Something good on /r/MensLib for a change

HashtagMenAreCash · 2020-01-09T19:47:44+00:00

As much as I've railed against MensLib the past few days, we have a saying in my country: "When it's good, it has to be said...

[–]Egalitarianwhistle 24 points25 points26 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]SamHanes10 14 points15 points16 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aaod 13 points14 points15 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LacklustreFriend 9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LacklustreFriend 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 28 points29 points30 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Egalitarianwhistle 14 points15 points16 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thereslcjg2000left-wing male advocate 12 points13 points14 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bkrugby78 11 points12 points13 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bkrugby78 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]bkrugby78 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]austin101123 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bkrugby78 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LemonCanopy 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What I'd like to do, is pick one topic and one region and then do in depth research on the status of that topic in terms of history, current progress, organizations etc...

For example, domestic violence in Australia. Are they using the Duluth model, what's the reality of domestic violence against men over there. What options do male victims have? How have things evolved over the last 50 years? What organizations exist today to help with it? What is the status of the legislation on the topic? Who are the lawmakers involved with domestic violence and what are they doing today? What's the prognostic on progress?

But it's so much work, I haven't even gotten started and I don't know much about how.

And I would like to see posts like those on every men's rights issues for every region of the world. And from a left wing non neo-lib perspective.

This should help people have a better global perspective on what's going on. And start getting a sense of what works and what doesn't work. And maybe replicate things that worked in one region to other regions.

And preferably, I would like to see us move away from discussions on group affiliations and labels. It's not that it's not worthwhile to do, it's just that I feel like there's already too much of it already. We need to fight ideas, not labels. You can never defeat a label, but you CAN defeat an idea.

Now, I don't know how to defeat an idea. I just know that it can. I think a perfect example of this is eugenics. In principle it may have a lot of merit, and back in 1930-1970 it was quite popular across the global. But it has now completely fallen out of favor, it is strongly associated with genocide and to even speak of it in any kind of favorable light is political suicide.

If we can denounce those ideas that are anti-male, and promote those ideas that are pro-male (and pro human), such as compassion for men. Compassion for and acceptance of flawed people. Everything else should fall into place.

The organizations and labels are only the second level. The foundation is ideas, and we need to understand what the ideas at stake are and we need to learn out to defeat those ideas that hurt us and promote those ideas that help us.

And I know that it's easy to get caught up in petty fights with other groups like /r/MensLib I strongly suspect that they're a kind of psy-ops operation to lure in people with good ideas about men, and introduce them to bad ideas about men. So they like to straddle the fence.

But unless you go do some deep undercover journalism, identify the people involved IRL and prove that they are part of a genuine conspiracy, you're never going to beat them. And that's assuming that such a conspiracy exist, which may not even be the case. And even if does exist and you prove it, they can just pick a new name, tweak their founding ideology and start over.

So, let's not fight /r/MensLib. Lets just look at the ideas they promote and find out how to effectively discredit those ideas and create ideas of our own that we can promote in their stead.

I believe that they have a lot of money and manpower to back them, but we have truth on our side. We genuinely seek fair treatment of all people. Over time, I hope we will learn to get better at it too so that even with all their superior resources they will still fail.

And it doesn't matter what labels we use or which group we communicate through. We start on /r/mensrights and they corrupt /r/mensrights, they pre-emptively create a corrupt /r/MensLib and we create /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates and even if they find a way to corrupt /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates, the advocates themselves don't disappear. We can still keep going, we can keep spreading our knowledge and find better ways to fight and organize ourselves.

[–]DouglasMilnes 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rabel111 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (69 children) | Copy Link

[–]GeekofFury 19 points20 points21 points 6 years ago (66 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 6 years ago* (65 children) | Copy Link

[–]SamHanes10 12 points13 points14 points 6 years ago (64 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 6 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah Ramona Flowers is definitely a classic MPDG. The other archetypal examples are Natalie Portman's character in Zach Braff's "Garden State", and basically every character Zooey Deschanel has ever played.

Edit: As for the damaged but complicated male that the female protagonist heals with her love, there are too many examples to name. A rather notable example is Christian Grey in "50 Shades of Grey". The man's an abusive wealthy businessman for crying out loud. Also, in the musical comedy series "Crazy Ex-Girlfriend" that pokes fun at romcom clichés, there is a similar love interest, a successful lawyer who is a complete asshole with daddy issues. As the series progresses it actually plays this trope more or less straight and the character becomes a lot nicer the more he interacts with the female protagonist. Tbh I can't really be mad, it's tempting for writers to succumb in part to fantasy fulfillment, male authors as well as female authors do this.

[–]mewacketergi 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]InitiatePenguin -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

but I think over the last couple of generations we've done a good deal of damage to gender relations, and part of that is an honest "she's grown tired of his shit and she's saying "fix yourself"

Yeah that is the pervasive underlying feeling I get from MensLib: being told how to behave and how to think to live up to some ideal. In that sense it's just the flipside of the coin of tradcon views of masculinity, both are stifling af. EDIT: With tradcons the starting point is "you've been a weak irresponsible soyboy, man the fuck up" and with menslibbers/feminists it's "you've been a naughty problematic toxic male, get woke"

The only thing that makes MensLib better than tradcons (apart from sharing other broad left of centre views) is that in some cases it promotes more freedom: the freedom to behave in more feminine-coded or less masculine-coded ways. And don't get me wrong, I support that. I think the whole right-wing aversion to "insufficiently masculine" men is disgusting.

I just think the whole "being lectured" vibe turns many people off.

[–]InitiatePenguin -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

being told how to behave and how to think to live up to some ideal. In that sense it's just the flipside of the coin of tradcon views of masculinity, both are stifling af

If this is what you're walking away from MensLib with I don't know what to say. We advocate for descriptions instead of prescriptions all the time.

I think a ton of individual people have ideas about what may or not be idealized just as nearly everyone finds security in an identity.

I would look at how prescriptive tradecon thinking a man should be as a destination and how expansive a Men's Liberationist views the destination for men. We want people to think more about their actions, about what effects their decisions. If identifying 'problematic' behavior is part of that, so what?

I just think the whole "being lectured" vibe turns many people off.

I get that. Some people get defensive, and other dont - they tend to stay around. I think it really important to put that knee jerk reaction aside and reflect seriously on whether someone is "being lectured" (a connotation of superiority, righteousness, authority) or if they're just trying to help everyone be better, lead better lives.

A lot of men get defensive because they feel that are the person who's being talked about. And that they are being criticized directly, and personally. And maybe, they don't think there's a problem with a particular behavior anyways.

The following is a parallel on inappropriate defensiveness.

I keep this around to explain white fragility and the need to get defensive to say "I'm not those people" in context of race. The parallel to people who feel the need to say #notallmen, or "I'm one of the good guys though". The defensive ones that pass through MensLib.

This was in context to Joe Biden referring to what some people felt were racist remarks.

"I don't have a prejudiced bone in my body, is a rather clueless statement. It's incredibly old-fashioned. It rests on this idea that to have a racist perspective or say or do something racially problematic, you must have done that deliberately and awarely (ph) and on purpose, and that you must be a mean person. And, of course, you know, most white people aren't going to relate to deliberate meanness across race, and so they make claims like that. But we have to understand racism at a much more nuanced level.

...I don't think [Biden saying he was utterly loyal and devoted to the first African American president of the United States is] helpful in the sense that - again, it reveals this idea that this has to be intentional and deliberate and conscious and mean-spirited, or it doesn't count. And then we can refuse to engage with the impact, right? We have to separate our intentions from the impact of our behavior... And this is kind of classic white fragility, right? - a refusal to know or expand one's current worldview.

Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility. Interview with NPR

So there's only so much space I can conceede to people who feel lectured at, who are put on the defense. If tone is the problem with the content that makes you disengage with it's merits idk what else to say besides take a step back.

[–]Woolgun 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If you're invested in MensLib and a frequent poster, I can see how you lack the outside perspective.

We want people to think more about their actions, about what effects their decisions. If identifying 'problematic' behavior is part of that, so what?

And this is the issue. You cannot analyze everything, try to be self conscious about every action you do. The Menslib attitude is an attitude of "I am a privileged white male, society is designed to cater to me, how do I change to accommodate people who are not me?"

Look at posts like these, heavily upvoted

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/cqoaqd/anyone_else_feels_selfconscious_about_acting/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/cw2xmq/i_hate_being_seen_as_a_threat/ (comments are mostly "not much you can do about it, try to present in a way that's not threatening)

Your top posts are mostly sob stories and LGBTQ issues, which is fine but again feeds into the "I need to focus on other people's issues first".

[–]InitiatePenguin -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You cannot analyze everything, try to be self conscious about every action you do.

Of course not. But we can still have seperate individual conversations being held by different people and engaged with by other different people.

"I am a privileged white male, society is designed to cater to me, how do I change to accommodate people who are not me?"

Ignoring all the individual and personal threads I think that's a fair perspective looking in. But I think you'll be quickly overlooking the intersectional approach and all the people who are not "privledged white males" giving their input. If privilege has made people blind to hardship, and if we are looking for more equal opportunities and outcomes listening to those perspectives is critical.

FWIW on the general DAE threads like the ones you listed are people who feel guilty or responsible or internalize some of these conversations too much. And I don't really want to get too much into those threads but for a guy being perceived as a threat is a problem. Noticing women constantly avoid you out on the street with no justification other than your a man can have an effect.

I think those reactions are personally foreign to me, because i feel like I have a balance on what's being progressive and what's taking the discourse ™ a bit too seriously and to insane conclusions. But I think you'll find a lot of that nuance in the comments even if the submission is a exactly as you've described.

"I need to focus on other people's issues first".

Almost all advocacy is. Unless you are one of the people directly effected. And a lot of the conversations are relational in nature. I'd be hard pressed to think of a individual's issue about themselves that requires focus that Men'slib wouldn't allow. And we do have a lot of those surrounding identity.

What's a "my issues first" kind of problem? As opposed to "other people first"/"how do I accomadate others".

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

If this is what you're walking away from MensLib with I don't know what to say.

I didn't really walk away from MensLib. The sub permbanned me after I posted on this subreddit that certain comments of mine had been deleted by the MensLib mods.

I used to participate on menslib under a previous account as well (one I deleted myself, this is the first time I got banned). Then I also often noticed innocuous comments of mine were banned (of course I would say that, but trust me that I never posted MGTOW-tier ramblings about "gynocracy" or whatever. You can read the deleted comments in the above link to get an idea of the kind of stuff I posted on there that got deleted.) Many users on this sub have similar stories. Instead of just shrugging and accepting that my comments were outside of the spectrum of what deserves to be seen by polite society, or couching my opinions in 50000 caveats and qualifications with some references to patriarchy thrown in for good measure as I used to do, I just complained about it on another men's sub and instantly got the banhammer.

We want people to think more about their actions, about what effects their decisions. If identifying 'problematic' behavior is part of that, so what?

I'll give you that the tone and communication style is very different from tradcon MRA discourse. Tradcons think they're drill sergeants. They shout you down until you accept their superior masculine ways.

MensLib discourse is more akin to the way therapists and academics in the humanities talk. It's all "hmmmm let's unpack this mmmkay" or "I don't know, don't you think that's just a little bit toxic" "yikes my dude, who hurt you?" It's more of a nudging strategy than downright shouting you down and calling you names. Rather than insulting you to your face, it's sticking unsavory labels on certain thought patterns to get folks to doubt themselves. A lot more sophisticated.

But ultimately the effect is not entirely dissimilar, since opinions that do 't fit the mold are banned and people who partake in wrongthink are ostracized. It's certainly more of a passive aggressive approach than downright aggressive.

Defensiveness etc. etc.

Well yeah, I'm not gonna deny that people sometimes get way too defensive. Even on videos from female MRA sympathizers like Prim Reaper you get some hardcore MGTOWs reeeeing how she's just an agent of the gynocracy etc. even if she is nothing but kind, understanding and patient about men's problems.

That said, I don't think defensiveness is an adequate explanation for all criticism of MensLib or even opposition to MensLib. Believe it or not, I am by temperament a very self critical guy. I used to agonize about every little thing I did almost to the point of wondering if I wasn't accidentally breathing someone else's oxygen, so to speak.

However, there comes a point where it just gets too much. You can only lob so many "fragility" accusations at someone for very mild criticisms and viewpoints before people realize it's more like a Maoist struggle session than a thoughtful men's group.

By the way "fragility" is just the woke version of right-wingers "triggered". It's sophistry.

If tone is the problem with the content that makes you disengage with it's merits idk what else to say besides take a step back.

It's not tone, it's content and the way tone is used to hide the fact that comments that don't fit within the "I shall contemplate my sinful nature" (substitute nature by nurture, but the effect is still the same) gets deleted. And if you think that is an overreaction then please read my link to my deleted comments above and tell me what I did wrong. Believe it or not, I would actually like to participate on menslib again if that were possible (provided I didn't have to renounce posting my honest opinion on other subs to do so).

[–]LacklustreFriend 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I agree, they (meaning feminists) are saying "men should express their emotions more", which I approve of. But a lot of the emotions that come out are met with:

Why are you so angry? It's scary.
You're only upset because of your aggrieved entitlement.
Why are you burdening me with all this emotional labor? Go see a therapist or something.

The kind of emotions that you are allowed to express:

Wow I've been so toxic, I'm going to be a better ally from now on!
Wow I can't believe society forced me to hate flowers and nail polish just because I'm a man! I'm going to paint my toenails bright pink and wear a daisy in my beard, complete with glitter eyeshadow and a tank top. Who says a burly dude with rock-hard abs and a bulging biceps like me can't let his freak flag hang out? Thanks MensLib, all my problems have been solved!

[–]LacklustreFriend5 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LacklustreFriend3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]InitiatePenguin 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]SamHanes10 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]SamHanes10 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SamHanes104 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

For one, it can help men choose what kind of women to associate with and what kind of women to avoid.

This is a very good point, and one that I think was completely absent from the thread. I am very egalitarian in nature, and was shocked when my partner in a previous relationship suddenly put a lot of the pressure on me to be the breadwinner. I had never agreed to this, and I had thought that everything would be shared equally (domestic chores and paid labour). But we also hadn't confronted this issue head-on before. The best advice I could have received was "make sure your partner is willing to equally contribute to your shared finances". Yet, as far as I can tell, this point is completely absent from that discussion.

Edit: At that time, I was open to feminist advice, and had made the effort to share the domestic chores relatively equally. Yet this made no difference to her unhappiness when I didn't have a secure job, and ended up being mentally abused for it. So the feminist-centric advice in that thread hits a nerve.

[–]InitiatePenguin1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In practice I don't see that that as being a proportional "part" I see that slice of the conversation becoming the overwhelming voice.

Because that part is suppressed on forums like MensLib. MensLib is good if you want a space to be self-critical to a fault and overanalyze your own thoughts and actions, scanning them for traces of all-pervasive "toxic masculinity". I tried to contribute on MensLib in a discussion about sexuality (basically, OP said he thought having sexual thoughts about women who don't clearly reciprocate is toxic, and I pushed back on that), but most of my comments were deleted, and I was permbanned for pointing that out on this sub.

I'd be very interested how you would approach doing that in person, functionally. Sometimes advice has to come within their own communities and at least from their peers that they trust.

Basically by not being afraid of expressing one's honest opinion, except somewhat lighter on the jargon like "misandric" etc. since that kind of stuff is a turn-off to most people. Being belligerent gets you nowhere. But not being afraid of being vulnerable saying something like "you know, sometimes when I watch the media I have the impression that men's sexuality is portrayed as predatory".

that doesn't assume the passage of knowledge is only one way. Or that whatever strategies that are employed are specific to women, or gendered in nature.

Agreed there, the passage of knowledge isn't one-way only. However, it's not abnormal that a sub focused on men's issues mostly focuses on ways in which men are misunderstood by society.

[–]InitiatePenguin 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SamHanes10 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]InitiatePenguin 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thereslcjg2000left-wing male advocate 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]InitiatePenguin 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

A sub for helping men doesn’t seem to me like the right place for telling men that they’re doing things wrong.

To start, I think a lot of improvement is made this way across a whole array of issues. But it's also not the only approach seen. If anything it's about being more conscious of pitfalls then saying the way another man is organizing their life is wrong and must be changed, without their approval or consent.

if someone made a post in a feminist sub telling women they weren’t working enough hours, would that not be seen as rude and sexist?

It's because its made under the assumption that the only worthwhile labor is wage labor and invalidates contributions made elsewhere. I'm also not of a school of thought that to make both things equal both sides should be subjected to the same negative experiences. We should turn the increased productivity to increased pleasure. We should extend the opportunities for fathers to take parental leave. We should encourage companies to be flexible for families and a work/life balance. Walking in the door and saying to some other group "I think you folk aren't working enough" is pretty rude.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm also not of a school of thought that to make both things equal both sides should be subjected to the same negative experiences.

I agree. I'd rather have the draft abolished than draft women as well as men. But here is how I see it: there can be a scenario where it's political unfeasible or unpopular to abolish the draft, or where not enough people give a shit (I think this is the current scenario in the states). In that case, I think making the draft gender neutral (and the groundwork for this has already been laid by the National Coalition for Men because the gendered nature of the draft had been found unconstitutional) is a strategically advantageous intermediary step. You just know that there's going to be a shitstorm if the U.S. Army expands the draft to women. Feminists will be up in arms, as well as maybe a good chunk of conservatives (for different reasons). It will bring the issue to the forefront of the agenda and in the end I think the only feasible popular consensus solution will be to abolish the draft.

[–]InitiatePenguin -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Feminists will be up in arms, as well as maybe a good chunk of conservatives (for different reasons)

Are you surprised? Who the fuck wants to be forced to fight wars? I'd be up in arms too if the point was to perpetuate the death of others and stability of foreign soverenties on the pretense of equality.

I agree that if the goal is to distinguish gender discrimination as unconstitutional is a worthwhile fight. But I'm not going to begrudge anyone for not wanting to be drafted.

in the end I think the only feasible popular consensus solution will be to abolish the draft.

If the draft is ever abolished all it will take is government just to reinstate it if they wanted it. Yes, it wouldn't be gendered at that point but I wouldn't kid around that the abolishment of the draft is anything meaningful. We've had it and not used it for the last 50 years, and won't for the foreseeable future.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

But I'm not going to begrudge anyone for not wanting to be drafted.

Me neither. However, if 50% of the population is expected to carry that burden (which is mostly theoretical for now although men do face heavy penalties for failing to register for the draft) just because of being born with a dick, then I still think it's an improvement if the burden is made gender neutral. As I said, the draft itself will come under heavy fire as soon as the theoretical possibility of being drafted gets extended to women, and rightly so.

Btw this isn't out of spite against women, it's just a plausible strategic path toward eventually abolishing the draft. If the draft is that blatantly discriminatory that a court rules it unconstitutional then the groundwork is set for changing this entrenched part of society

I wouldn't kid around that the abolishment of the draft is anything meaningful. We've had it and not used it for the last 50 years, and won't for the foreseeable future.

But if that's your mentality, then surely expanding this wholly theoretical burden of being drafted to women would be a good thing? It would be a symbolic move toward equality of the sexes. After all, according to some feminists I've talked to on this subject, the draft being Male-only was not out of discrimination of males but out of misogyny, since women were deemed to weak and fragile to partake in combat.

I on the other hand am not so sure it's just symbolic. I think the actions of Donald Trump have shown how quickly things can go south if sufficiently brazen, narcissistic, egotistical people get in positions of power. He pretty much got the US out of the Paris climate accord as soon as he got in office, something I would have never expected from the world's most foremost superpower and (in many cases) scientific frontrunner, yet it turns out that is only one of the more mildly transgressive things he's done. And his reign has only empowered the most virulently fundamentalist Evangelicals in Red states to introduce some of the most archaic abortion legislation the world has ever seen, to the point of mandating ectopic pregnancies to be reimplanted. That is not just a women's issue btw, that is an issue that effects everyone.

The illusion of stability that the West had in the 1990s is pretty much gone. So I don't think it's that weird to be worried about the draft. The best time to move to abolish it is now that we are still in the realm of relative sanity. Sure, a sufficiently zealous government would reinstate it, but I don't want to make it any easier to these hypothetical future warmongers.

I just think it's funny that non-feminist male activists always get criticized for not accomplishing anything. Then the National Coalition for Men manages to get a court to declare the draft unconstitutional and the reactions are "meh, the draft will never be used anyway" or "this is just a misogynistic ploy to get women drafted".

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]SamHanes10 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Egalitarianwhistle 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Statistical facts are meaningless in the context of a single relationship.

I hate to drag us back to the OP but I think this is so important regarding the conversation surrounding rape right now. Statistical facts are also meaningless in the context of a single crime.

We know that women account for nearly half of abusive relationships. We know that women account for a substantial percentage of sexual assault. But whenever these things are talked about,especially by the more devout feminists, it's always within the frame of male on female abuse and rape.

Surely everyone recognizes that pendulum needs to swing back the other way? Or does Menslib still believe that we should always believe Gender X accusers of Gender Y? Or is it just whoever accuses the other first? Or what? Because call me old fashioned but I liked the old way of evidence, testimony and due process.

But what is the most rational, compassionate way to have that happen? I don't actually want to start putting 1.5 million women per year in jail. But that seems to be what feminists are pushing for men. The average sentence for rape is 9.8 years. We've updated the definition so that violence has been removed as a necessary ingredient to rape. And we've discovered that having removed violence as a necessary ingredient for rape, women commit the crime about as often as men. So either we start prosecuting women at roughly equal rates to men for sexual assault (#believemen) or we change the definition back to the old version.

Ideally it would start with a general recognition within feminism that women are just as fucked up and broken as men are. That accountability is a two way street and always blindly siding with the woman in any given situation is ridiculous at face value. As tempting as it most be to blame all your problems on the opposite sex, it's unhealthy as fuck on a systemic level.

In the words of Margaret Atwood, if there's no way to prove your innocence, then you know it's a fucking witchhunt.

[–]SchalaZeal01 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

I agree with you that for any individual relationship, the statistics are meaningless and people should just do what makes them happiest, but if we take only that view then we blind ourselves to the unfair pressures which we place on ourselves as a society to act and live in certain ways.

I disagree that we must address multiple inequalities at once. Yes, they should all be addressed, but it must be possible to have a discussion about one in isolation in order to most effectively create solutions to it. It is possible that solutions to the imbalanced effort spent managing the home and family also coincide with solutions to the imbalanced effort spent making money - but it is not necessary. The best solutions to those two issues may well be disjoint.

In the end, tit-for-tat inequality at a societal level is still inequality. If one party is working longer hours and contributing more to the financial well-being of the family then that needs to be addressed per se and not just "balanced out" by another inequality.

[–]SamHanes10 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

I disagree that we must address multiple inequalities at once.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. In any case, my point still stands that this has to apply to a given relationship in question, and within relationship in question it is unfair to address the complaints of only one party in the relationship without regard to the other parties complaints. i.e. it is not possible to address these issues completely separately without being unfair.

In the end, tit-for-tat inequality at a societal level is still inequality. If one party is working longer hours and contributing more to the financial well-being of the family then that needs to be addressed per se and not just "balanced out" by another inequality.

No. Within a given relationship, this is simply a division of labour. For example, If I am working on a project in a team by doing the research on topic X, it makes sense for someone else to do the research on Y, and someone else to think about the best way of presenting the research. As long as everyone agrees with this division of the work, it is fine. We don't have to have everyone spending equal time on each aspect of the project.

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]SamHanes10 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Men-as-a-group and women-as-a-group are each incapable of consenting to a particular division of labour. We would not be having this discussion if there were not systemic biases to address.

I don't doubt there are systemic biases, but I disagree that we necessarily have to have equal division of labour between men and women at a population-wide level. What is important is ensuring the societal pressures are gender neutral, so that if any person, man or woman, can be the primary provider, primary caregiver, or equal provider-caregiver if they choose to do so.

With reference to the original thread-in-question, a more fruitful discussion about 'how to be a better husband' would be for discussion to be had about how the couple can communicate better about what each party is willing to provide and receive in return, rather than a discussion about what the husbands must unilaterally do to make their wives happier. The latter turns the relationship into a fruitful ground for the husbands to be abused as they believe it is them who must change, rather than it being a two-way street.

[–]Oncefa22 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I disagree that we necessarily have to have equal division of labour between men and women at a population-wide level

To put this into perspective, men usually do much more difficult, dangerous, dirty, and outright degrading work around the house.

Women might spend more time on housework but I don't think you can accurately measure who provides more value or who does more overall work.

Compare doing the laundry vs mowing the yard. The laundry might take 3 to 4 hours on paper but that's 3 to 4 hours of lying around the house, napping, and watching TV. Mowing the yard might only take 1 hour but you also have to take a shower and change your clothes and risk being stung by yellow jackets. It's much more inconvenient, time consuming, and exhausting than people give it credit for.

Doing laundry might take more time, but I'd take the laundry over mowing any day of the week.

And more to the point, why are men stuck mowing the yard while women do the laundry? Could it be that women themselves push for this division of labor?

I don't want to speak for everyone, but firsthand experience definitely says yes to me. I think a lot of our gender roles are enforced by women more than they are by men.

[–]InitiatePenguin1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yard Work v. House Work

Sure, there's something more grating about physical labor the "men are so well equipped for" but I'd be extremely cautious going any farther in trying to compare tasks based on metrics and hardship. Marriages shouldn't require transactional relationships, where currency is how hard someone worked and for how long.

And still there are men who enjoy taking care of the burly work and embrace that role as much as there are women who embrace ironing all the clothes, and sometimes those reasons are because they want to play into gender roles, and helps inform their identities.

I don't want to speak for everyone, but firsthand experience definitely says yes to me. I think a lot of our gender roles are enforced by women more than they are by men.

To me it seems like you feel Women get first pick on their chores, and they pick the easy ones, according to your descriptions: the lazy ones. Because they are abundantly aware of how hard the other tasks are. And it's probably the most unfavorable explanation I can think of. I think whatever their father and mother did around the house will have far more to do with chores they feel re their "domain" and how comfortable and experienced they are with doing them. My mom would constantly be the one mowing the lawn, why? Because my dad worked. That doesn't stop him on the occasional weekend of putting in that work himself. What I never saw him do? Laundry.

I don't think Men are as "stuck" as you think they are, and I think this characterization of women isn't a fair one, and tends towards conspiratorial.

[–][deleted]1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]InitiatePenguin1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Emotional Labor is only economical in the sense that it is part of people jobs, but if we're talking about men and women and cohabitation what you're talking about is emotional work.

And emotional work is only economics if you view labor in a traditional labor framework, ie. Wage labor - organizing labor on measurable economic terms.

What a large portion of the emotional labor conversation is about employee expectations and ultimate health and authenticiry.

A large portion of the emotional work debate is just about being aware and concious. If I have a problem I want to talk about and the other person goes off about how sorry they are to the point that I have to manage them and reassure them that my problem is not that much of a problem the tables are flipped. If I am responsible as someone's friend to frequently police my own emotions or to be responsible for managing someone else's mental happiness I've taken a severe burden. And there are relationships that do hapilly operate that way, from being "rocks", some to vent to, or even a partner managing Bi-Polar disorder.

And still anyone viewing emotional work on economic terms is completely missing what human relationships are.

[–][deleted]1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa21 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]InitiatePenguin1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa21 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]InitiatePenguin1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

hat is important is ensuring the societal pressures are gender neutral, so that if any person, man or woman, can be the primary provider, primary caregiver, or equal provider-caregiver if they choose to do so ... a more fruitful discussion about 'how to be a better husband' would be for discussion to be had about how the couple can communicate better about what each party is willing to provide and receive in return, rather than a discussion about what the husbands must unilaterally do to make their wives happier.

I'd have to look at who is proposing unilateral directives rather than individualized advice from a singular perspective but the MensLib community knows full well to see solutions as descriptive measures, not prescriptive ones. Even if it does come down to a user saying men "need to do" this or that.

[–]SamHanes102 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]InitiatePenguin0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

still misses out on what the men should be expecting their wives to do in return, and how to negotiate a good relationship for themselves.

If you're problem is that a Men's Subreddit isn't holistic enough okay, but those conversations can still happen, it's not Men'slibs responsibility to facilitate what "wives should do in return".

I guarentee you though that you can get a post about partner expectations and marital negotiations on MensLib. But it will depend on the framing of the submissions statement as men would still need to be the focus. And I think you'd quickly find the resounding answer to most of those questions is "reciprocity", "communication", "with thanks" etc. And a lot of personal stories.

it primes these people to expect to do all the work to make their relationships work, rather than it being a two-way street.

I think at the end of the day, you can only be accountable for yourself. And part of those decisions is knowing yourself in a dating context where it's not going to work and cut your losses. No one is saying Men have to do all the work, or in the face of things not working - work harder. I'm not sure where you get that idea. The (partial) absence of a discussion about what work women should be doing doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that any community member will actually agree with that sentiment - them men have to do all the work.

But menslib ultimately leaves that up for women, but you can also be a women and participate in men'slib. And we often get women's perspective as well on these subjects.

[–]SamHanes103 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But menslib ultimately leaves that up for women

Which is the exact problem I'm talking about. While any person can't directly change what another does (so a man can't change what a woman does), they can make good decisions for themselves. This requires an open discussion about what they should be expecting, and what they should watch out for, so that they can make an informed decision, and look out for signs of potential unfairness and abuse. It's not just a matter of leaving it up to someone else and hoping they don't take advantage of you or abuse you. That's the worst advice ever.

but you can also be a women and participate in men'slib

Which puts to a lie your earlier statement that menslib is about men talking about men. It's men and women talking about what's wrong with men and only men. And that's sexist and wrong.

[–]InitiatePenguin1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This requires an open discussion about what they should be expecting, and what they should watch out for, so that they can make an informed decision, and look out for signs of potential unfairness and abuse.

I hear that completely, and it's something I'll have to think on for a while. I can say personally I don't like a framework that pits the sexes into adversarial positions as a default. And I don't like sweeping generalizations. Often, there are complaints about a type of woman, but there are more women out there, and certainly one that agrees with you. So if find the conversation itself tricky. Particularly when problems about particular women and maybe even a vast minority of them are played up, since you can never be too protected for the rare occurrence of a particular form of abuse.

In general, I still think there's a way to frame this question that keeps men at the center, that involves reciprocal expectations and still isn't saying women should act a particular way as if the advice was for them. After all, hardly any women are there to read those musings. We don't really allow much of personal advice, but I do recall conversations (possibly within other threads) around red flags which would certainly fit what you're asking about.

Again, I think there's a way to frame this about informed decisions or unfair practices that wouldn't cross the rules. Completely within the framework of what decisions men make.

I will definitely say that I probably have a blind spot when it comes to men who end up in bad relationships through no fault of their own as I've always found myself in better ones than the last and found the progression of what's good a relationship to be fairly self-evident through that experience alone. And I would be interested in looking more into that.

Which puts to a lie your earlier statement that menslib is about men talking about men. It's men and women talking about what's wrong with men and only men. And that's sexist and wrong.

Oh come on. The vast majority of people on the sub are men. It's absolutely fair to characterize it as men talking about men. "About" doesn't require exclusivity. We don't ban women, nor can you actually enforce such a thing on the internet.

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]InitiatePenguin 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

There are a lot of points that can be made here but the tldr is that women control and are in charge of most marriages and relationships. There is a growing "woke" message about this out there advocating that men shouldn't have to let themselves be bossed around by their wives / girlfriends, and that women should respect this and not pretend to have the high ground on the issue.

I'm planning on making a post on this topic, but to give you an idea, here's a quote I saw the other day in the comments of a blog post:

I don’t think women get to decide standards for domestic living and then make men keep up to those standards. I think men take care of what they care about. If your friends who are complaining had a husband who really did 50% of domestic chores then the husband would care what color the kitchen is painted and the husband would care how you organize shoes in the hallway and then no one would get to have ownership over domestic life.

Just like at work, when no one owns a project the project sucks. You always want someone to care a lot more than other people because then the project will be done well. At home, if everyone cares equally about something then no one really cares at all.

And that is the problem with sharing everything 50/50 — there are two adults who sort of care about work and sort of care about home. I’m not sure that’s any better than dividing domestic duties and then complaining that your partner doesn’t understand.

Penelope

Author's blog

I'm not sure when I'll end up making this post but I look forward to seeing your opinion on it. It definitely needs perspectives from women as much as it does from men.

[–]InitiatePenguin 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There is a growing "woke" message about this out there advocating that men shouldn't have to let themselves be bossed around by their wives / girlfriends, and that women should respect this and not pretend to have the high ground on the issue.

Yeah I've seen the tropes. In high school was probably the last time I heard a man disparaging his friend as being "whipped", and I have to ask myself seriously about any future friend who chooses to (or the instance where a friend does truly find himself in a relationship with someone unrealistically overbearing). I do have one friend right now who's GF is definitely lead on the schedule and it definitely has some tension with his own solo activities, but even on that one facet it is pretty clear they are good at communicating and are equal partners. As to how much this is widespread issue and not just a media stereotype that can be remedied through activism and awareness I'm not sure. There is no "Boss" when it comes to a home, it's teamwork, and that is not a new idea that was somehow forgotten, so I'll admit I am struck a bit dumbfounded when it appears it needs to be said. Previously that team consisted of being house wife and a breadwinner, the current economics and wants from people no longer have to follow this form. And for some conservative women who appreciate their power being derived from domestic work, I'm the last person to judge them for it.

l. At home, if everyone cares equally about something then no one really cares at all... then no one would get to have ownership over domestic life.

I don't agree with this sentiment. If both sides care about the same things, they both care. This relativist argument is terrible. Plus, this quote is saying someone should own domestic life. And by the gendered natature of the comment it's clear to me it should be the woman. At the same time any person would be allowed to have their respective domains, and not have them prescribed by gender norms. There's nothing wrong with one person tending to own doing the dishes while the other owns the vacuuming. The problem is when "cleaning" is not a concern one side of the couple in general, or "clean enough" is not the same standard.

A big point is that if your partner is contributing more in one area, it's important that you contribute equally in another. And not to reduce it to an transactional level of cohabitational economics. It's about identifying strengths and logistics and what tasks favor what person. And sometimes that requires doing something the man doesn't care about because his partner does. and vice versa.

If you advocate for (or even permit) a "take care of what you care about" you will have a dysfunctional home, particularly if there's no communication going on in between. At best you'll be living partly separated lives with a inflexible division of labor and a particular set of tasks that might not even be desired in the end. And at worst things slip completely through the cracks because neither cares enough about it - or expected the other to care more. This constant questioning and identifying those cracks is often referred to as the Mental Load. And it's often attributed to women on the assumption that they are in charge of domestics and the children. And that is changing alongside men spending more time at home, doing domestics tasks, and even spending time with their children. This inequality will naturally dissipate as more homes organize themselves in more egalitarian structures.

If I see my girlfriend picking up the apartment while I'm watching TV or something, I feel bad, I feel guilty. So I can pick up on where some of those standards are, and rather than putting it off as "I'd help, all you needed to do was ask" I'd advise men to take some fucking initiate and not require the partner to make that decision. Because it will often be a courteous "no". For example, I never make the bed and every time I go to bed I untuck the sheets. I see no purpose in making the bed if I don't have guests over and the first thing I'm going to do is make a mess. First thing my GF does when she comes home is make the bed. This is something I don't care about and she does. My GF will tell you that if that's the only disagreement we have then she's happy as a clam. But what if it's not just the sheets. What if it's most of the chores? Even still on some days when I have the time, or I know she doesn't, I'll make the bed and it will be one of the first things she notices and will be happy, and glad, and thankful, and more likely to reciprocate on other tasks where flexibility is called.

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

In high school was probably the last time I heard a man disparaging his friend as being "whipped", and I have to ask myself seriously about any future friend who chooses to

People might not always admit to it, but the wife / girlfriend is usually in charge. This isn't conjecture or opinion but has been demonstrated in numerous academic studies. Several of which are discussed in the link I gave you.

As for the rhetoric around the word "team" and sometimes the words "us" and "we", this is commonly a tactic of control. Anything the woman wants becomes a team situation whereas anything the man wants becomes a "his" situation.

Plus, this quote is saying someone should own domestic life.

I don't actually agree with this either. She's a career advisor and I think this is something you find in the workplace where you need leadership. I see no reason why things can't be roughly 50/50 at home. But it takes two people to achieve this. It take compromise. It takes the man standing up for himself. And it takes the woman respecting and meeting him halfway.

His opinions matter just as much as hers. She's not automatically right and he doesn't have to listen to her.

And by the gendered natature of the comment it's clear to me it should be the woman.

In fairness, most women also think this. If you strait up ask women, in this context, how they want to live their lives, most say they don't want to work and would rather stay home.

Of course most men would probably enjoy this also, but are pushed out due to obviously sexist gender roles that cater to what women want, and force men to put in the work to make this happen.

The problem is when "cleaning" is not a concern one side of the couple in general, or "clean enough" is not the same standard.

That's essentially the premise here. My guess is you think that women are right and that men should bend to their standards. What I'm saying is that this is a toxic attitude to have.

This constant questioning and identifying those cracks is often referred to as the Mental Load.

Sometimes called controlling behavior. It's your choice if you're going to be OCD and turn yourself into a slave master. This isn't your struggle though. You are harassing and manipulating another human being. Don't pretend to be the victim in this situation.

Framing mental load in this context is a bit like saying, "this is going to hurt me more than it's going to hurt you". Like ok, then don't do it you sadistic, masochistic, control freak. It is not my fault that your efforts to try and control and manipulate my behavior is causing you mental stress. That would be a bit like blaming me for your fist hurting you after you threw a punch at me. Like I'm sorry my skull is too hard for your fist, but how about we talk about the fact that you're throwing punches before we start blaming me for your hand hurting?

And it's often attributed to women on the assumption that they are in charge of domestics and the children. And that is changing alongside men spending more time at home, doing domestics tasks, and even spending time with their children. This inequality will naturally dissipate as more homes organize themselves in more egalitarian structures.

It's not up to men to meet women's standards to make things "equal". This is a power play by women to arbitrarily establish their standards as being the norm, and imply that men are lazy for not meeting them. If you want to talk about who is using power and controle here, ie who runs most relationships and who's more likely to be whipped, look no further than this toxic strategy of manipulation. The fact that it takes "mental load" to engage in this manipulation is not my problem. They could, you know, simply not do it, and I guarantee men the world over would be ok with this.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Previously that team consisted of being house wife and a breadwinner, the current economics and wants from people no longer have to follow this form.

This is only tangential to the discussion of the division of tasks in relation ships, but one huge thing that I think is often missed in these discussions is how it has practically become an economic necessity for couples to both work full time while taking care of the kids., and how widely accepted this is.

To be sure, that is not the fault of feminism. It is also unfair to expect one gender to take care of the domestic chores and expect another to take care of the breadwinning by default.

Still, it should perhaps not be considered so normal that both parents have to work full time and hire a nanny to babysit the kids. That arrangement is perhaps what happens if gender equality is pursued within a neoliberal system that tries to hijack it to its own advantage, i.e. now we can employ women to flood the labor market and we also help the economy by essentially making parents outsource their parenting to third parties. No, empowering women at the workplace or empowering men in the domestic sphere should not mean expecting everyone to do everything at once.

I think a long way to remedy this would be measures like equal paid parental leave and other social democratic reforms.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]orbitaldecayed 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments