

Tell the truth, I was recently shocked by having one of my students say that she "Knew a feminist and she wasn't that bad really". It's not the world I grew up in (where everyone was a feminist)... feminism is losing support among younger people, largely due to having to do research to find out what "real" feminism is.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 10 Points
  • 01:48:39, 7 August

At a Queer conference I attended "intersectionality" manifested as a reverse dominance hierarchy that was terrifying to witness. I DO NOT want to live in that world.

  • [-]
  • Karmaze
  • 2 Points
  • 11:00:56, 7 August

It's actually FOURTH-wave feminism as the introduction of intersections. Third-wave is still about the empowerment of white middle/upper class women.

It's more complicated than just waves however. There's been a real splintering of the feminist movement. As such, discussing it in terms of "waves" doesn't make much sense, and it causes a lot of confusion.

The bone of contention is how much should identity politics be leaned on in terms of achieving equality. Equity feminists/egalitarians/fourth-wave feminists generally believe that identity politics reinforce stereotypical tropes in our society and that this does more harm than good. Gender Feminists/NeoFeminists believe that these tropes will not subside over time on their own, and that direct action must be taken to ensure equality.

So basically it's about equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome.

  • [-]
  • StuntPotato
  • -5 Points
  • 22:00:59, 6 August

The term feminism is polluted, and it comes off as pure misandry to me. /u/Kuato2012 is spot on.

  • [-]
  • stevejavson
  • 21 Points
  • 22:02:26, 6 August

I can say the same thing about Mens Rights since misogynists from places like /r/TheRedPill also take up that label.

  • [-]
  • baskandpurr
  • 10 Points
  • 22:39:11, 6 August

However, if you read discussions on /r/MensRights you will see that misogynists are downvoted, deleted and in the worst cases banned. In fact they are the only people who get banned from the sub. Does the same happen in a feminist sub? Genuine question, I truly don't know. Do people get banned for espousing misandry?

  • [-]
  • stevejavson
  • 7 Points
  • 02:09:01, 7 August

Depends on the sub. The more fringe ones like SRS tend not to, but if you go on somewhere like /r/feminism or /r/askfeminists, you don't really see a lot of it.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 2 Points
  • 19:20:20, 7 August

I got banned from /r/askfeminists for saying that men and women could be equal because "my view did not represent a feminist viewpoint."

  • [-]
  • kearvelli
  • 0 Points
  • 00:29:41, 7 August

> Do people get banned for espousing misandry?

No, they are upvoted and celebrated.

  • [-]
  • baskandpurr
  • 2 Points
  • 00:56:07, 7 August

Is that actually true? Are there some examples you could link?

  • [-]
  • deadlast
  • 0 Points
  • 15:39:14, 7 August

>In third wave feminism, we are taught that things like race, disabilities, sexuality, gender identity etc act as other axis of oppression that can interact with patriarchy. For example, women are oppressed. Black women are more oppressed. Gay black women are even more oppressed etc.

Differently oppressed as well as "more or less oppressed."

  • [-]
  • rpglover64
  • 8 Points
  • 00:05:03, 7 August

> the male-centric "patriarchy" that feminists see as the main societal problem.

I believe this is a mischaracterization: it is the primary societal problem that feminism chooses to address, but most feminists do not believe that it is the primary problem; this is evidenced by various branches of feminism with slightly different foci (anarcho-feminism, queer-feminism, and womanism come to mind) and by the rise of the more inclusive (and IMO less useful) term "kyriarchy".

  • [-]
  • In_between_minds
  • 0 Points
  • 09:28:38, 7 August

The problem comes, and many other groups are guilty of this too, when you say "x is flawed, so lets completely destroy it" not "x is flawed, lets work on fixing it" (not the work, because then you can make, and reach identifiable goals). But, it is easy to destroy, it is easy to rail against "the greater power" and do nothing of worth, it is easy to set vague pie in the sky goals, it is hard to create, to improve, to break down problems into smaller pieces and work on big things as a process, and humans like easy.

We don't need a revolution, we need evolution.

  • [-]
  • sworebytheprecious
  • 1 Points
  • 06:53:39, 7 August

Excuse me? Second wave feminists did quite enough porn and sex oppressing, unification with the right, classisim, and trans excluding on their own. They were quite oppressive in their own right.

  • [-]
  • Reddit2013_2
  • -1 Points
  • 00:24:02, 7 August

2nd wave did that, when everyone thought it was a movement for pampered upper middle class women. third wave was every other femenine group deciding to own the victimization bit, and turning into a kind of power trip

  • [-]
  • liberator-sfw
  • 14 Points
  • 23:23:21, 7 August

yep. men taking up arms in favor of feminism because the patriarchy hurts men too is scoffed at as "wat about the menz"-ing.

And a lot of people who have been hurt by the patriarchy see the patriarchy's "collateral damage" as an opportunity to exact revenge.

Let's just defenestrate Godwin's Law right away and consider how the jews in a nazi concentration camp would react if one of the nazi soldiers were rejected by their superiors and sent down into the same pits of torment. Doesn't matter if the nazi was just a cook, or just a carpenter, or just a doctor, or just a tailor, or just a quartermaster or any number of the hundreds of background logistical roles that don't involve directly murdering and/or torturing jews, he's still 'one of them' and therefore guilty of everything the entire organization ever did.

Likewise, being born male means being born with the original sin of all the crap men ever did to women over the eons, in the eyes of that particularly loud minority that just thirsts to hurt 'the other side'. but, lol misandry dont real.

I can't really fault anyone for attacking the patriarchy. It's definitely a thing. The problem is they're not attacking The Patriarchy; they're attacking The Patriarchy's refuse because it smells the same. It's an honest mistake and most don't even realize that it's not the correct thing to do.

Nope. We're just collateral damage.

But we can take it! Because we're MEN! That's what everyone keeps telling us! We're so privileged and advantaged, right?

I hope whoever is reading this can sense the sarcasm.

It's really a huge catch-22. But I (usually) know better than to open my mouth lest I come under fire from vengeful victims AND brutal authorities.

... it'd actually almost be amusing, in a shockingly tragic way, if more guys who reject masculinity and its roles started becoming trans just because the same people who attack them the most now seem to almost knee-jerk jump to the defense of someone between genders.

  • [-]
  • AdumbroDeus
  • 37 Points
  • 22:28:35, 6 August

It's cause they lack perspective on men's issues, while feminists do see men's and women's issues as two sides of the patriarchy (and to their credit, feminism has supported a fair number of men's issues) it's easy not recognize the men's issues due to this lack of perspective. Add that to the fact that a number of feminists are rather bitter because of all the shit the patriarchy has put them through (because keep in mind, women are treated as objects without exception, men are only punished if they step outside of their role, which is a minority) and you see why this is such an easy reaction.

But the solution isn't to oppose feminism, it's to form organizations that tackle this issue from the other side. While the MRM looks like that's what it's trying to do, it is functionally a take-down organization for feminism because it chooses to view feminism as an agent of oppression for men rather then another organization dedicated to fight the patriarchy. And so it's supporters talk about how much happier women were in the 50s and the like, and in so doing they poison the name. Meanwhile, it's the lgbt movement that's actually doing substantivie things to disassemble male gender roles.

  • [-]
  • Isabelle50
  • 21 Points
  • 01:48:03, 7 August

>While the MRM looks like that's what it's trying to do, it is functionally a take-down organization for feminism because it chooses to view feminism as an agent of oppression for men rather then another organization dedicated to fight the patriarchy. And so it's supporters talk about how much happier women were in the 50s and the like, and in so doing they poison the name.

This is right in line with what I've seen of the MRM. NeuroticIntrovert's post does an excellent job of explaining the theory behind it and the reason it should be theoretically a constructive movement. Functionally though, the sub at least is overrun with stories of how terrible women are, any step forward by women is viewed as a step backwards for men, literally any story of rape or sexual violence is dismissed as lies. Entire threads are devoted to disproving sexual assault statistics and incidents and minimizing it as an issue.

Its not a nice place.

  • [-]
  • amaefm
  • 39 Points
  • 04:38:24, 7 August

To respond to a point, there are terrible women. Just as there are men who are physically and verbally abusive or misogynistic, there are women who use and abuse men. The difference is an angry hurt woman has a venue to unleash that anger and tell stories about abuse at the hands of men and are supported. A man who has been equally mistreated doesn't have a judgement free space to talk about it because people like you automatically label them misogynists. The things you see in mra are a lashing out response to this. While I no longer sub there because at some level I agree with you, although I think it's much less prevalent than you portray, a segment of the community is usurping the mra movement to vent their own hostility, I think that is far from the nature of the movement. Further more, as a man who has been falsely accused of rape it's incredibly scary how powerful such a claim can be. I abhor rape, but to deny that evil women don't use it as a power tool is naive. Luckily in my case this girl was trying to play my friend against me and the law was never involved but it was incredibly scary, I almost began to question myself, it was like being gaslighted. As a 30 yr old man who has only been with 3 women in my life, I'm far from a rapist but I was still scared. Nothing in life is black and white, cut the mra's a break.

  • [-]
  • Isabelle50
  • -1 Points
  • 05:53:37, 7 August

> To respond to a point, there are terrible women.

Of course. But I have little sympathy when those cases are bandied about as though they represent the gender as a whole. I feel the same way about feminists who use similar tactics against men. Those examples call for critical analysis of the situation - not fuel for hatred of a group at large.

Sorry about your experience with that girl. People who make false accusations are the lowest of the low.

  • [-]
  • whitneytrick
  • 14 Points
  • 07:12:53, 7 August

>But I have little sympathy when those cases are bandied about as though they represent the gender as a whole.

Usually these cases are "bandied about" to show how the legal system and culture enable the few women who do this stuff, not to say "women are like that".

  • [-]
  • tallwheel
  • 14 Points
  • 06:06:49, 7 August

> cases are bandied about as though they represent the gender as a whole.

I think the point is, rather, to dispel the image that women are all good and never do bad things, because that is honestly the image of women that a lot of people seem to have.

  • [-]
  • ModerateDbag
  • 4 Points
  • 07:16:18, 7 August

>I think the point is, rather, to dispel the image that women are all good and never do bad things

I find this really difficult to agree with. The first thing I thought of was how it is an insult to tell someone "they're acting like a girl" and that they should "be a man." Additionally, women are often just assumed to be incompetent or not as knowledgeable as men in professional settings. Girls who enjoy video games constantly have to prove that they they aren't "faking it for male attention". Women in STEM fields face a similar constant assault regarding the legitimacy of their interests. Women are often stereotyped as being materialistic, withholding, scheming, gossipy, and frivolous.

As a dude in a STEM field, I see this negative stereotyping of women happen multiple times daily by peers. In the same setting, I can't remember if I've ever actually seen what you suggested. Sometimes it feels like we're all on a ship in the 1500's and people want to constantly bring up how it's unlucky to have a woman on board.

>because that is honestly the image of women that a lot of people seem to have.

I think what you are perceiving as an image of women is actually an expectation. Historically, women have been told that they should be obedient, polite, quiet, and generally not make a fuss, essentially reducing them to an ornamental status.

So when you say a lot of people have this image, it's not that they think women are good and never do bad things, but they're being informed by an anachronistic expectation of what a woman should be. When women inevitably don't fit this, they either get upset with the woman who didn't conform to their standard, or they feel betrayed.

  • [-]
  • tallwheel
  • 11 Points
  • 08:48:46, 7 August

However, from an egalitarian point of view, you can see that there are flip sides to everything you mentioned above. The phrase "be a man" also enforces expectations on a male which he must live up to. The image of women being weaker can also relieve women of difficult responsibilities - a type of discrimination that, as a man, I wouldn't mind being subject to sometimes in certain situations.

Yes, I certainly agree all of this is bad for women (as well as men). But we have to acknowledge the fact that there still seems to be a reaction of shock whenever the news airs a story of a woman killer, or a woman pedophile. The image of women as good even leads people to try to justify the bad woman's actions. 'She must have been abused'. 'The boy probably wanted it anyway'. There is the reaction of disbelief that a woman would do something bad without having a very good reason why she abandoned her better judgement. Also the reason why women generally get lighter sentences, or no sentence at all.

These things are bad for women, yes, but also bad for men. I see two sides to the coin of every expectation we have about males vs. females and their gender norms.

Yes, I genuinely believe the main purpose of posting stories of bad women on /r/mensrights is to show that women can be bad too - because there are still plenty of people even on MRM forums who still haven't really internalized this. The purpose isn't to say "See? All women are bad to the core." Most MRA's acknowledge that there are both bad men and bad women.

  • [-]
  • ModerateDbag
  • 0 Points
  • 20:28:15, 7 August

We both agree that there are societal expectations for men and women that disadvantage them, and that wasn't really what I was trying to draw attention to in my comment. I think our fundamental disagreement is this: I don't see the prevalence of the idea that "women are fundamentally good" so much as I see the idea that "women are fragile and need to be treated like children."

Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say that there is an idea that women are good and don't do bad things? Where did it originate historically, what does it mean to say that women are good, how do you know that the explanation for why the public can't accept a woman serial killer is because she violated the "good" expectation rather than physical violence being something that is considered masculine? "Women aren't capable of killing because killing is bad and women are good" vs. "Women aren't capable of killing because physical violence, irrespective of it being a good or bad thing, is only something that manly men do?"

>Yes, I genuinely believe the main purpose of posting stories of bad women on /r/mensrights is to show that women can be bad too...The purpose isn't to say "See? All women are bad to the core."

I think you're right, in a sense. But I think we see a very different /r/mensrights. Instead of challenging that expectation, I think these stories tend to make the dialogue focus on advantage. That is to say, it might focus on how a woman is more likely to get away with being a serial killer than a man, giving her an unfair advantage based on her gender. I don't think it's a remote exaggeration to say that /r/mensrights two largest issues are rape and custody (obviously there are many other issues, suicide, workplace deaths, military, etc. They seem to take a back burner to rape and custody though). Specifically, how men are disadvantaged by power society has granted women in their related scenarios. I don't think it's possible to have a productive dialogue about advantage, because it devolves into a game of trying to prove who has it worse.

Academic feminism focuses specifically on expectations and gender roles for this precise reason. Academic feminists and the NAACP get along very well and often work together. If either party wanted to make societal advantage the issue, they'd be at a massive impasse.

  • [-]
  • tallwheel
  • 1 Points
  • 00:57:38, 8 August

>I think these stories tend to make the dialogue focus on advantage.

Yeah. You're right. The other purpose is to show how women often are punished less severely than men.

>Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say that there is an idea that women are good and don't do bad things?

I don't have any more elaborate explanation than that the image of females is that they are more nurturing, and less capable of violence since their bodies are generally weaker. Also, I am a believer in evo-psych, and that the drive to protect women is instinctual, and unconsciously built-in to the human brain. It's probably more complicated than all this, but I believe these are the roots of it all.

  • [-]
  • vehementi
  • -11 Points
  • 15:13:52, 7 August

> A man who has been equally mistreated doesn't have a judgement free space to talk about it because people like you automatically label them misogynists.

What a shitty liar you are, liar. Shame on you.

  • [-]
  • amaefm
  • 3 Points
  • 17:43:07, 9 August

I'm not telling any sort of lies, that was an opinion I hold and not a black and white fact. Please put your prejudice aside and examine the point I was trying to make before commenting with irrelevant spew.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 3 Points
  • 17:17:18, 7 August

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • thekadar81
  • 1 Points
  • 18:03:24, 10 August

I do not hesitate to agree that, at certain places and times, women were oppressed more than men. However, I do not currently think that is true in the US currently. Men face considerable institutional sexism in the modern US.

  • [-]
  • AdumbroDeus
  • 5 Points
  • 02:39:26, 7 August

That's exactly it, and just today I found out why, thanks to /u/apathia. Apparently the MRM is the result of a split in men's liberation, both saw men's gender roles as damaging, but the MRM saw the source of male gender roles as matriarchy whereas men's liberation saw the source as patriarchy. The result is MRM opposes feminism as it's thesis, but unfortunately I don't see men's liberation as having a visable presence anymore, leaving the MRM able to spout legitimate complaints but present itself as the only option for people concerned about male gender roles, ingrained anti-feminism and all.

Of course clear liberation is still alive and well, and still a major player against male gender roles, but men's lib needs to be revitalized.

  • [-]
  • Dworgi
  • 36 Points
  • 07:52:37, 7 August

The anti-feminism in MRM is about men's issues being dismissed out of hand, because men are privileged and can't have problems. If you're cis, het, male and white? "Wow, just shut up, you have things so great you're not allowed to complain."

That's a toxic attitude to trying to fix things that are actually wrong. Sexual abuse or domestic abuse doesn't magically not happen to cishet white males.

The anti-feminist slant of men's rights isn't anti-women, it's anti-feminist. There's a big difference.

Men's liberation was just absorbed by feminism, because they supported the core feminist tenet of "all bad things in the world are due to men". It's not coming back.

  • [-]
  • AdumbroDeus
  • -4 Points
  • 08:16:57, 7 August

You're been spending too much time with talking with the yellow square from this comic: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2939

In my experience with feminists they see men's issues caused by the patriarchy as part of the same problem.

That said, most aren't interested in how bad gender conforming straight white cis males have it because it's not their area and you know what, generally speaking that position gives a lot of advantages. It's just like when christians in the US complain about how everyone's persecuting them.

But when white cis males aren't gender conforming either by choice (I wanna be a stay at home dad) or it's forced upon them (I'm a victim of DV, I was raped, or I'm gay) now feminism is interested in it. Unfortunately they lack the perspective to really handle these issues so they'll support movements handling this won't really tackle it on their own.

Feminism recognizes men has problems, but you gotta recognize a movement primarily composed of women won't really know how best to tackle men's issues. Now add that they consider it presumptive of them to dictate how men's gender issues should be handled and you see why they don't really take the lead on men's issues.

  • [-]
  • Dworgi
  • 14 Points
  • 08:25:46, 7 August

> Unfortunately they lack the perspective to really handle these issues so they'll support movements handling this won't really tackle it on their own.

But that's the problem, they don't support MRM. They viciously and violently oppose it wherever it appears.

We don't want them to take the lead, we just want them not to try to destroy the movement, because it's trying to do the same thing for men as first wave feminism did for women - address institutionalized sexism.

  • [-]
  • AdumbroDeus
  • -5 Points
  • 08:41:05, 7 August

but institutionalized sexism for men is in many cases directly tied to and reinforcing feminist social issues. Feminism supports paternal leave for example, seeing the only have maternal leave as being one of the major creators of the wage gap and part of a general system that expects women to be primarily responsible for child care. Far from opposing the end of institutionalized sexism against men, they support it!

I mean there's still divorce proceedings but let's be practical, a lot more needs to be done to equalize child rearing expectations before wages will equalize, men will have equality in custody fights, and ultimately women won't be in a far weaker position to support themselves (and the inevitable kid(s) they get custody of post divorce).

  • [-]
  • Dworgi
  • 13 Points
  • 08:53:32, 7 August

Divorce is one. Education of men, homelessness, prison sentences, suicide, domestic violence and sexual abuse are some of the others that get much less media attention. Because hey, paternity leave is easy.

  • [-]
  • AdumbroDeus
  • 1 Points
  • 09:30:51, 7 August

Paternity leave is easy, but if feminism just wanted to screw men whenever possible they wouldn't touch anything. Here's the thing, feminism probably agrees with you about pretty much all those topics because the issues are tied to both male and female gender roles, but because they're men's issues they lack the perspective to really know how to handle it, and they're gonna look at MRM's attempts at handling it as a poisoned well because of their vitrohalic opposition to feminism.

but honestly, look at your topics and ask yourself, which of those aren't based on a male gender role that has a female gender role flip side. Homelessness for example? Well men are expected to be providers, so provider/nurturer dynamic. DV? Men are supposed to have the power, women are supposed to be helpless.

Feminism has every reason to wanna deal with these issues, because they support them, they just don't really know how to fix men's issues. They'd support a men's movement to deal with these things if there was an anti-feminist one.

  • [-]
  • vehementi
  • -4 Points
  • 15:18:14, 7 August

They support men's rights and equality, and denounce the MRM because of all the shit pointed out in this thread.

Go ahead, step up and change MRM. Outright ban and delete every single post in /r/mensrights that derails and fucks with everything by attacking feminism and making MRM look bad. Delete every post that makes shitty generalizations about women or poses a false equivalence between the magnitude that an issue affects men compared to women (an example here would be the "don't be that girl" posters).

If you fix your movement to not attack other movements and not be super bitterly bigoted, you will see your movement not be laughed at by everyone.

  • [-]
  • Dworgi
  • 2 Points
  • 15:56:56, 7 August

You do the same and we can talk.

And rape isn't equivalent to the prison sentence given for rape? Innocents go to jail because of false accusations, you can't dismiss that as not a serious offense.

  • [-]
  • deadlast
  • 1 Points
  • 16:33:07, 7 August

>And rape isn't equivalent to the prison sentence given for rape? Innocents go to jail because of false accusations, you can't dismiss that as not a serious offense.

"Serious" is not the same thing as "equivalent." Many more people are raped than go to jail because of a false rape accusation. (This is just math-- rape is hard to prove; few rape cases are brought; and even fewer result in a conviction).

  • [-]
  • vehementi
  • -2 Points
  • 16:02:07, 7 August

See, you're just perpetuating the bullshit that makes you look bad. Both by your comment and by your attitude of "I am going to act like a bigoted anti movement piece of shit until the extremists in the other movement act nice". You are part of the reason MRM has no credibility. LOL "you first". Holy shit dude.

  • [-]
  • avantvernacular
  • 2 Points
  • 13:53:04, 7 August

> But when white cis males aren't gender conforming either by choice (I wanna be a stay at home dad) or it's forced upon them (I'm a victim of DV, I was raped, or I'm gay) now feminism is interested in it.

And what about when they don't conform by other choices - the more common ways men don't conform, like dropping out of school, becoming homeless, committing suicide, being imprisoned. Where is feminism's interest then?

  • [-]
  • AdumbroDeus
  • 1 Points
  • 16:37:57, 7 August

These aren't cases of non-gender conformity? I think you need to rethink what society expects of men.

  • [-]
  • avantvernacular
  • 6 Points
  • 16:51:52, 7 August

A man's role in society is dead or in prison?

  • [-]
  • AdumbroDeus
  • 1 Points
  • 23:11:47, 7 August

opposite

  • [-]
  • deadlast
  • 0 Points
  • 16:41:03, 7 August

>the more common ways men don't conform, like dropping out of school, becoming homeless, committing suicide, being imprisoned. Where is feminism's interest then?

Feminists are definitely involved these issues --- but they're categorized as acting as "social progressives" rather than "feminists" when they do so, because men's problems, like the above, and considered normative "social problems" that are not tagged by gender. It's women's problems that are tagged non-normative, gender-based "special interests."

Where is the MR movement on these issues? I haven't noticed any alliance with progressives. Possibly because many, probably most, MRs people are libertarians or social conservatives who don't actually want to dedicate funds to prevent homelessness, assist prisoners, fund suicide-prevention programs, etc., but do want to carp about feminists.

  • [-]
  • avantvernacular
  • 4 Points
  • 16:50:48, 7 August

I believe the survey on /r/men's rights came up more liberal than conservative.

The issues I listed are gendered issues in that they overwhelmingly affect men. 30% more men drop out than women. 80% of all suicides are men. 80% of all homeless are men...event more than 2/3rds of all victims of violent crime are men, and yet we see fit to pass a violence against women act.

And yes the MRM have been working on these addressing these issues since their inception, that is when feminists don't violently try to silence them.

  • [-]
  • deadlast
  • 5 Points
  • 17:57:47, 7 August

>I believe the survey on /r/men's rights came up more liberal than conservative.

Compared to reddit demographics overall? Reddit is overwhelmingly liberal. According to this survey, only 16% of reddit members identified themselves as centrist right (13%), conservative right (2%), or ultra-conservative (1%).

>30% more men drop out than women. 80% of all suicides are men. 80% of all homeless are men...event more than 2/3rds of all victims of violent crime are men, and yet we see fit to pass a violence against women act.

Luckily we have a raft of suicide prevention, homelessness prevention and shelters (including large numbers shelters that only allow), anti-recidivism and crime prevention programs that target men (particularly young men), halfway houses that only accept men, educational intervention systems target at-risk teenage boys, etc. etc.

We don't call these Anti-Male Homeless Prevention Acts, sure, because problems that predominately affect men are not considered "male problems," they're considered "problems." That doesn't mean men's issues less funding; if anything, the fact that men's issues are not considered "special interests" is a benefit. But we have huge numbers of anti-homeless programs that predominately target men. Huge numbers of homeless shelters only accept males.

>event more than 2/3rds of all victims of violent crime are men, and yet we see fit to pass a violence against women act

We also have huge numbers of laws targeted at preventing violent crime and expend huge resources attempting to stop and punish violent crime, the victims of whom, as you note, are mostly male. We spend orders of magnitude more on that than we do on domestic violence shelters.

It's true that we don't call violent crime prevention laws the "Violence Against Men Act" (because problems that mostly affect men are not considered "special interest" problems -- you see this as society not taking men's problems seriously; I see it as quite the opposite). What male-targeted substance would you want in such a bill? Self-defense training for men? I don't think men are more likely to become victims of violent crimes because they are less capable of fighting than women. Violence prevention programs targeted at at-risk young men? These already exist. (And at any rate, that would as easily justify a "Stop Men From Attacking Each Other Act" name, which I can't imagine going over well.). Gang intervention programs don't spend a lot of time trying to keep teen girls out of gangs. These programs exist. They primarily or exclusively target males, and females are an afterthought if included at all. What exactly are you asking for?

At any rate, while the name of the act is the "Violence Against Women Act," the statutory provisions of the law actually are about preventing domestic and sexual violence, and apply equally to male victims. The name is sexist, sure. But the actual issue you've identified seems to be primarily symbolic, not substance.

>And yes the MRM have been working on these addressing these issues since their inception, that is when feminists don't violently try to silence them.

How did that program attempt to address homelessness, violent crime, educational drop outs, etc.? What bills addressing these issues did MRM organizations lobby for this year? MRM just doesn't seem to do a lot of the heavy-lifting on formulating and implementing policy programs or proposal to address homelessness, dropouts, or violent crime.

  • [-]
  • DevonianAge
  • 1 Points
  • 05:12:15, 7 August

Exactly, again.

  • [-]
  • DiMyDarling
  • 0 Points
  • 04:40:54, 7 August

This. I find it difficult to sympathize with the members of the sub when they clearly believe all women use sex as a tool of manipulation, trick men into marriage and/or fatherhood for financial security and "cry rape" for revenge. I read a thread where men were arguing with total sincerity that women who get black-out drunk deserve to be taken advantage of, and it's not rape because they chose to get so drunk. I'm not saying these things don't happen or there aren't gray areas, but when they obviously feel nothing but anger and disdain for women I find it impossible to sympathize with their cause.

  • [-]
  • Dworgi
  • 4 Points
  • 07:54:55, 7 August

Do you say the same thing about feminists who feel nothing but anger and disdain for men?

Lots of women who were abused or hurt by men become radical feminists. Is it so surprising that some men who had the same experiences turn to men's rights?

Both are equally wrong, and misrepresenting the movement as anti-women is disingenuous and/or ignorant.

  • [-]
  • DiMyDarling
  • 1 Points
  • 08:54:50, 7 August

Of course I say the same about women who react that way. Generalizing any one group based on the actions of a few isn't my intention. My comment relates specifically to the MRA subreddit where I find that attitude to dominate. The real tragedy is the way that element draws most of the attention. Extreme feminists do as well but I think people have more experience and familiarity with different types of feminists, not just the crazy ones, while the Men's Rights movement is less well-known so the crazy is all people see.

  • [-]
  • whitneytrick
  • 4 Points
  • 07:14:17, 7 August

>women are treated as objects without exception

you're serious...

  • [-]
  • AdumbroDeus
  • 0 Points
  • 07:26:28, 7 August

I disagree that complaining about objectification is sex negative, you can sexualize assertively, it just isn't generally done for women in our culture.

  • [-]
  • whitneytrick
  • 1 Points
  • 07:37:15, 7 August

the point was that the concept of objectification itself is sex negative.

  • [-]
  • AdumbroDeus
  • 1 Points
  • 07:47:52, 7 August

by that standard so is "safe sex only", you could argue that anything that applies any terms whatsoever to sexuality is sex negative but that makes being sex positive a bad thing. Sexuality in general is a good thing, but sexuality that explicitly reinforces gender roles, not so much

  • [-]
  • whitneytrick
  • 1 Points
  • 08:29:40, 7 August

"Safe sex only" isn't sex negative at all. Objectification, as used in most contexts, is.

  • [-]
  • AdumbroDeus
  • 1 Points
  • 08:31:49, 7 August

how are you defining sex positive and sex negative?

  • [-]
  • whitneytrick
  • 2 Points
  • 12:13:44, 7 August

sex negative feminism: Men thinking about or wanting sex is horrible, men having sexual preferences is horrible, women doing anything with the goal of increasing their sexual attractiveness to men is horrible etc

  • [-]
  • Felicia_Svilling
  • 2 Points
  • 14:01:31, 7 August

How does that follow from talking about objectification?

  • [-]
  • rpglover64
  • 3 Points
  • 00:07:35, 7 August

"prospective" -> "perspective"

That's the only criticism I have; otherwise, your comment is excellent.

  • [-]
  • AdumbroDeus
  • 1 Points
  • 00:50:27, 7 August

fixed thanks

  • [-]
  • Blackblade_
  • 1 Points
  • 05:14:52, 7 August

>(because keep in mind, women are treated as objects without exception, men are only punished if they step outside of their role, which is a minority)

This statement is ridiculous. The role assigned to the vast majority of men globally is either laborer or soldier, and you're deluded if you think that isn't objectification in the exact same sense you're applying it to women.

Even in the Western democracies, the vast majority of men are little more than comfortable, pampered slaves -- meaningless cogs in vast machines that produce wealth and freedom for a very tiny, select few. And I assure you, the daughters of the .1% are part of that few.

  • [-]
  • littleelf
  • 1 Points
  • 01:43:25, 9 August

Horseshit. MGTOW is a part of the MRM, and is literally nothing but men stepping away from their gender roles.

>Women are treated as objects without exception,

So Rosalind Franklin, Marie Curie, Joan of Arc, etc. never existed? They were all fictions invented by the patriarchy?

>men are only punished if they step outside of their role, which is a minority.

So most men signed up for the draft with a smile on their face? So draft dodgers were few and far between?

  • [-]
  • DevonianAge
  • 1 Points
  • 05:11:49, 7 August

Exactly.

  • [-]
  • atrasicarius
  • 2 Points
  • 22:52:17, 7 August

Just because you're not a feminist doesn't mean you have to be an MRA. The thing is, there are no gender stereotypes that negatively affect men specifically, just like there are no gender stereotypes that negatively affect women specifically. It's always a double-edged sword, and to solve the problems of one, you must also solve the problems of the other. But if your movement is explicitly about a single gender right in its name, that fact tends to get lost.

  • [-]
  • ZeNublet
  • 1 Points
  • 06:56:55, 7 August

Note: Not everyone is like this but this is just my personal experience

Exactly. When I was younger I was fully in support of feminism but now that term kills me. In school I had people tell me women deserve all the rights as men then in the very next sentence say it's a man's job to pay for everything she wants and that her money is only for her personal spending.

People say "Men can't get raped. They're dick would just get soft if they didn't want it". Like they genuinely can't see that if you would say that towards a women your instantly a rape apologetic and victim blaming.

They want to be paid the same for less work, get the same "privileges" without worrying about the responsibilities that come with them and to be taken care of and protected like a more important being. They say women were oppressed more than men in every single way throughout history yet don't see all the things men were forced into as well.

I want women to gain rights just as I want men to gain them also. I just want equality and that means both should get the same responsibilities.

  • [-]
  • vehementi
  • 7 Points
  • 15:23:05, 7 August

Who tricked you into thinking current feminism is about any of those things you listed? I hope you're going by first hand anecdotes only and not parroting what other people have told you about feminism being shitty. Because then you can recognize that your views are based on anecdotes, which is flawed, and you can fix your views to more accurately reflect what feminism is today (which makes zero of the arguments / intents you listed). Exalt yourself above this ignorance!

  • [-]
  • fishing-for-downvote
  • 4 Points
  • 22:30:04, 7 August

Have you ever seen "feminists" fighting to show that man can be abused and raped? I haven't.

  • [-]
  • vehementi
  • 3 Points
  • 22:47:29, 7 August

Uh, yes? I'm sorry you feel it is good enough for you to just say "welp, I haven't seen this so it must not exist LOL"

  • [-]
  • fishing-for-downvote
  • 2 Points
  • 22:51:42, 7 August

Can you please show me all the times they have?

  • [-]
  • ass_unicron
  • 1 Points
  • 03:40:42, 8 August

There are a few examples in this thread.

  • [-]
  • vehementi
  • 0 Points
  • 23:12:12, 7 August

I can not and will not. Hopefully you don't feel you've done due diligence here and that it's my responsibility to unfuck your incorrect perception.

  • [-]
  • ZeNublet
  • 1 Points
  • 17:05:05, 7 August

Except this was the students and my teacher in school. Large portion came from family and modern society class which had many self proclaimed feminists.

  • [-]
  • vehementi
  • 5 Points
  • 17:11:53, 7 August

Oh, so some teenagers. Unless you're really saying that your high school modern society class told the class that men can't get raped because their dicks would go soft and that women should be equal but men should pay for everything?

Anyway, rise above the unfortunate but anecdotal experience you had. The MRM in its current form/members, and militant man-hating feminists are both the result of people having a bad experience and generalizing. You can do better!

To be clear, yes, you experienced shitty feminists and it's understandable that you have a bad view of them because so far that's what you've seen, and it's a legitimate commentary on the image problem feminism has (problem: a small % of people have bad views of it like you do). But they aren't the reality of what feminism is, so make sure that part is clear in your head.

  • [-]
  • Klip89
  • 1 Points
  • 18:40:42, 7 August

As someone who sees exactly the same issues with feminism on reddit (and dislikes their speak in general), do you think spaces like /r/mensrights are any better? They polarise, exaggerate and are often misogynistic as hell.

  • [-]
  • Kuato2012
  • 1 Points
  • 23:21:11, 7 August

In my experience, men's rights spaces certainly aren't perfect, but they're better. There's still sexist extremists, but it seems like there's less censorship, and arguments rely more on data and less on emotional appeals. YMMV.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 1 Points
  • 17:09:51, 7 August

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • Kuato2012
  • 1 Points
  • 01:52:42, 8 August

I appreciate the effort you put into your post, though I disagree with some of your fundamental assumptions. I don't think slavers and slaves is an apt analogy. Field slaves and house slaves would work better, IMO. And as it happens, the field slaves have generally been men. To continue the analogy, the house slaves experienced a liberation movement but the field slaves didn't. The now-liberated house slaves keep the house-slave-liberation movement inertia rolling, but can't spare the time of day for those in the fields. They deny that the field slaves require liberating at all, often confusing the field slaves with the slavers. They tell themselves and others that the best way to help the field slaves (when not treating them as an outright enemy) is to continue helping the house slaves. Some of the benefit probably does trickle down to the fields. That still doesn't make it very satisfying to be ignored (or offered 10% of the floor time, which is the best offer I've seen yet) and expected to scrape by on whatever crumbs and bones get thrown your way.

  • [-]
  • Alenonimo
  • 0 Points
  • 23:09:26, 6 August

Gender rights could be a better term to use, right? A mix of men rights and women rights, something towards fixing cultural issues…

  • [-]
  • HeatDeathIsCool
  • -1 Points
  • 05:43:18, 7 August

> I've seen the worst of the sexism, hypocrisy, and dogmatism that feminism has to offer, and I'm decidedly against it.

Are you implying you're not against the worst that the MRM has to offer?

> Huh, these people pretty much never bring up men's issues. It's like they don't give a rat's ass.

Just because they don't talk about men's issues doesn't mean they don't give a rat's ass. While feminism is concerned with gender roles and dismantling the patriarchy, it's still feminism and has a focus on women.

I am a man and I don't want to see articles about men's rights on the feminist blogs and subreddits. Try posting to raise awareness about women's issues in MRAville and see if they're any more accepting than feminist subs are to men's issues.

I would love to subscribe to a subreddit focused on issues that face men in society, but these subs are usually full of complaints about what women have done to men in society. Patriarchy hurts men and women, and it is perpetuated by men and women. Until I can find a well moderated sub that understands that men's issues stem from society itself, I'll do without.

> I'd rather just abandon the polluted term altogether.

MRA is just much of a polluted term as feminism, so why choose that one instead?

  • [-]
  • Kuato2012
  • 2 Points
  • 19:09:11, 7 August

>Are you implying you're not against the worst that the MRM has to offer?

>MRA is just much of a polluted term as feminism, so why choose that one instead?

I don't condone the misogynist fringe of the MRM. I skim to what I like and avoid the rest. This is why I generally don't publicly identify as an MRA, actually. There's a stigma attached (much of which is attributable to libel and slander, IMO) and I don't want people in meatspace thinking that I want women back in the kitchen or whatever nonsense.

But privately, or under the relative anonymity of Internet blogs and forums? Sure, I'm interested in advancing men's rights, and the MRA camp is the only ally I've found so far. Everyone else is either apathetic or outright hostile to the idea.

>Just because they don't talk about men's issues doesn't mean they don't give a rat's ass. While feminism is concerned with gender roles and dismantling the patriarchy, it's still feminism and has a focus on women.

>I am a man and I don't want to see articles about men's rights on the feminist blogs and subreddits.

The reason this rankles me is that there's a bait and switch occurring. If a feminist forum wants to say, "this place is all about women, their experiences, and their voices," that's fine. Their choice. My problem is that many of these same feminist spaces pretend to be the alpha and omega of gender equality movements. They say that advancing men's rights falls under feminism's purview while simultaneously denying any voice to men. They can't have it both ways: either let men fully in, or acknowledge the legitimacy of the MRM and stop fighting with it.

>Try posting to raise awareness about women's issues in MRAville and see if they're any more accepting than feminist subs are to men's issues.

I don't know if the comparison is completely fair. MRAville doesn't pretend to be all-inclusive the way that many feminist places do. Also, MRAville is a rather small and embattled island of the Internet. There are already a million other places for women's rights to be discussed--including, importantly, the world at large.

  • [-]
  • sworebytheprecious
  • -2 Points
  • 06:51:50, 7 August

Well, of course feminists are gonna be angry you bring up men's issues in their spaces. It's the space and time for women's issues then, not men's issues, and it's time for women to talk and time for men to listen.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 6 Points
  • 07:15:55, 7 August

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • sworebytheprecious
  • 3 Points
  • 08:06:26, 7 August

Feminists DO care about men's issues. If they didn't you wouldn't see a lot of feminists working for gay rights, you wouldn't have seen a lot of women suffragettes allying themselves with the abolitionists in the 1830s-70s, and feminists wouldn't be a large force in driving social change and sexual freedom now.

What a lot of feminists see, feminists like me, is that "men's issues" tends to be code for:

1) White middle class male issues

2) Legitimate socioeconomic problems men (mostly white men!) have, but want to blame on "feminism" rather than any specific policy issue, falling economic gains, or erosion of rights in general

3) A plea for a supposition of a certain "right" which would be good for white males at the expense of others, under the guise of equality (such as financial abortion, elimination of affirmative action, and charges against women who claim they were raped but whom the police believe to be lying).

4) Just plain misogyny

  • [-]
  • thorwawayaaya
  • 0 Points
  • 19:22:27, 29 August

It isn't just the guise of equality. If it actually equality. Women have plenty of freedom with reproductive rights and men have none. Even feminists advocate for a financial abortion in many cases. False rape accusations need to be prosecuted since it is a very serious, life ruined allegation to make.

  • [-]
  • sworebytheprecious
  • 1 Points
  • 19:36:08, 29 August

Men will get reproductive rights the second they can reproduce.

  • [-]
  • thorwawayaaya
  • 0 Points
  • 19:49:15, 29 August

Men can reproduce. What are you talking about?

  • [-]
  • sworebytheprecious
  • 1 Points
  • 19:55:49, 29 August

So men can give birth to babies and also gestate them?

Okay then.

  • [-]
  • thorwawayaaya
  • 0 Points
  • 20:07:23, 29 August

That isn't relevant at all. We are talking about the right to not have a child if you are not ready. A man's only option is to not have sex with condom as a shoddy long term plan. Women have both of those same options plus using near 100% forms of birth control, the morning after pill, abortion, adoption immediately after birth and even child abandonment.

There is no equality in that.

  • [-]
  • sworebytheprecious
  • 0 Points
  • 20:16:33, 29 August

Vasectomy.

I'm done talking to you; what is this, like a month old anyways? Ugh. Get a hobby.

  • [-]
  • Kuato2012
  • 2 Points
  • 14:18:41, 7 August

If a particular feminist forum wants to be entirely about women's voices, women's experiences, and women's issues, that's their prerogative. However, in that situation I think they are rather obligated to drop the pretense that feminism is an all-encompassing gender equality movement. It rings hollow when a feminist claims to care deeply about men, and that feminism is the only legitimate gender equality movement in town, and then completely denies a voice to men.

  • [-]
  • whitneytrick
  • -2 Points
  • 07:17:23, 7 August

So you think that feminists aren't actually for gender equality, and just hate men?

  • [-]
  • sworebytheprecious
  • 2 Points
  • 07:43:12, 7 August

Feminists don't "hate men." Yes, some feminists hate some men, and a few feminists hate ALL men. Feminist theory addresses this by acknowledging male privilege exists as a real social construct that harms both genders. You can dislike someone's group social entitlements without hating the person, especially if the person is ignorant about their privileged status in the first place.